Jump to content
norseman

Thinker Thunker size comparison of Patty

Recommended Posts

PBeaton

From Bills work...perhaps she was further away when filmin' started.

PGF Munns.PNG

PGF Munns 2.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Sweaty:

 

The closest Roger gets to Patty is likely frame 272, very early in segment five.  This is definitely closer than in 354 (usually referred to as 352)

 

Bog Gimlin has described that when they first saw her, they were only about 30 feet away, but by the time Roger got off his horse, got his camera, and started to film, she'd walked far enough away to be about 100 feet.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
33 minutes ago, Bill said:

Sweaty:

 

The closest Roger gets to Patty is likely frame 272, very early in segment five.  This is definitely closer than in 354 (usually referred to as 352)

 

Bog Gimlin has described that when they first saw her, they were only about 30 feet away, but by the time Roger got off his horse, got his camera, and started to film, she'd walked far enough away to be about 100 feet.

 

 

So, in the early frame that I posted....do you think that Patty is very close to 100', or further, away from the camera?

 

I find that a little difficult to accept...seeing as she appears to still be pretty close to the front edge of the sandbar. Also, I think Roger and Bob said that Patty stood there, at first...and looked at them before turning, and walking away. And, initially, she was taking short strides, and walking slowly. 

If the distance between them was initially only about 50'....it doesn't seem like she could have walked approx. 50 feet before Roger got the camera started.

 

 

Also, I had asked you these questions, yesterday...

 

Regarding the Photogrammetry solution....do you know of any reason why Patty couldn't have been less than 100' away from the camera, in F352? 

 

Are there any 'limiting factors' that you know of, for a shorter 'distance to camera'...in the range of 85, or 90'?

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

To get a better look at Patty's relative size in the two frames I had posted....I inserted Patty in F352 into the early frame...

 

 

Patty-Distance-To-Camera-2-Frame-Comp1.j

 

 

In F352, Patty appears significantly larger. So, if she was 102 feet from the camera in F352, then she had to have been significantly further away than that, in the very early film frame. 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Here is the same comparison....done the opposite way...

 

F352-Early-Frame-Patty-Size-Comp1-D.jpg

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Sweaty:

 

Basically, rule of thumb is the smaller she is, the further away she is. Scaling the change in size is a reliable calculator of inverse change of distance (smaller, further away, and  larger, closer).

 

At 352, we don't have a precise distance for the other stuff she walks behind, but if you estimate her walk angle away from true side-to-side, to pass trees TC-1 and TC-2, the walk angle sort of sets the limits of how close she could be at 352.

 

I'm still trying to find a solution of verifying the exact distance the two trees are from Roger's camera (we have measurments from Green and Dahinden to give us some data) but I'd like to have an independent mathematical process to verify those field measures, as they were't done with the highest precision, and each was from the camera used that day and each camera position was slightly different from Roger's.

 

So all I can honestly say is there's some work still to be done on the question.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
1 hour ago, Bill said:

Sweaty:

 

Basically, rule of thumb is the smaller she is, the further away she is. Scaling the change in size is a reliable calculator of inverse change of distance (smaller, further away, and  larger, closer).

 

 

I know that, Bill. :) 

 

 

Quote

At 352, we don't have a precise distance for the other stuff she walks behind, but if you estimate her walk angle away from true side-to-side, to pass trees TC-1 and TC-2, the walk angle sort of sets the limits of how close she could be at 352.

 

I'm still trying to find a solution of verifying the exact distance the two trees are from Roger's camera (we have measurements from Green and Dahinden to give us some data) but I'd like to have an independent mathematical process to verify those field measures, as they weren't done with the highest precision, and each was from the camera used that day and each camera position was slightly different from Roger's.

 

 

 

Several posts ago, I had proposed that Patty could have been closer to the camera than the 102' figure, that you used in your Photogrammetry work.

And, I asked you if there were any measurements made, by anyone....that you know of....which would indicate that Patty could not have been much closer than about 100 feet, to the camera.....(but am not getting an answer to that question.) 

 

I'm getting the impression that there isn't anything precluding a 'distance to camera' that's significantly less than 100'. 

 

If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. 

 

 

Quote

So all I can honestly say is there's some work still to be done on the question.

 

Bill

 

 

I know that, Bill.  :)

 

I am doing some work on this issue.....and making progress. 

 

 

Along that line, there are details on the PGF subject which indicate she was less than 100 ft. from the camera....and that is the very fine/small scale facial detail visible on Patty.

The fine details include the upper and lower lips....an opening between the lips....and the small whit-ish area just below Patty's right eye. 

 

Those details are smaller than what has been calculated to be the smallest level of detectable detail...for a subject 100 feet from the camera. But yet....those details are discernible. 

 

This very small scale detail....(on the order of a fraction of an inch)….is consistent with Patty being closer to the camera than 100'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

SweatyYeti,

 

I don't think any such fine details are visible, I've said it before. If such detail were visible we'd know what she looks like. 

 

How many researchers have suggested the same detail is visible in the filmed subject ? Where is a image of the filmed subject showin' any such detail ?

 

Pat...

BC-image3.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I can post some images tomorrow night, Pat....showing those details.  :) 

 

There are 3 or 4 film frames, in which the white-ish spot is discernable below Patty's right eye.

 

I don't see why the 'distance to camera', for Patty, couldn't have been several feet shorter than the commonly used figure of 102'.  That figure was deduced, somehow, by Rene Dahinden, years after the film was shot.....without the benefit of any footprints still existing at the scene.  So, it's not a solid/reliable number.....and could easily be off by a significant amount. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Regardin' lenses, I mentioned I'd show the difference an why a wider angle wouldn't be used if one is hopin' to photograph/film wildlife. Rain...still, so here's two shots of hummer off the balcony, first is 24mm, second is 70-200mm at 200mm. It's pretty obvious why one wouldn't choose a wide angle if you're hopin' to film wildlife. If indeed Roger hoped to film a sasquatch, my opinion, based on relatively common knowledge for photographers, he would have requested a different lens. 

 

 

canon_24mm_lens_LI.jpg

canon_70-200mm_at_200mm.JPG

Edited by PBeaton
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Sweaty:

 

I'm curious. Do you understand putting Patty closer makes her smaller, and putting her further makes her bigger?

 

Just wondering.

 

And film resolution is based on her image size, so the amount of detail we can pull out of the film is a percentage of whatever her height is in the image.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

Bill:

 

I’m a big fan of yours. Thanks for all your work. 

 

Question:

 

I’ve read (and maybe even heard you say on one of the documentaries you were on) that the camera and film Patterson used actually produced a good clarity product, especially compared to common digital video cameras. Is that true?

 

If so, and considering the fact that the vast majority of cameras carried out there today are cell phone accessory cameras, it seems likely that we may never again see a motion picture film better than the Patterson film, even if the camera user remained steady and avoided the motion blurring that we may see in the Patterson film.

 

Would you agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

 

^^ Very interesting discussion!  I'm ok with the FAAR (foot as a ruler) method for determining Patty's height.  If we account for some amount of film saturation "bloom" (thank-you for that observation years ago, Bill) in the images of the bottom of her feet, a walking height of 6 - 6 1/2 feet adds up and a full standing height of closer to 7 feet, seems very reasonable to me.  (I.e., the average height for a middle-aged female Sasquatch..)  :training:   

 

 feet1.gif.9f6428633724d2dd0e95881c8892a7cd.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
On 10/27/2018 at 7:09 PM, Redbone said:

I have lots of great pictures of nothing.

 

There are at least 11 Blob Squatches (probably closer to 22 or 23) in this image you posted!:locomotive:  Seriously, thank-you for the good reference material, Redbone!

 

IMG_0018.thumb.JPG.4b87923cee7247f5e184a1fcbd830189.JPG.a3bc5f931f45feebf73bd264a491a1aa.JPG

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×