Jump to content
norseman

Thinker Thunker size comparison of Patty

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti
11 hours ago, Bill said:

Sweaty:

 

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

 

Just wondering.

 

Bill

 

 

Actually, Bill...I was thinking of that the opposite way. Thanks for the reminder, on which way it works, in the Photogrammetry equation.  

 

Nonetheless, I have been looking at John Green's and Dahinden's measurement diagrams of the filmsite....along with Rene Dahinden's aerial view picture of the filmsite, and other relevant graphics.....and it looks as though Patty was significantly closer to the log she is in-line with in F352, than is indicated on Dahinden's diagram.

 

In his diagram...he has Patty placed about 40' behind the branch that is resting on the large tree trunk...(I refer to that tree trunk as 'Log 352')...

 

Dahinden-Measurement-Diagram1-B.jpg

 

I'll post  Dahinden's aeriel view picture of the filmsite later tonight...but, from looking at where the back edge of the debris pile is located, relative to Log352, and the branch resting on it....Patty had to have been much closer to that branch/Log352 than 40'. Probably in the range of 20 - 30'.

 

If she was much further back than that, she would have walked well behind the back edge of the debris pile, and tree TC-2. But, that couldn't be the case, since she appears to be only a few feet behind TC-2....(based on the tree's shadow on her back). 

 

I'll post a few images later on today, illustrating what I'm saying. 

 

As far as visible detail on Patty's face, I still think that would indicate a 'distance to camera' of something less than 102'. I'm quite certain of the small detail visible on Patty's face, and find it hard to believe that that small level of detail would be discernable at 100 feet, or further away.

 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
6 hours ago, xspider1 said:

 

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

 

7773af9770acea44e2c046c6284ec7d1533d53c8

I should upload the 70 or so RAW images of trees that I took the same day as the Turkey Vulture, I could have thousands of blob-squatches!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Distance and Lens issues:

 

I will leave it up to our many highly informed posters to figure out Lens issues and so on.  I have learned a great deal from many of you and continue to look forward to further insights.

 

For me, the real Q of distance and lens issues is really a diff Q entirely.  What we are really wanting to squeeze out of this topic is not just the distance and lens issues but

 

1) How much detail can we really make out on Patty?

2) How tall is Patty?

 

If she is real then it really doesn't matter how tall she is.  If she is real we want to see as much detail as possible to understand what we can about such an amazing creature.  If she is real then that is that.  The rest of it doesn't matter until we can have another encounter and come to even further amazement. 

 

What the camera issues do though is test the very Q of, "Is Patty real?"     <----------- That is the purpose of wanting to know camera details so we can ultimately answer that Q.

 

1) How much detail can we really make out on Patty?

Some see eyes and even Glass Eyes.  Some see less.  Some see a lot of facial movement and some see less.  It doesn't appear Green and Jim McClarin replicated the PGF that next spring with the same exact camera, distance, and so on. The did a pretty good job though and we have to be glad we at least have the effort to consider.   We know Jim McClarin is a man.  What can we see on him as a blown up film, still pic or otherwise?  Can we see his face?  His eyes?  His ears, His keys in his pocket?  I don't think I can see a ton of detail on Jim.  I can see a good deal but that is the limit on what my eyes can tell me.  For this reason, I assume it would be similar (not exact same) for the PGF.  I don't expect to see on Patty much more than I can see on Jim McClarin:

 

See the source image46c2dea6dd3e7e8bbcd2f031ba00a189c87df3243a0c17fc648f24b5be55b18a_large

 

 

2)  How tall is Patty?

Obviously if Patty was 8 foot tall or moved at 40 mph on foot it would nearly guarantee she is real based on the fact humans could not achieve those things.   If Patty is under 7' (and esp 6') then she could be anything.

 

 

The details of the lens issues and distances and so on are all part of a big puzzle whose pieces should all fit perfectly in the end be it a real creature or a hoax.  The lens issues, distances, and detail we can expect to see.

 

I don't see the extreme detail some of you do. I also don't see this blob having no detail as the skeptics do.   What I see impresses me.

 

One area of medicine we can count on a pretty darn objective is getting a pair of glasses from the eye doctor.  There are precise measurements and there is really one answer when the lens and distance all work out.  It should be this way for the PGF as we are also talking about distances, lens and so on.  I hope we get there.

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill
15 hours ago, Huntster said:

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?

Huntster:

 

16mm film is usually scanned or digitized at 2K (about HD (1920x1080) resolution and it looks great. I scan at 4K  (12 megapixels) and I see film grain, to capture the best detail. The real limit of image sharpness is thus about 9 megapixels. 

 

I don't have a smartphone myself, so I don't know the level of image quality they are capable of.  I believe some may go to higher resolutions than 9 megapixels. But a second consideration is the lens. I doubt that smartphone camera lenses match high quality true camera lenses, and so the phone lens may degrade the image quality somewhat. Also, the common phone lens seems geared to selfies, so it's relatively wide angle, making a distant subject very small, and thus poor resolution in proportion to the pixels (example if the image is 3000 pixels high, but the subject is only 10% of the image height, the subject is only 300 pixels high.)

 

The only real way to take a better picture than the PGF is to get the subject to appear larger in the frame, either with a telephoto lens (if the subject is far) or get closer to the subject. So it's theoretically possible with a smartphone, but not likely.

 

The ideal field camera would be a 4K camcorder with a 10-1 zoom lens. Then all you need to do is pray the autofocus doesn't get locked on some branches and leaves in close foreground and throws your subject into a blurred focus far behind the leaves. Probably best to set manual focus and set it relatively far away, like 30 feet or more, so anything 30 feet or greater is in perfect focus.

 

With that, I think something better than the PGF could be filmed.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

My iPhone 6 camera is 10 meg, I believe. I used to have a Canon 35mm slr many years ago, but I don’t even remember what happened to it. It had the classic 50mm lens, and I never got a telephoto for it. I turned out to be such a lousy photographer that I gave up on it early. 

 

Lots of skeptics say say that everybody has a camera now, but that doesn’t mean they can bring it to bear, and it might take lousy pics. Despite all the cameras out there, I don’t think another Patterson film is automatically forthcoming. 

 

Game cams are another story..........

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

I'm doing some analysis for a friend on a phone camera video and quite frankly, the lens distortion is really scary. So that doesn't inspire my enthusiasm for phone photos. But the game cameras do show excellent potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

As far as potential conclusive videos/photos, that can prove Bigfoot's existence....I think that drones are the way to go. 

 

Not that they'll provide close-up, definitive images.....but they should be able to find the creatures, if they are actually out there. And subjects which look promising should then be able to be tracked.

 

If, after years of low-altitude scanning....drones can't find them.....then I think it would be time to 'hang it up', and find a new hobby. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Here is something interesting I just came across, on YouTube.....a super-stabilized version of the opening sequence of the film....( a little different look than MK's stabilizations)...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

I would like to see a stabilized version of Patty's EXIT frames.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Here are 3 film frames, Pat...in which the white-ish detail just below Patty's right eye appears...

 

 

F350-F362-F364-Eye-Detail1.jpg

 

That white spot appears in the exact same location, just below the eye....and is the same size, also. It simply can't be the result of 'random film grain noise'.

 

It is a real detail on Patty's face...and, it's only a fraction of an inch, in size.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
2 hours ago, Bill said:

I'm doing some analysis for a friend on a phone camera video and quite frankly, the lens distortion is really scary. So that doesn't inspire my enthusiasm for phone photos. But the game cameras do show excellent potential.

 

Just curious Bill if you had ever seen this. Fred Eichler is a big time bow hunter. He doesn't need any attention from Bigfoot. I truly feel Fred is a stand up guy, and he is honestly putting this game cam footage out there because it happened to him.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

That looks very much like a guy in a suit...…(thumbing for a ride).  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Norseman:

 

No, I had not seen it before. It doesn't appear to have enough footage for a full conclusive analysis, sadly.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

It's got enough detail, for me.  

 

The subject's head is too square-ish...and it's shoulders aren't wide enough...

 

Patty-Rear-View-Three-Frames1-Bigfoot-Su

 

 

Patty....on the other foot.....has a narrow cranium, and very wide shoulders. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
6 hours ago, Bill said:

Norseman:

 

No, I had not seen it before. It doesn't appear to have enough footage for a full conclusive analysis, sadly.

 

Bill

 

Yah, its just a trail cam that appears to have triggered somewhat late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...