Jump to content

Was It A Suit? (2)


Recommended Posts

Guest Bigfoothunter
3 hours ago, Martin said:

 

Read below. Roger says he normally filmed at 24fps. 24fps was best suited for television which was Rogers goal. 

 

The common clips we see today are the results of attempts by footers to get Patty to look the most realistic. 

 

No one knows at what speed the film was shot.

 

In the mid-fifties - companies changed their internal mechanism to run at 18fps. This was to take the flicker out of the films recorded at 16fps. The FBI tested the Zapruder film and found that it ran at 18.3fps despite the setting being at 16fps at the time of JFK's Assassination. This information came to light from Roland Zavada - world expert/authority on Kodachrome II Film.

 

Gary Mack (of the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas, Texas) told me that film seen on TV is often shown at 32fps.

 

Dahinden was correct in that the horses shown walking up the road would look jerky at 24fps. At 18fps they look fluent and natural. So the informed would know that Roger had his camera running at 18fps.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
4 hours ago, Martin said:

 

Read below. Roger says he normally filmed at 24fps. 24fps was best suited for television which was Rogers goal. 

 

The common clips we see today are the results of attempts by footers to get Patty to look the most realistic. 

 

No one knows at what speed the film was shot.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film#Filming_speed

 

 

 

Based on a few different reasons...it appears the film was shot in the 16-18fps range. 

 

One good reason....(Included in the Wikipedia article)... "Grover Krantz wrote, "Patterson clearly told John Green that he found, after the filming, that the camera was set on 18 frames per second (fps) . . . ."It has been suggested that Patterson simply misread "16" as "18".

 

Here is another reason....(images taken from the popular MK Davis stabilized animation)...

 

PGF_Filming_Speed_Look_Back_Frames1.jpg

 

 

If the film was shot at 24fps....then Patty would have made the entire 'look back/look away' maneuver within a time frame of only 1.5 seconds

 

I doubt that was the case. 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites

SY, is it you belief it should be longer or shorter for the look back?

 

is there a site that breaks Dow each frame?  A quick search brought up nothing but I'm on my phone so it's tough to search quickly and effectively.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
2 hours ago, Twist said:

SY, is it you belief it should be longer or shorter for the look back?

 

 

 

I think the entire 'look back' segment....(3-to-4 steps)...probably would have taken significantly longer than the 1.5 seconds allowed by a 24fps filming speed. 

 

The reason why I think that segment would have taken a few seconds...is because of the 'spin' move that Patty makes, as she turns towards...and then back away from Roger. Patty wasn't simply walking in a straight line, in the 'look back' segment.....she first spun on her right foot....(changing the direction she was walking in)....took two steps, looking at Roger....and then turned her head away, and spun on her left foot....again, changing the direction she was heading in). 

 

Patty makes those moves very smoothly during the 'look back' segment...without losing her balance even in the slightest...but, I would love to see a guy wearing a heavily padded suit execute those moves.just as smoothly....and do it within only a 2-second time frame. :popcorn: 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the movement you are referring too and it does seem fluid and natural.  That is an interesting detail and worth noting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
12 hours ago, dmaker said:

 

tumblr_nn6vkjRPoN1urkwq4o3_r1_540.jpg

 

So...like 80's Bigfoot dancing. Get with the program!!!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

I know someone can fill in with the name. Someone tried to estimate the film speed using the up and down movements of the camera in relation to Roger's steps when he was running with it to get closer to the figure. He used an estimated step length for Roger while he was running.

I'm pretty sure he came up with 16-18 fps as the likely film speed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
1 hour ago, OkieFoot said:

I know someone can fill in with the name. Someone tried to estimate the film speed using the up and down movements of the camera in relation to Roger's steps when he was running with it to get closer to the figure. He used an estimated step length for Roger while he was running.

I'm pretty sure he came up with 16-18 fps as the likely film speed.

 

^^

 

There is no evidence that would give cause to believe that Roger's film speed was any different for Patty as it was for the footage of the horses walking up the road.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
25 minutes ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

^^

 

There is no evidence that would give cause to believe that Roger's film speed was any different for Patty as it was for the footage of the horses walking up the road.

 

We are lucky there is the horse footage on the first 75% of film so we can consider this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
3 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

^^

 

There is no evidence that would give cause to believe that Roger's film speed was any different for Patty as it was for the footage of the horses walking up the road.

 

That makes perfect sense. There would be no reason to change film speed after already having done some filming and used up part of the reel. 

I think maybe one of the Russian scientists was the one that did the study of the film's vertical oscillations tied to Roger's running. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
5 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

 

That makes perfect sense. There would be no reason to change film speed after already having done some filming and used up part of the reel. 

I think maybe one of the Russian scientists was the one that did the study of the film's vertical oscillations tied to Roger's running. 

 

 

That's right. The film speed conspiracy likes to be put on the table so to distract from other areas of discussion despite it being shown to be DOA for reasons previously stated.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a simple well known fact that the speed is unknown. It's a best guess situation and even if we did know what the camera setting was on the dial was not necessarily accurate by your own investigation BFH.

 

Also wasn't the film speed driven by a spring that had unknown properties and the speed could vary depending on how far it had unwound? This means the film could be a different speeds even though no one touched the setting.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
37 minutes ago, Martin said:

It is a simple well known fact that the speed is unknown. It's a best guess situation and even if we did know what the camera setting was on the dial was not necessarily accurate by your own investigation BFH.

 

Also wasn't the film speed driven by a spring that had unknown properties and the speed could vary depending on how far it had unwound? This means the film could be a different speeds even though no one touched the setting.

 

 

 

 

Had Roger recorded the speed you would not believe him anyway.  The methods mentioned by Sweaty and info by BFH seem like - if not a home run- at least a triple. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
8 hours ago, Martin said:

It is a simple well known fact that the speed is unknown. It's a best guess situation and even if we did know what the camera setting was on the dial was not necessarily accurate by your own investigation BFH.

 

You are wrong as usual, Martin.  Roger's speed has been explained quite nicely as to how that can be determined. The reason the dials were not changed when cameras were now being set internally from running at 18fps instead of 16fps was because of cost. Camera suppliers suddenly found themselves with a part (the dial)  that was mass produced ahead of time and rather than to pay to have them all made over again - the decision to use them up until they were gone was then made. That is a fact that had been discovered during the U.S.Governments investigation into the Kennedy Assassination. At 16fps - a film will have a flicker-effect or sometimes referred to as a blinking-effect. By increasing the cameras filming speed by 2fps - the blinking effect was eliminated.

 

 

8 hours ago, Martin said:

 

Also wasn't the film speed driven by a spring that had unknown properties and the speed could vary depending on how far it had unwound? This means the film could be a different speeds even though no one touched the setting.

 

 

The spring was related to the cameras running time. These cameras took one film frame to reach their proper running speed. This will cause the initial frame to be brighter than the rest that follow. This was something that allowed Krantz to determine when Roger had taken his finger off the trigger and then pressed it again.

9 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

Had Roger recorded the speed you would not believe him anyway.  The methods mentioned by Sweaty and info by BFH seem like - if not a home run- at least a triple. 

 

Martin likes to try and twist things into a conspiracy. The problem for him is that he doesn't seem to know the things he talks about well enough so to better pick and choose his battles. In this case - there are things that occur in the film that tells us what film speed Roger's camera was set at.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unpinned this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...