Jump to content
norseman

Thinker Thunker size comparison of Patty

Recommended Posts

hiflier
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, Redbone said:

I now think very close to 7 feet is the answer

 

I appreciate your response, RB. It tells me that I am not the only one who 'thinks' something. It took me a while to understand that what I had ended up with was in fact just an opinion. Based on some one else's measurements who also was working for hard numbers but ended up with again, something to support an opinion?

 

40 minutes ago, Old Time Lifter said:

I for one do not believe you have enough data in the film nor from the location to determine Patty's height.  Nor do I think it's necessary to determine it in the first place.  The stride and musculature are more viable pieces of evidence. imho anyway.

 

Well said, OTL, and having an  opinion on what might be better evidence to pursue is perfectly fine. My own opinion along those lines consists of pursuing shoulder span. Sweaty Yeti's is arm dimensions outside the norm for a Human. In fact, there are several good candidates for study other than height which of itself has seen to contain much in the way of differing methods and viewpoints to arrive at a consensus. Even my own studies have brought me to the opinion of a 6'5 walking height. I think it is close but, again, that is only what I THINK. The ratio of shoulder span to height however ISN'T what I THINK. It is what I know to be true. It is something that cannot be fudged and yet presented to scientists still isn't enough to open the door for science to take a closer look and study.

 

Then again, my opinion on THAT is that science doesn't really want to hear it from a mere 'citizen scientist'. Heck, they didn't even want to hear it from one of their own- Dr. Grover Krantz, PhD in anthropology! So, I ask again, what is it going to take? The whole issue just keeps bringing me back to my OPINION that there is more going on than science simply not wanting to look at the problem. Way more.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
8 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

I'd agree with that, Pat.  :)

 

If Patty's 'walking height' was 6'5", then her actual body height would be about 7 to 9" taller.  

 

But from what I've seen, with a few height calculation methods....her 'walking height' seems to be a little shorter than that. 

 

Looking at the Photogrammetry method again... .a 25MM Lens gives a 'walking height' of only about 5 feet....(using a 'distance to camera' figure of 102').

 

Since that 102' distance is an unreliable figure....determined by Rene Dahinden, years after the film was shot......there is a reasonable probability that Patty could have been closer to the camera than 102'. If she was 10 feet closer, then the photogrammetry equation would result in a taller 'walking height'....approaching 6'.

 

Also, it is very unlikely that either Roger, or the camera shop owner would have switched-out the standard 25MM lens for a 20MM lens....(the only other alternative).

 

The camera shop owner wouldn't have done that, since that would result in customers making home movies in which people appear more distant than they should appear....and could result in having dissatisfied customers.

 

And, neither would Roger have switched-out a 25MM lens with a 20MM lens....since that also would have made the filmed subject appear smaller, and more distant, in the resulting film footage.

Why would Roger have wanted to 'zoom out', away from a Sasquatch....when he was trying/hoping to prove it's existence??? 

SweatyYeti,

 

"unlikely", but not impossible. He was goin' to hopefully document the tracks that had been discovered,  a wider angle lens would actually be ideal, the shop owner would have also known this.  

 

Pat... 

the tracks.PNG

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

That's a good point Pat. I admittedly know squat about photography but reading about wide angle lens on wiki it says the following:

 

In photography and cinematography, a wide-angle lens refers to a lens whose focal length is substantially smaller than the focal length of a normal lens for a given film plane. This type of lens allows more of the scene to be included in the photograph, which is useful in architectural, interior and landscape photography where the photographer may not be able to move farther from the scene to photograph it.

 

If going out to film tracks a wide angle may have been beneficial in order to catch more of the trackway in one shot.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Okay, here's a basic photography primer.

 

A manufacturer selects a mid-range focal length lens for a camera, so it potentially can be used to photograph both large scenic areas and people, and smaller objects. Then there are two ranges of specialized lenses, the tele-photo (longer focal length than standard) and wide angle (shorter than standard).

 

The 25mm was selected as standard on 16mm cameras because it could do okay scenery and do people fairly well. A slight tele-photo is better as a people close-up lens, and an extreme tele-photo is used for close up distant objects, sports photography from the bleachers, nature photography, etc. Wide angle lenses are general used for more scenic panoramas, as they take in more landscape similar to what the human eye sees.

 

If we assume by 1967 Roger had a fairly good basic knowledge of photography (given he first rented a camera around 1960, and you can learn a lot in 7 years), then he'd know what kind of lenses he'd need for his trip. If he really thought he might find a bigfoot, he'd have brought along a 50mm or a 100mm to really get a closer shot, assuming the subject would be maybe 100 feet away ( I doubt he'd expect to get closer than that). But if he was expecting to mainly shoot the trackway Green and Dahinden described in August, the Blue Creek Mt. trackway, and maybe shoot scenic footage of the habitat, he'd likely want a wider lens than a 25mm. 

 

Now a 20mm is only slightly wide-angle, better than a 25mm, but not as wide as the 15mm. The advantage of the 20mm was that it was a fixed focal length lens, and shooting outdoors in bright sunlight, he'd never have to worry about setting the lens focus. All he had to set was the F-Stop for correct exposure.

 

With the 25mm, it had a focus ring, focusing down to less than 2'. If he set the focus ring wrong, like accidentially rubbed it and changed the focus setting, he would not see the soft focus in his viewfinder as the camera was not through-the-lens viewing, but rangefinder viewing. So his film lens could be completely out of focus and he'd never know it until he had his film processed, with the 25mm. Can't happen with the 20mm.

 

So using a camera with a rangefinder viewer, and a lens with both F-stop and focus rings, one must constantly check both settings to be certain they are correct, to insure his footage will look correct in exposure and sharp focus. It's more to pay attention to, and if you think you might be doing some filming on a real impulsive spur-of-the-moment situation, the fixed focal length lens has some strong plusses going for it, to insure good footage sharp in focus always.

 

Also, if Roger thought he might get some spontaneous footage of a bigfoot, he'd have likely rented a 3 lens turret camera model, so he had a great telephoto already on one of the three turret positions, and could switch to telephoto in a matter of seconds to get a great close-up of the bigfoot. Switching to a 75mm would have made Patty at least 3 times bigger in the frame. Imagine her with three times the quality and detail we now have.

 

Anyways, choosing a 20mm would be a pragmatic choice if Roger mainly expected to film the Blue Creek trackway and other scenic footage. So the big question would be what did Roger expect to film when he went on the expedition. Another consideration is maybe he had more than one lens with him (he rented the camera in May, 1967, and didn't use it until October 67 at Bluff creek, so maybe he was filming other stuff, and found other lenses would be helpful for whatever else he was filming those 5 months he had the camera. If he had more than one lens with him (granted speculation), then either a 20mm or a 25mm could have been on the camera on October 20.

 

The one mistake I think is often made is to assume Roger was not knowledgeable in photography and lenses. In my opinion, in 1967, Roger was fairly skilled as a cinematographer who had used several types of cameras, had used both Kodachrome and Ektachrome (and was familiar with the processing of each) and had used a variety of lenses, including zoom lenses, and thus knew when each focal length lens was appropriate. So the choices he made I think were based on knowledge and experience in photography.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

As the Wildlife Photo thread will show, I'm kinda familiar with the topic, haha. 

If I was after tracks or trackway, I'd definitely want my 10-20mm wide angle over my 70-200mm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
SSR Team

Samples using the same camera in the same spot:

The paved highway is about 3/4 mile away.

 

18mm

18mm.thumb.JPG.de70d6586a83e0e033796a0617916af5.JPG

 

75 mm

75mm.thumb.JPG.a356bac87cb0dc00630c918f2189d969.JPG

 

300 mm

300mm.thumb.JPG.e95459289a6a2d33dab538a04eda2caa.JPG

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Thanks to all for the additional information!    I feel I know just slightly more than squat about photography now. lol

 

Redbone, those pics really put it in perspective.

Edited by Twist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
SSR Team
29 minutes ago, PBeaton said:

As the Wildlife Photo thread will show, I'm kinda familiar with the topic, haha. 

If I was after tracks or trackway, I'd definitely want my 10-20mm wide angle over my 70-200mm. 

I tried to capture a moving Turkey Vulture with a 300 mm lens in manual focus mode. I'm lucky to have one image that's this clear. It was a futile endeavor. I haven't figured out yet how you do it so well.

1205965613_300mmTurleyVulture.thumb.jpg.c6c1591bd7952f3d4b6e825c6989abc3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Higher ASA allows smaller F-stop and greater depth of field, so focus need not be so precise, as the near/far focal field is greater. Increases the chance a shot is in acceptable focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Redbone,

 

I use auto focus ! Manual...why that's crazy talked haha !  An what Bill refers to as ASA is often referred to as ISO.

 

Why in manual mode ?

 

Pat... 

 

 

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
SSR Team

to see if I could... About the same time I was taking about 200 pictures of the same area in the trees trying to focus on the dark spots, in manual focus mode. I have lots of great pictures of nothing.

A few weeks earlier, I got this one. Made the terrible mistake of taking only one picture, just in case whatever that is actually moved.

IMG_0018.thumb.JPG.4b87923cee7247f5e184a1fcbd830189.JPG

 

2011636569_0018zoomed.thumb.jpg.3f5fbeefb3aff666cee5eeadc65e4057.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
7 hours ago, Bill said:

Okay, here's a basic photography primer.

 

A manufacturer selects a mid-range focal length lens for a camera, so it potentially can be used to photograph both large scenic areas and people, and smaller objects. Then there are two ranges of specialized lenses, the tele-photo (longer focal length than standard) and wide angle (shorter than standard).

 

The 25mm was selected as standard on 16mm cameras because it could do okay scenery and do people fairly well. A slight tele-photo is better as a people close-up lens, and an extreme tele-photo is used for close up distant objects, sports photography from the bleachers, nature photography, etc. Wide angle lenses are general used for more scenic panoramas, as they take in more landscape similar to what the human eye sees.

 

If we assume by 1967 Roger had a fairly good basic knowledge of photography (given he first rented a camera around 1960, and you can learn a lot in 7 years), then he'd know what kind of lenses he'd need for his trip. If he really thought he might find a bigfoot, he'd have brought along a 50mm or a 100mm to really get a closer shot, assuming the subject would be maybe 100 feet away ( I doubt he'd expect to get closer than that). But if he was expecting to mainly shoot the trackway Green and Dahinden described in August, the Blue Creek Mt. trackway, and maybe shoot scenic footage of the habitat, he'd likely want a wider lens than a 25mm. 

 

Now a 20mm is only slightly wide-angle, better than a 25mm, but not as wide as the 15mm. The advantage of the 20mm was that it was a fixed focal length lens, and shooting outdoors in bright sunlight, he'd never have to worry about setting the lens focus. All he had to set was the F-Stop for correct exposure.

 

With the 25mm, it had a focus ring, focusing down to less than 2'. If he set the focus ring wrong, like accidentially rubbed it and changed the focus setting, he would not see the soft focus in his viewfinder as the camera was not through-the-lens viewing, but rangefinder viewing. So his film lens could be completely out of focus and he'd never know it until he had his film processed, with the 25mm. Can't happen with the 20mm.

 

So using a camera with a rangefinder viewer, and a lens with both F-stop and focus rings, one must constantly check both settings to be certain they are correct, to insure his footage will look correct in exposure and sharp focus. It's more to pay attention to, and if you think you might be doing some filming on a real impulsive spur-of-the-moment situation, the fixed focal length lens has some strong plusses going for it, to insure good footage sharp in focus always.

 

Also, if Roger thought he might get some spontaneous footage of a bigfoot, he'd have likely rented a 3 lens turret camera model, so he had a great telephoto already on one of the three turret positions, and could switch to telephoto in a matter of seconds to get a great close-up of the bigfoot. Switching to a 75mm would have made Patty at least 3 times bigger in the frame. Imagine her with three times the quality and detail we now have.

 

Anyways, choosing a 20mm would be a pragmatic choice if Roger mainly expected to film the Blue Creek trackway and other scenic footage. So the big question would be what did Roger expect to film when he went on the expedition. Another consideration is maybe he had more than one lens with him (he rented the camera in May, 1967, and didn't use it until October 67 at Bluff creek, so maybe he was filming other stuff, and found other lenses would be helpful for whatever else he was filming those 5 months he had the camera. If he had more than one lens with him (granted speculation), then either a 20mm or a 25mm could have been on the camera on October 20.

 

 

I don't think that that is exactly the right question, Bill. IMO, the more appropriate question would be...."what did Roger hope to film, while on the expedition?"

 

The fact that Roger and Bob stayed in the area for over a week...(possibly a couple of weeks)....and the fact that Roger only buckled one strap on the camerabag, for quicker removal of the camera....tells us that he and Bob hoped to film a Sasquatch. 

 

Hence....hoping to film a Sasquatch, in an area where fresh tracks had just been found...would give Roger a disincentive to replacing the 25MM lens with a more wide-angle, 20MM lens.

 

The only advantage would be, as you say....more fool-proof focusing, for distant objects. But that benefit would come with a cost....the filmed subject appearing smaller on the film. 

 

 

Regarding the Photogrammetry solution, Bill....do you know of any reason why Patty couldn't have been less than 100' away from the camera?  Are there any 'limiting factors' that you know of, for a shorter 'distance to camera'....such as 85, or 90'?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

"So the big question would be what did Roger expect to film when he went on the expedition."

 

As I posted above, Gimlin told Green they had gone to film the tracks. An we also have Rogers first interview, clearly he had mentioned they had went there to film the tracks.

 

"..tells us that he and Bob hoped to film a Sasquatch."  As I mentioned earlier, for tracks, I'd use my wide angle lens, if I'm goin' for wildlife I'm usin' my zoom lens. As Bill mentioned, Roger was familiar with photography an which lenses would be appropriate. I would not go out hopin' to photograph wildlife with my 24mm lens, I don't think anyone familiar with cameras/lenses would.

If it's not rainin' tomorrow, if I go down to the beach I'll bring my 24mm lens to show why it's not a wildlife lens.  

 

 

 

Patterson's first interview.jpg

 

Patterson's first interview (2).jpg

Edited by PBeaton
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

With regards to Patty's 'distance to camera' in F352.....(purported to be 102').....here is a comparison of the 'percentage of the film frame' that Patty encompasses, between the first clear image at the start of the film.......and F352...

 

The start of the film: 

 

Opening-Frame1-D.jpg

 

And.....F352:

 

F352-Full-Frame1-D.jpg

 

 

Here is a crop of a diagram made by Steven Streufert's group, who recently re-discovered, and measured the PGF filmsite...

 

BBM-Diagram1-Distances-to-Camera1-D.jpg

 

 

I see a discrepancy here...in the proposed 'distances to camera'.  Patty was supposedly 102 feet from the camera at the F352 spot.....but yet, in Roger's estimation of how far they were from Patty, when they first saw her....and in Steven's diagram....the 'distance to camera' was estimated to be significantly shorter than 102'. 

 

Adding to the discrepancy....Patty is encompassing a smaller percentage of the 'film frame' in the opening frame, than she is in F352....while she is "closer" to the camera, at the start of the film???  

(The numbers in the corner of the images are pixel measurements, for 'Patty's size' and for 'frame height'.)

 

 

I think these comparisons indicate a shorter 'distance to camera' for F352, than the proposed 102'. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor

I think the number of pixels is different because on the first frame, Patty is directly in front of the camera. On frame 352, she is perpendicular. Of course she would occupy more real estate on the side view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×