Jump to content
Bill

Munns Research Status

Recommended Posts

Guest Cryptic Megafauna

Are you saying that the original film does not have more information that can be extracted by varying exposure time and light intensity and using different development times?

 

If so that is contrary to photographic science.

 

I doubt that is what you intended to say and perhaps I misunderstood your reasoning.

Edited by Cryptic Megafauna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Cryptic:

 

You are correct that copying a film frame with multiple exposure settings can indeed extract more information from a film. I do this when I scan a film. I may expose for the general scene, or overexpose to lighten Patty and get a better tonal range on the light and dark areas of her body, or underexpose so I get good tonal range for the pale ground material she walks on, to look for footprint suggestions.

 

Printing in a darkroom would equally benefit from multiple exposure range prints of any one given film frame.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Are you saying that the original film does not have more information that can be extracted by varying exposure time and light intensity and using different development times?

 

If so that is contrary to photographic science.

 

I doubt that is what you intended to say and perhaps I misunderstood your reasoning.

 

That was not what I was trying to say. The cibachromes are an example of lightening the creature from the original film so to see more detail.

That is how I found the facial change Patty made when Gimlin's horse started in motion during her look back ...

Pattys%20facial%20change%20animation%202

 

Enlarging frames will not sharpen the image or add data to the image in my opinion. If anything it will pull the image apart and add distortion. I would rather examine the frames as they are through extreme magnification over enlarging the images on paper.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

Cryptic:

 

You are correct that copying a film frame with multiple exposure settings can indeed extract more information from a film. I do this when I scan a film. I may expose for the general scene, or overexpose to lighten Patty and get a better tonal range on the light and dark areas of her body, or underexpose so I get good tonal range for the pale ground material she walks on, to look for footprint suggestions.

 

Printing in a darkroom would equally benefit from multiple exposure range prints of any one given film frame.

 

Bill

Bill,

 

Have you any thoughts on the "false colour" technique for bringing out different detail? MK Davis did that and it seemed to be useful, but I know very little about these issues.

 

Regards

 

In Canada, it is "colour." ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Mike:

 

I think the false color thing is another term for color seperation where you examine the red, green and blue layers of a color image to see the resolution of each layer. I have experimented with this and found some differences of detail in the red and green layers (the blue layer is usually horrible).

 

If that's not what you mean by false color, then I'm not sure what you are referring to.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

 

 

I think that is the general idea. MK Davis has an example at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ve7Fww3ilQ

 

However, he did not really explain the steps he followed in a way that I could use. He uses the phrase "pump in the color." I don't know if it introduces misleading artifacts or not, but it certainly seemed to bring out fur pattern detail not otherwise as readily apparent.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

 

Are you saying that the original film does not have more information that can be extracted by varying exposure time and light intensity and using different development times?

 

If so that is contrary to photographic science.

 

I doubt that is what you intended to say and perhaps I misunderstood your reasoning.

 

That was not what I was trying to say. The cibachromes are an example of lightening the creature from the original film so to see more detail.

That is how I found the facial change Patty made when Gimlin's horse started in motion during her look back ...

Pattys%20facial%20change%20animation%202

 

Enlarging frames will not sharpen the image or add data to the image in my opinion. If anything it will pull the image apart and add distortion. I would rather examine the frames as they are through extreme magnification over enlarging the images on paper.

 

I can think of a photographic process used in astronomy that may contradict what you just said.      It is called image stacking.       When taking images through a telescope of a astronomical object,  multiple images can be taken over an interval of time.  Often over the period of several minutes.     With modern equipment that is done with electro-optical sensors mounted in digital cameras mounted on the telescope,   feeding a computer.     Individual images of a planet may be blurry or not show details.  But when dozens of images of the same object are stacked on top of each other electronically with modern computer equipment,   details not seen in individual pictures are evident.   Images of mars,  distant nebula, saturn,   etc are greatly enhanced using stacking and computer processing.       I think it possible using image stacking techniques, and the original film, to get details that are unavailable in any single image of the film.     Particularly if sequential images are processed with a computer using stacking methods, individual frame to frame variations in image emulsion, and artifacts,  might be resolved and details in any individual frame enhanced.       I do not think an amatuer is capable of such processing but should the original film ever be available,   I think that might result in better images than exist today.      

Edited by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cryptic Megafauna

I wasn't replying to you if that is why you posted this.

However your still missing the point, it as to do with the actual deposition of the silver on the film surface.

As a source no subsequent development will ever have more information than the source.

But more developments using different values and exposure times and developement times will always be able to yield additional information.

In addition I am talking analog and you are talking digital which is not what the P-G is (digital).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Bill: any reason Larry Merritt claims to have viewed a brown Patty, on home movie, in Roger's basement, on a roll immediately following footage of Roger's children playing hoop toy? 

 

And how, as a researcher, are you not familiar with X-Creatures?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Could be a defective projector bulb that had a lower intensity and slight orange color temperature shift. Colors would shift brownish.

 

As a researcher, I've seen a dozen or more vintage documentaries on cryptid subjects that included some material on the PGF. Most had nothing which altered or impacted on real PGF research in any meaningful way. And one can only do a meaningful analysis if one can get the program on DVD, and I did search and could not find that specific one available on a DVD. About the only value in such things on Youtube is reviewing footage to see how it fits into the film copy genealogy analysis.

 

If you want to make a case for why this specific program has some important value in the PGF analysis, make the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Okay, I have seen it before. It has John Vulich's fur suit used to stage a filming recreation. Bad choice of costume to try to make a comparison. The re-enactment of Patterson and Gimlin was hocky and not particularly meaningful in any way. PGF footage used was just a standard PGF copy with full frame and zoomed in slo-motion versions, likely a Green Dahinden version copy.

 

In terms of a meaningful research endeavor to add to our knowledge of the PGF controversy, a waste of time to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

Bill,

How can you tell that the pack horse footage and the Patty walk were not spliced together?

Thanks

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Okay, I have seen it before. It has John Vulich's fur suit used to stage a filming recreation. 

 

 

It is not a John Vulich suit nor an Optic Nerve suit. It was a Bob Schiffer rented suit...

 

 

 

This is a rented suit...

 

776647ea6e51aeb56.jpg

 

It was rented from Bob Schiffer...

 

 

Anyway, the BBC didn't have the budget for us to build a suit so we had to rent one. The funny thing is, that we rented the suit from Bob Schiffer who was the head of make-up at Disney and had been since 1967. I constantly hear how an unnamed Disney FX artists was asked about the Patterson footage and claimed that it couldn't have been faked. When we rented the suit from him, I asked if anybody ever approached him on his opinion on the suit and he said no. He then went on the offer up his opinion on how he believed it to be a man in a suit.

 

 

 

The stated intention was to use an off-the-rack suit, hence the Yeti suit.

 

If they wanted to replicate Patty specifically, that is something that would have required a wholly different production process, one that you are no stranger too - budget limitations.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^^^^

They could not come up with $200. Stan Winston said "it can be done for a couple hundred dollars today. "

Dang those budgets!

They couldn't do it unless they had some giant budget. Gotta love it. Renting the costume probably cost close to $200 or more.

Does Stan Winston have an idea of what making the suit might cost today or not?

Ha ha ha ha ha

Thanks for the laugh

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

(...and Roger somehow had No budget issues)

This is exactly why we need a Bigffot Challenge. I understand if to date the TV guys are not interested.

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...