Jump to content

Thinker Thunker size comparison of Patty


Recommended Posts

Redbone
BFF Donor

Ok - if you see problems with what I've done, please let me know. These files are all set up to be able to make updates easily.

FIrst - Thanks Bill! I used the McClarin composite image from your site, and the calculations you spelled out here the other day.

 

I need Patty images that have the same or larger resolution to proceed.

 

I measured what was available in each McClarin position that should be consistent throughout, and that's his shirt height. It changes based on where you look, so I tried to always use the spot in the center of his back to the top at the back of his neck. I measured this in pixels (and no I don't have to count them - it's easier than that). I also measured McClarin's height in pixels in Position 1, where is is standing straight up. We've been told that he is 6'5" in boots, or 77". This allowed me to calculate shirt height at 23.68". I used this value to calculate his total height at all other positions. His walking height is shorter, ranging from about 71" to 75", with average at 73.55".

 

For "Distance from Camera" I first used Bill's calculation for 445px height, for 77" JM, behind TC2 in a scaled 3000px image.

I had to paste JM into this spot at position 17 and scaled him to equal the average of positions 16 & 18.

Using my "assumed walking height" of 74.7" I filled in the next column for "distance from camera".

Lastly I used deciphered numbers found in John Green's notes. I looks like JM was about 30' behing TC2, which is 115' away from camera.

 

I can solve for TC1 and TC2 widths, if we can decide how far back JM really is (consensus?).

 

Using these three methods gives us between 134 and 142 feet from camera when Jim McClarin is in the spot where Patty is looking back (frame 362?). We need to dial this in and I welcome help to do so.

 

If you have questions...ask them.

This image is large. Hopefully you'll be able to see it after I upload it here. I assume it's going to get shrunk.

EDIT" You can click "Full SIze" to be able to read the text in the image.

mcclarin walk evaluated.jpg

 

Here is the chart - it can be updated if error are found.

McClarin Chart.jpg

Edited by Redbone
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
18 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

Who has asked you to buy that, Norse?? 

 

As for what I have said.....all of the height indicators I have seen indicate that her 'walking height' is somewhere in the 6' to 6 1/2' range. When you then account for Patty's bent posture...(bent legs and leaning torso)....and add a good 5-6 inches....you end-up with Patty's full standing body height somewhere in the 6'5" to 6'10" range.

 

And a 6'9" person/primate could very easily have a foot that is 14.5" in length.

 

 

Bill Munns wrote:

 

 

I'd like to make a prediction....I think eventually it will be shown/proven that the lens on the camera was a 25MM lens...and that Patty's 'walking height' was within an inch or two of 6'3". (For her full 'standing body height'...add 5-6 inches). 

And, that the main source of error in the 'Photogrammetry solution', which gave an exceptionally short height for Patty....was the 'distance to the camera' figure used.  

 

   

 

I said “IF”. I guess it’s just best to wait and see before we all gets our panties wadded into a bunch. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

So, in other words, Norse.....nobody has asked you to "buy a 6-foot tall Patty".  :thumbsup:  

 

 

8 hours ago, Redbone said:

Ok - if you see problems with what I've done, please let me know. These files are all set up to be able to make updates easily.

FIrst - Thanks Bill! I used the McClarin composite image from your site, and the calculations you spelled out here the other day.

 

I need Patty images that have the same or larger resolution to proceed.

 

I measured what was available in each McClarin position that should be consistent throughout, and that's his shirt height. It changes based on where you look, so I tried to always use the spot in the center of his back to the top at the back of his neck. I measured this in pixels (and no I don't have to count them - it's easier than that). I also measured McClarin's height in pixels in Position 1, where is is standing straight up. We've been told that he is 6'5" in boots, or 77". This allowed me to calculate shirt height at 23.68". I used this value to calculate his total height at all other positions. His walking height is shorter, ranging from about 71" to 75", with average at 73.55".

 

For "Distance from Camera" I first used Bill's calculation for 445px height, for 77" JM, behind TC2 in a scaled 3000px image.

I had to paste JM into this spot at position 17 and scaled him to equal the average of positions 16 & 18.

Using my "assumed walking height" of 74.7" I filled in the next column for "distance from camera".

Lastly I used deciphered numbers found in John Green's notes. I looks like JM was about 30' behing TC2, which is 115' away from camera.

 

I can solve for TC1 and TC2 widths, if we can decide how far back JM really is (consensus?).

 

Using these three methods gives us between 134 and 142 feet from camera when Jim McClarin is in the spot where Patty is looking back (frame 362?). We need to dial this in and I welcome help to do so.

 

If you have questions...ask them.

This image is large. Hopefully you'll be able to see it after I upload it here. I assume it's going to get shrunk.

 

EDIT" You can click "Full SIze" to be able to read the text in the image.

 

Here is the chart - it can be updated if error are found.

 

 

 

Very interesting work, Redbone. I'll look it over, and let you know if I have any questions. 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
BFF Donor

At this point I don't think I'm even working on the Thinker Thunker video. This information is more suited to the Munns Report thread.

This is all in regard to two reports on Bill's site that I've been studying (only since yesterday)

Find them here: http://www.themunnsreport.com/tmr%203_2_5_3%20pgf_jg%20compare%20p1.pdf

and here: http://www.themunnsreport.com/tmr%203_2_5_3%20pgf_jg%20compare%20p2.pdf

 

Bill did an excellent job of determining what lens John Green used (20mm) and where he was in relation to the trees, TC1, TC2, and TC3.

The report mentions the difficulty finding the solution in CAD software (I use Draftsight, not AutoCAD) because the measured dimensions were rounded to feet, not inches.

When you look at this, you see there is an extremely small window to see TC4 between TC1 and TC2, and have it line up correctly.

Like Bill, I used Dahinden's measurements between the trees. 58' TC1-TC4, 49' TC2-TC4, and 12' TC1-TC2. (see page 21 of Bills Report #1)

I counted pixels in the McClarin Composite image to determine that TC4 (center) was 26.6698% of the distance between TC1 and TC2, as measure from TC1.

Percentage = 118px/(118+324) = 0.26698 = 26.6698%

 

Finding the solution in CAD starts there. I made a 58' line (TC1-TC4) and drew a 12' radius circle on one end, and a 49' radius circle on the other.

TC2 is located where the circles meet (12' from TC1 and 49' from TC4). Draw a 12' line between TC1 and TC2.

Draw a circle at TC1 with radius of is 26.6698% of 12', or 3.200376'. Draw a line from TC4 to the spot where the circle intersects the 12' TC1-TC2 line. This points to the camera.

 

I'm sure there is a way to do the math, but I dialed in on the solution by trial and error. I started (as Bill did) with Green's measurements of 105' to TC1 and 115' to TC2. This does not work. Change 105' to 105.3" and 115' to 114.7' and it's spot on. This gives a measurement of 163.245' from camera to TC4 and all lines intersect at the same point, indicating camera location. Green's measurements of 105' to TC1, 115' to TC2, and 162' to TC4, were very close, with only TC4 being off by a foot.

 

I used spots lower on TC1 and TC2 than Bill did to measure the trees. My CAD solution gave an angle of 3.809 degrees between TC1 and TC2.

Bill measured 3.68 degrees for a 20mm lens between the trees. (See page 23 of Bill's Report #1) 

I measured lower on these leaning trees than Bill did so I expected a slightly larger angle.

 

Here are new images to ponder:

I deleted all the circles and let Draftsight tell me how long each line was. I redrew it once I knew the line lengths, to make camera to TC4 straight.

JG Camera to TC1 TC2 TC4.jpg

 

Note-The Middle column header text was corrected. It should mention TC2 not TC1.

McClarin Chart 120817.jpg

 

 

TC1 TC2 TC3 width in pixels.jpg

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

OK.......

 

I'll just add ++++++++++ (10) more plusses to your last post RB. Amazing work. Seriously amazing work. Thank you!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
BFF Donor

This may be apples to oranges but I tried to scale the Patty image to fit the McClarin image. Specifically, I made the distance from the center of TC1 to the little point on the log in front of Patty 511 pixels to match the same points in the McClarin image.  The foreground wood pile and ground behind our subjects match pretty good. It gets out of whack back in the trees up the slop behind them. Convertingto an animated gif killed the resolution so I also included the jpg's. I may be able to do more with CAD to try to locate Patterson's camera but I have set that aside for now. I have to study Bill's report a little better first.

PGF Compare.gif

 

PGF Compare JM qith Gray Patty.jpg

PGF Compare Just JM.jpg

PGF Compare Just Patty.jpg

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Redbone,

 

Appreciate all the work, math has never been my thing. Just a thought, with the other images, you could do the same to try an verify your findin's. Not that I want ta drive ya nuts, just offerin' more info to the equation in hopes of bein' helpful.

 

If ya want an at your leisure.  ;)   

 

:drinks:

Pat...

fig05.jpg

FILM%20SIGHT%20001.jpg

rd_72%20bluff%20creek%20zoom%20out.jpg

Bigbluffcreek2.jpg

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things to note:

 

1. In Pat's photos, of Mike Hodkins and Rene dahinden on site with measure bars, in both photos, center trees TC1 and TC2 have fallen and so aren't seen in picture. These photos are around 1971-1972. Mentioned in case you are wondering where the trees went.

 

Second, my calculations for the differences between Green's camera and Roger's are as follows:

 

Roger's camera should be 4.25' closer than Greens (on almost exact same line of sight, a remarkable achievement for green, given the horribly small viewfinder on his camera).

The two camera lenses are off in focal length. Green's lens is longer, the two options being:

 

If Roger has a 25mm Cine Ektar lens (the standard), Green's camera has a 26mm (which doesn't exist as a prime lens)

 

If Roger has a 20mm Kodak Anastigmat lens (standard on the Kodak Model E camera), Green's lens is a 20.8mm (again questionable as existing as a prime lens)

 

But if green borrowed the 12-120 zoom from the bolex camera that took McClarin's second walk, and put the zoom on Green's camera (it was a C mount so it would fit), then Green could adjust the zoom range and easily accomplish either a 26mm focal length or a 20,8mm focal length. Plus the zoom's ground glass viewer was far better than the Revere camera's native viewer, and that better viewer might explain why John's alignment was so close to perfect.

 

And to note, Green was using a Revere Arte Deco model magazine camera, as proven by photos of him on sight using the camera, as opposed to Green's recollection of using a Keystone model 50 camera, which he later owned.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
BFF Donor

Now I am really confused.  So is the film subject 7' or not  ?

i still say yes. :D

Edited by Patterson-Gimlin
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
BFF Donor

Looks like McClarin had to readjust his pathway.

JM Pathway.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
4 hours ago, Bill said:

 

But if green borrowed the 12-120 zoom from the bolex camera that took McClarin's second walk, and put the zoom on Green's camera (it was a C mount so it would fit), then Green could adjust the zoom range and easily accomplish either a 26mm focal length or a 20,8mm focal length. Plus the zoom's ground glass viewer was far better than the Revere camera's native viewer, and that better viewer might explain why John's alignment was so close to perfect.

 

And to note, Green was using a Revere Arte Deco model magazine camera, as proven by photos of him on sight using the camera, as opposed to Green's recollection of using a Keystone model 50 camera, which he later owned.

 

Thx, Bill!   As PBeaton might say: that's fascinatin'!  8 D   I don't know the latest status on this but, do you have reasonable Patty height calculations based on Roger using a 25 mm .vs. a 20 mm lens?  Still trying to comprehend, but thank-you too , Redbone, you definitely got some math goin' there.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Height depends on a distance. I know a chart can be done with examples, if this distance, then this height. I've done a few, but kind of backed off from those, while I try to solve the distance issue. I would like a photogrammetry solution that positions the center and back trees correctly, to verify the green/dahinden measurements. Then I can take the next step and solve for Patty's position. Once that's done, then her height follows, finally, with certainty.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
SweatyYeti

Redbone wrote:

Quote

For "Distance from Camera" I first used Bill's calculation for 445px height, for 77" JM, behind TC2 in a scaled 3000px image.

I had to paste JM into this spot at position 17 and scaled him to equal the average of positions 16 & 18.

Using my "assumed walking height" of 74.7" I filled in the next column for "distance from camera".

Lastly I used deciphered numbers found in John Green's notes. I looks like JM was about 30' behing TC2, which is 115' away from camera.

 

I can solve for TC1 and TC2 widths, if we can decide how far back JM really is (consensus?).

 

 

One question I have, Redbone....regarding the highlighted statement....did that calculation involve a Lens size? If so...was it the 25MM, or the 20MM?

 

Can you post some of the math you did?  Thanks. :) 

 

 

Quote

Lastly I used deciphered numbers found in John Green's notes. It looks like JM was about 30' behind TC2, which is 115' away from camera.

 

That distance behind tree TC2, would mean that Jim was approx. 25 feet further away than Patty was, at TC-2....and, working backwards from there...(given the different angled paths they were clearly walking)....it would put Jim a few-to-several feet even further back than Patty at the F352 spot....something like 28 - 30 feet further back

 

This is based on the appearance of Patty being only a few feet, or so, behind TC-2, as she passed behind it.

 

Some more work can be done, in determining a limit on how far behind TC-2 Patty could have been....(and still have the tree's shadow fall on her back as soon as she is seen passing the tree)...but, given the angles involved...(of the sunlight, Patty's path angle, and the line of trees TC-1 and TC-2).....she couldn't have been very far from the tree.

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
BFF Donor
2 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

One question I have, Redbone....regarding the highlighted statement....did that calculation involve a Lens size? If so...was it the 25MM, or the 20MM?

I used Bill's math, using the presumed John Green camera lens of 20 mm. I'd have to go back and review to share the math.

 

2 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

That distance behind tree TC2, would mean that Jim was approx. 25 feet further away than Patty was, at TC-2....and, working backwards from there...(given the different angled paths they were clearly walking)....it would put Jim a few-to-several feet even further back than Patty at the F352 spot....something like 28 - 30 feet further back

 

This is based on the appearance of Patty being only a few feet, or so, behind TC-2, as she passed behind it.

 

Some more work can be done, in determining a limit on how far behind TC-2 Patty could have been....(and still have the tree's shadow fall on her back as soon as she is seen passing the tree)...but, given the angles involved...(of the sunlight, Patty's path angle, and the line of trees TC-1 and TC-2).....she couldn't have been very far from the tree.

I've been working on this for a week now and the shadows DO NOT accurately determine where Patty is.  For her to be a few feet behind TC2, she is super short.

I've drawn out the sun angle in my CAD software on where she would need to be for tree shadows to hit where they do and It doesn't work. (Look for shadows from any other trees)

The sun angle is from nearly straight on behind Patterson and from very high up. The first Patty shadow is not and cannot be from the main trunk of TC1. What is seen almost has to be branches high up in TC2 (or possibly high up in TC1 - 3 1/2 feet from the base). If it was a TC1 shadow, Patty would have to walk THROUGH TC2 for the sun angle and shadows to be in the right places.

 

Patty and McClarin are practically in the same spot at one point (as near as I can tell) and I'll have something to share later on.

I've been trying to double check my work and have been unwilling to share until I've got it worked out.

Edited by Redbone
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

Glad you're still working on this math/geometry problem, Redbone. :) 

 

I'm looking forward to what additional results you come up with. 

 

 

Quote

The sun angle is from nearly straight on behind Patterson and from very high up. The first Patty shadow is not and cannot be from the main trunk of TC1. What is seen almost has to be branches high up in TC2 (or possibly high up in TC1 - 3 1/2 feet from the base). If it was a TC1 shadow, Patty would have to walk THROUGH TC2 for the sun angle and shadows to be in the right places.

 

 

Very interesting, RB.  From what you have said...my guess is that the first tree shadow that lands on Patty's back would probably have been from a portion of tree TC-1 that is relatively high up, above the ground.

 

I can't see how that shadow could possibly be from TC-2. 

 

 

Quote

Patty and McClarin are practically in the same spot at one point (as near as I can tell) and I'll have something to share later on.

I've been trying to double check my work and have been unwilling to share until I've got it worked out.

 

From what I have seen, in the past, analyzing/comparing their walked paths....it looks to me like their paths crossed at some point well after the F352 spot.

My thinking is.....about at the point they are seen, here...

 

Jim_Patty_Walk12.jpg

 

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