Jump to content
Bill

Munns Research Status

Recommended Posts

salubrious
Moderator

Thanks Bill!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Bill, you wrote that in the other Patterson film you have seen, you said filming was done though the front windshield of a vehicle. 
Can you please post some frames from that sequence, for identification purposes, particularly any that might show any details of the windshield or vehicle, the road, and/or the scenery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

The frame shows a VW Bus dashboard. I drove one myself from 1967 to about 1971. Recognize it. The road and what looks like an orchard on the roadside is as non-descript as it gets. No potential to ID anything in those frames.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Thanks Bill.

How did you figure out that there was an Angineaux 12-120 zoom lens on the K-100 camera?

Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

VW%20Dash_zpsbfuuik3b.jpg

 

the above should be the dashboard photo. The road and orchard are another one, and my memory transposed the two.

 

To calculate the focal length range of a zoom lens, you take one frame from the zoomed in part of the film sequence and then take one frame from the zoomed out part, and shrink the "zoomed in" image until it's the same size as it's comparable section of the zoomed out frame. Then you measure how much you had to shrink it to fit. One sequence required a shrinking of 9.3x as I recall, and that would require a 10-1 zoom lens. The Angineaux 12-120 was the standard ten-to-one zoom for 16mm cameras then. I used it often in 1967-1972, and it comes with a C Mount which the K-100 takes. The camera ID of that sequence confirms a K-100 camera was being used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

So are you saying that the Angineaux 12-120  lens was possibly used for the actual "encounter" portion of the PGF or are you referring to Patterson's earlier "documentaries"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

The lens for the PGF Bluff Creek sequence has no evidence of a zoom. The zooms were used on the documentary footage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

Yes, I understand that there is no evidence of zooming in that sequence. But is it possible that the Angineaux 12-120 lens was used and was set at 25mm or 20mm? Can this even be determined?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Logically, Mort...the lens on the camera wasn't a zoom lens. If it had been, Roger would have zoomed-in on Patty. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Just to clarify some basics of physical evidence and photography.

 

If we find a camera ID shape on the film, it is conclusive that the specific type or model of camera was used, to the exclusion of other types of cameras. So when the doc footage (or the PGF) shows a camera ID of a K-100 camera, that is conclusive, indisputable. If the camera aperture is generic, no apparent ID shape, that excludes cameras with some ID notches (like excluding a K-100) but does not conclusively ID the specific camera used. Might be an Arriflex, a Bolex, and Eclair, etc.

 

If we find a change of focal length while the camera is running, we can stay conclusively a zoom lens is on the camera. But if there is no focal length while the camera runs, we cannot say conclusively there was no zoom, because a zoom lens left in one focal length position during filming has the same effect as a prime lens. If in a filming with several segments, we find one camera location but different focal lengths for the varied segments, we can say that the camera operator either had several prime lenses or a zoom lens, but we can't necessarily say which.

 

We can distinguish between a change of focal length and a change of position.

 

On The PGF, we can say conclusively it was filmed on Kodachrome type camera film, that it was conclusively filmed with a K-100 camera, but for the lens all we can say conclusively is that there is no apparent change of focal length within a segment or between segments. That suggests, but does not conclusively confirm that a prime lens was used.

 

It is conclusive that a zoom lens was used on the documentary footage segments, and conclusive that some were shot with a K-100 and some were not. It is conclusive that one segment was Kodachrome and the other five were Ektachrome. Some elements of that doc footage have identified people in picture or locations, but many people and locations are still not identified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Airdale

Great to hear from you Bill, good luck with all your endeavors and challenges. It seems the older we get, life's repertoire of pitches keeps expanding; used to be, curves were mostly what it would throw, but any more it's as likely to be a change up, cutter, slider, etc. Who knew?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

^

 

Logically, Mort...the lens on the camera wasn't a zoom lens. If it had been, Roger would have zoomed-in on Patty.

Unless... he didn't want to for some reason. Thanks for the info Bill!

Edited by OldMort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

^

 

Logically, Mort...the lens on the camera wasn't a zoom lens. If it had been, Roger would have zoomed-in on Patty.

Unless... he didn't want to for some reason. Thanks for the info Bill!

 

 

 

But again, Mort...logically...if Roger didn't want to zoom-in on Patty...(i.e....the 'hoax' scenario)....he wouldn't have bothered changing-out the 25MM lens that was on the camera, for a Zoom lens. ;)

 

There is no need to invoke overly-complicated, nonsensical scenarios here....just because of some "technical possibility".  Instead, it's better to use some common sense logic. 

 

 

Also, another indicator that the lens on the camera was a prime/fixed lens...is the pre-Patty footage on the original reel. There is no zooming seen in that footage. If Roger had put a zoom lens on the camera...he most likely would have done some zooming-in, and out...of the scenery footage that he shot. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

 

^

 

Logically, Mort...the lens on the camera wasn't a zoom lens. If it had been, Roger would have zoomed-in on Patty.

Unless... he didn't want to for some reason. Thanks for the info Bill!

 

 

 

That's right ... Patterson ran like a maniac to get closer so not to use his zoom option.   rollingeyessmiley_zpsowdfoqoo.gif

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Edit*

 

Sorry my post was in response to BFH and SY posts, going against the nature of this topic.  I deleted in an effort to keep this about Bill and his research.   

Edited by Twist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...