Jump to content
Guest Jack D

How Tall Is Patty?

Recommended Posts

Bill

FuzzyGremlin:

Thanks for the calculator link. Great reference.

One thing struck me as another potential "fly in the ointment"

It says: "Anyway, the rear principal point is always one focal length ahead the film plane when the lens is focused at infinity."

Now, the PGF is absolutely sharp from nearest object to most distant, based on the F352 transparancy made by Kodak from the camera original for Roger, and which I scanned. That means the lens was likely set at it's hyperfocal distance focus setting. (For the non-photographicly inclined, the hyperfocal distance is a lens setting for a given F stop which insures everything from a certain close distance to infinity will be equally sharp in focus.

For example, from the ASC manual, a 25mm lens on 16mm camera, set at F/8 and focus set at 10' 1" will have everything from 5' 1" to infinity in sharp focus.

F8 is a reasonable exposure for bright sunlight and the Kodachrome film stock. So if the lens was set on a focus for the 10' or so, it is further away from the film back plane and the formula calculating height may need to be reconsidered.

Not sure how this re-calculates the height because I don't know the displacement at that focal setting. But interesting issue to explore further when I can do more camera tests, since I have the camera and lens.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

That's because you don't understand it. Take out your ruler and measure Patty's image height on frame 352 from the film. The physical image height never changes. We are letting the standing height of Patty vary to calculate the distances from the camera. The column heading is exactly right. Get it now?

I got it before. See the comment I added later?

But I'm not the one who placed ridiculously confusing headings on the chart.

One says, "Subject Height (inches)" and the other says "Subject Height (mm).

You don't see how those headings are poorly worded if they don't relate directly to each other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Just following up to say I checked a 25mm Kodak lens and from the infinity focal setting to the 10' focal setting, the lens displaces outward 0.01", so this probably is not a major factor in any height calculations.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I got it before. See the comment I added later?

But I'm not the one who placed ridiculously confusing headings on the chart.

One says, "Subject Height (inches)" and the other says "Subject Height (mm).

You don't see how those headings are poorly worded if they don't relate directly to each other?

What are you talking about? The 2nd column says "Image Height (mm)". When was the last time you gave your height in millimeters? Geez, I answer your question and all you do is gripe about a field heading that temporarily confused you. Well exqueeeeze me. :)

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

That's really cute, and I know how you did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest StankApe

Using the foot as a known (assuming the prints are patty's at 14.5) I did the usual artists horizon method of scaling and then used the foot as a measurement tool and got 76.212 inches. or 6 foot 4 inches and a hair....

One thing I'm noticing is that everyone is getting between 6 foot and 6 foot 7 or so. Now, this doesn't prove or disprove anything other then it seems unlikely that these 8 foot tall 500 pound statements are true.

Judging by the bulk if we took the avg height of say 6'5 , I bet that Patty weighed in at about 350 , if it's not a guy in a suit.

Edited by StankApe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Primate

Grover Krantz thought it would take a guy 6'6' 350 and extremely athletic IF there was a suit good enough..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Here is an animated-gif...comparing Frame 72 to Frame 442...that has some relevance to Patty's height.

It shows that there is some vertical fore-shortening of Patty's apparent height in the early Frames of the film...(due to Roger being on a lower level of ground than Patty was)...

F72-F442AG5.gif

Here is the same gif, with 'fade' added...and you can see how Patty's head 'sprouts up' taller...(while the butt stays exactly the same size)...

F72-F442AG5Fade2.gif

That 'vertical compression' needs to be adjusted for, in the 'Frame 72 foot ruler' measurement, of Patty's body height.

Another interesting detail, to note...is how the shading of the hair on the 'left side of the upper-back' changes from very dark, to very light...from the early frames to the later frames.

That was actually the reason why I put these two frames together, in the first place. The 'angle-of-view' of Patty is virtually the same in these frames...so, it seems that the dark shading on the left side of her back should still be visible in the later frames. But, it isn't.

It's almost as if a change occurred, in the hair on Patty's body... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

Hm. I don't remember Krantz (or anyone ) taking Roger's position into account. Looks like we may need a new stacking of the feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Hm. I don't remember Krantz (or anyone ) taking Roger's position into account. Looks like we may need a new stacking of the feet.

Yup...they need a little re-stacking, Lu.. ;)

Here is the animation...at half-size...

F72-F442AG5Fade3.gif

These are the 4 error-factors in the 'foot ruler' calculation....that require adjusting for, in order to get the correct body height for Patty...

Frame72-ErrorFactors1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tontar

Here is the same gif, with 'fade' added...and you can see how Patty's head 'sprouts up' taller...(while the butt stays exactly the same size)...

F72-F442AG5Fade2.gif

Maybe Patty's neck is not fused, and she lifted her head up relative to the earlier shot. Look down, look up, don't stumble on sticks and rocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...