Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
gigantor

PGF Camera Filming Speed

Recommended Posts

gigantor
On 8/29/2018 at 5:42 PM, OkieFoot said:

This is in wiki: "Patterson clearly told John Green that he found, after the filming, that the camera was set on 18 frames per second (fps) . . . ."[162][163] 

The two sources cited are Grover Krantz and John Green themselves.

 

Some other comments: Rene Dahinden said the footage of the horses in the earlier part of the reel looked "jerky and unnatural" when ran at 24 fps. 

He was also one of the persons that tried having people walk rapidly over Patty's path and this was what he reported:  "None of us ... could walk that distance in 40 seconds [952 frames / 24 frame/s = 39.6 s], ... so I eliminated 24 frame/s."

 

 

 

I searched for a thread about this topic but couldn't find one.

 

Christopher Murphy eliminates the 24 fps by calculating the walking speed of the BF. (The Patterson-Gimlin Film - Some Noteworthy Insights)

 

Seen in Figure 1 is a composite of four film frames from the Patterson/Gimlin (P/G) film, selected from the range between frame 307 and frame 352 inclusive; encompassing a 46-frame sequence. The time duration for all of these frames to show on a screen is about 3 seconds. The distance covered by the subject in this time interval was about 16.6 feet. This means that the walking speed of the film subject was 3.85 miles per hour. The average walking speed of a human is 3.1 miles per hour (Browning et al, 2006).

 

The alleged bigfoot was over 7 feet tall (Glickman, 1998), and despite its relatively short legs we can justify this inferred speed based on a camera speed of 16 frames per second. At one time, there was discussion that a camera speed of 24 frames per second could have been used. Had this been the case, the time interval for the 46 film fames reduces to 1.92 seconds and the walking speed increases to 6 miles per hour. In human terms, 6 miles per hour exceeds the preferred transition speed between jogging and running (4.5 mph, Raynor et al, 2006). It is evident in the film that the bigfoot is not jogging, confirming a camera speed of 16 frames per second.

 

 

Acrobat_2018-12-30_02-00-18.png

 

So the PGF was recorded at 16 fps. Just wanted to point that out... :)

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

It has been suggested that when the K-100 camera is set at 16fps, it actually runs at 18 fps.

 

I took a K-100, removed the lens, and put white paper in the film gate (but not so the pulldown claw would move it), and I did a video of the shutter using a video camera running 240 fps. I then took the video footage into an editing program, and cut it to one second (240 frames). Then I counted the number of frame openings of the shutter, and got 18 openings in the one second.

 

This would seem to verify that when set on 16 fps, it runs at 18 fps.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor
20 minutes ago, Bill said:

This would seem to verify that when set on 16 fps, it runs at 18 fps. 

 

According to my calculations, that would mean 6.50 ft/s or 4.43 mph. A human in a suit would be jogging at that point...  so 16 or 18 fps, same result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

It's pretty much a definite that the film was shot within the 16-18 fps range. A few lines of analysis indicate that.

 

A few objections, though....the subject's 'walking height' is considerably shorter than 87"....the stick on the ground is almost certainly being viewed at an angle....(not 'square on')…..and the subject does not have relatively short legs. Her upper-legs are quite long.  :)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

^^

I'm sure I haven't read everything about the film speed but I have yet to see anything that pointed to 24 fps, or any speed other than 16-18 fps, as the likely correct film speed. As you mention, what few studies have been done all point to 16-18 fps. 

When you consider all the analysis of the subject in the film all points to "nonhuman", it's not surprising studies of the film speed point to 16-18 fps as the correct speed. They're consistent with each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
On 3/12/2019 at 10:11 PM, gigantor said:

 

I searched for a thread about this topic but couldn't find one.

 

Christopher Murphy eliminates the 24 fps by calculating the walking speed of the BF. (The Patterson-Gimlin Film - Some Noteworthy Insights)

 

Seen in Figure 1 is a composite of four film frames from the Patterson/Gimlin (P/G) film, selected from the range between frame 307 and frame 352 inclusive; encompassing a 46-frame sequence. The time duration for all of these frames to show on a screen is about 3 seconds. The distance covered by the subject in this time interval was about 16.6 feet. This means that the walking speed of the film subject was 3.85 miles per hour. The average walking speed of a human is 3.1 miles per hour (Browning et al, 2006).

 

The alleged bigfoot was over 7 feet tall (Glickman, 1998), and despite its relatively short legs we can justify this inferred speed based on a camera speed of 16 frames per second. At one time, there was discussion that a camera speed of 24 frames per second could have been used. Had this been the case, the time interval for the 46 film fames reduces to 1.92 seconds and the walking speed increases to 6 miles per hour. In human terms, 6 miles per hour exceeds the preferred transition speed between jogging and running (4.5 mph, Raynor et al, 2006). It is evident in the film that the bigfoot is not jogging, confirming a camera speed of 16 frames per second.

 

 

Acrobat_2018-12-30_02-00-18.png

 

So the PGF was recorded at 16 fps. Just wanted to point that out... :)

 

 

 

 

People argue about Patty's height and will continue to do so.  Yet the walking speed should be just as if not more important.

If a man can walk at the speed of Patty then it could be a man in a suit.  If a man cannot cover the distance Patty does in a walk, then it really should prove Patty cannot be a person in a suit.  

 

I know Bigfoothunter at one time had posted information stating Kodak  K100s Cameras were factory set to run at 18fps.  I have read some walk- analysis science stating a man can walk like Patty at 24fps but not a 18 and certainly not 16. (can't remember who said it)

 

The time Patty takes to move across the camera can either be done by a man or it cannot. Making it more difficult, it can either be done wearing a suit or not.

 

Walking speed-- if it can be accurately and objectively known- should be one universal currency to help determine if Patty is real.

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

It’s common knowledge around here that Patty’s a 7’er 😉

 

I do agree BD, getting a solid figure on her walking speed could go a long ways to swaying belief to real, at least for myself and I’d think maybe others.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

Backdoc, I know this isn't the walk analysis you referred to earlier but these are Dr. John Napier's comments on walking and film speed (from wiki):

"if the movie was filmed at 24 frame/s then the creature's walk cannot be distinguished from a normal human walk. If it was filmed at 16 or 18 frame/s, there are a number of important respects in which it is quite unlike man's gait."

 

I think it's also important to keep in mind Rene Dahinden's comment that is in the first post, when he said "the footage of the horses in the earlier part of the reel looked "jerky and unnatural" when ran at 24 fps."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor

Is it possible to run it (stabilized) digitally on YouTube at the three different speeds (16, 18, & 24 fps)? It would be neat to see the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor

 

51 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Is it possible to run it (stabilized) digitally on YouTube at the three different speeds (16, 18, & 24 fps)?

 

That would be cool. You would need the frames...  mathematically it's pretty simple:

 

* Patty travels 16.6 feet in 46 frames

* Jogging speed for humans is 4.5 mph

 

16 fps

 

46 frames / 16 frames per sec = 2.875 seconds to walk 16.6 feet.

16.6 / 2.875 = 5.773 ft/s   or  3.936 mph

 

18 fps

 

46 frames / 18 frames per sec = 2.555 seconds to walk 16.6 feet.

16.6 / 2.555 = 6.497 ft/s   or  4.437 mph

 

24 fps

 

46 frames / 24 frames per sec = 1.916 seconds to walk 16.6 feet.

16.6 / 1.916 = 8.663 ft/s   or  5.906 mph

 

-------------

 

Conclusion: A human in a suit would be jogging if the camera was filming at 24 or 18 fps.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor

Even 3.936 mph is near jogging for me. I'm 6' tall, but my pants inseam is only 30". I have a short stride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

I would say you have to pick a short segment where there is no camera start and stop.  No  film, reposition, start filming.  It took Roger at least a few seconds to run across the creek for instance.  This occurred with the camera off.  The short segment of the lookback might qualify as an uninterrupted segment.

Share this post


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

^^

I'm sure I haven't read everything about the film speed but I have yet to see anything that pointed to 24 fps, or any speed other than 16-18 fps, as the likely correct film speed. As you mention, what few studies have been done all point to 16-18 fps. 

 

The first "study" that was done on the filming speed, Okie....was when someone asked Roger what speed he had the camera set to. Roger said that when he checked the speed setting after shooting the film...he found it set to it's lowest setting...'16 fps'. 

 

He actually stated the wrong number...he said "18", in his answer...but there is no number 18 on the dial. So, in all probability, he saw the dial on it's lowest setting, of 16 fps...and simply mis-read it, or misremembered it. 

 

 

Quote

When you consider all the analysis of the subject in the film all points to "nonhuman", it's not surprising studies of the film speed point to 16-18 fps as the correct speed. They're consistent with each other.

 

Very true, Okie. ;)  The science all points to a real, live creature.

 

It's only the closed-minded assumptions that point to a... "guy-to-be-named-later-in-a-suit--doesn't-matter-to-me-if-it-wasn't-Bob-it-was-just-somebody-else, then."  :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
BFF Donor
On 3/13/2019 at 2:29 PM, SweatyYeti said:

..the subject's 'walking height' is considerably shorter than 87".

 

What is 'considerably shorter'?  How many inches did Patty sink into the sand while walking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
3 hours ago, Catmandoo said:

 

What is 'considerably shorter'?  How many inches did Patty sink into the sand while walking?

 

 

The 'foot ruler' height calculation....(using F72, and other frames)….indicates a 'walking height' for Patty somewhere within the range of 6' to 6'6". Other lines of analysis also indicate that range for her 'walking height'...including Bob Gimlin's height estimate.

 

But, a not-so-tall 'walking height' of 6' 3"...when corrected for her crouched posture, and bent-kneed gait....(adding 6 or 7")....equates to a 'fully upright body height' of 6'9, or 6'10"

 

She sank into the soil approx. 1".

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×