Jump to content
ioyza

New 4K Neural Remaster of PGF

Recommended Posts

ioyza
Posted (edited)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckFUhkWtMNA

 

This is the result of some neural network algorithm based on 'looking' at thousands of photos at varying resolutions and 'learning' to pick out relevant details, sharpening the image. Obviously this isn't truly adding resolution, but here's a comment from the creator:

 

Quote

This is a legitimate concern I (the creator) have wrestled with. My theory is that computer technology can be used to stabilize and sharpen to the point where tiny details present in the original film can be made more clear, so that our human eyes can actually pick up on them. That's the point after all. All the details I found and point out have been noted long ago and are present in the original film, only I believe this version makes them actually apparent to a larger number of people. Also, because this version is close to a 100% stable for the most part, we can now actually see tiny nuances in the movement, as it's more clear how the movement of the creature relates to the surroundings which are still now.

 

Now, how I got to the 4K resolution I explain later in the video. The original frames were enhanced using a neural network algorithm. It's called Neural Enhance. I think criticism of this is entirely valid, since it uses a model which was built using a huge library of photographs. Basically it 'sees' the tiny image and 'knows' what it would look like if up-scaled.

 

I have wrestled with the validity of this. I came to the following conclusion. If the enhanced version brings out details that are consistent across multiple frames (all I pointed out are), then it must be valid to a large degree. After all, a blind computer algorithm (which does not know the frames belong to the same sequence!) would presumably give random details in each frame. This didn't. The thumbs, breasts, eyes etc. are all visible in multiple frames.

 

Let me know if this answers some of your reservations. I think the validity of this enhancement, together with (scientific) work done by others on other versions of the film, is solid. The real debate should be about what is actually visible in the footage, and what explanations for the suit or creature hypothesis could be offered.

 

Example of the stunning results Neural Enhance can achieve: https://github.com/alexjc/neural-enhance/raw/master/docs/BankLobby_example.gif

 

Pretty remarkable if you ask me, sure some of the details will be artifacts, but it definitely gives a better impression overall and shows some musculature movement and rippling more clearly. Thoughts?

Edited by ioyza
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor
3 hours ago, ioyza said:

Pretty remarkable if you ask me, sure some of the details will be artifacts, but it definitely gives a better impression overall and shows some musculature movement and rippling more clearly. Thoughts? 

 

Wow!  my favorite part is the discussion about the breasts. :)

 

 

 

pic below is for the slider...

 

patty.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

My favorite is the obvious muscle ripple in the right side of the body from thigh to waist when Patty pounds her foot down. Saw it earlier on but this video really brings it out.........NOT a suit!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

The person who did this work was kind enough to contact me directly, and I will be discussing the work with him later this day.

 

The technology is fascinating and deserving of further exploration.

 

I can't comment about specifics in the posted video until I've had the opportunity to discuss the process with the person who's work we are looking at.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Looks darn good to me and we all know my position on the PGF!  🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

I appreciate the effort put into this but at this point am not sure what to make of it - is the methodology valid?

 

Is it true to the original or is it merely an algorithmic idea of "what should be there?

 

Interesting nevertheless...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

What should be there is the thigh muscle ripple that I saw in the original/MK Davies stabilized version when Patty steps forward during the look back. It's there in this video and it shows up even better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Thanks for sharing 

Awesome version of the iconic film 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AtlantiS

Looks awesome..but that horizontal line at its upper leg. .. i don't know it looks a bit awkward to me...also suddenly its head has features like it looks like a integral helmet... i hope this 4k does not more harm than good to the pgf

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
Posted (edited)

The line on the outside of the right leg is something that Bill Munns investigated. He came to the conclusion that since it appears to change every time the right arm swings past that it's a kind of groove in the hair from the thumb of the right hand sweeping back and forth across the thigh. Especially during the look back portion of he film.

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
On 7/3/2019 at 9:22 AM, hiflier said:

My favorite is the obvious muscle ripple in the right side of the body from thigh to waist when Patty pounds her foot down. Saw it earlier on but this video really brings it out.........NOT a suit!

 

I've seen that in other stabilized film versions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
13 hours ago, AtlantiS said:

Looks awesome..but that horizontal line at its upper leg. .. i don't know it looks a bit awkward to me...also suddenly its head has features like it looks like a integral helmet... i hope this 4k does not more harm than good to the pgf

I have saw both of those in other versions,such as the cibachromes I saw here.  The explanations seem reasonable enough to me . Not an expert ,so I am not sure.

Being a man of size and big muscles I am most impressed by the highly muscled calves. Also being a 7 footer I am in the camp that believes the film subject is as tall as me . 

 

I understand the doubts and questions of the films authenticity obviously. I am certainly not convinced the creature exists, but I am very sure this film is the best I have ever seen from the time I saw it in my local cinema over 50 years ago until this very day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
2 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I have saw both of those in other versions,such as the cibachromes I saw here.  The explanations seem reasonable enough to me . Not an expert ,so I am not sure.

Being a man of size and big muscles I am most impressed by the highly muscled calves. Also being a 7 footer I am in the camp that believes the film subject is as tall as me . 

 

I understand the doubts and questions of the films authenticity obviously. I am certainly not convinced the creature exists, but I am very sure this film is the best I have ever seen from the time I saw it in my local cinema over 50 years ago until this very day. 

 

There are no suits from the 50s or 60s that would exhibit pronounced calf muscles! None! 

 

Which can only mean one thing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Do you also agree the subject is just as tall as me or taller.  After all a 7 foot creature is more intriguing than one of much smaller stature. 

 

I actually said creature rather than film subject. I must be careful in choosing my words. 

My fellow skeptics might consider me a trader.:D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Airdale

While the height has been argued exhaustively here and elsewhere, the most frequent estimate appears to be in the 7.5 foot range. My approach is possibly too simplistic for some, but no one has explained why it is not reasonably accurate. I obtained from Jeff Meldrum a copy of a Bob Titmus cast ostensibly made of one of the subject of the films tracks. I measured the cast at roughly 15 inches (I'm typing this post from the dining table in our RV near Port Townsend, WA., and the cast is on my mantle in Montana City, MT some 650 miles east, so I'm working from memory). I enlarged one of the PGF frames that has the bottom of a foot close to vertical and aligned fairly well that there is minimal perspective distortion. I opened the photo in my desktop publishing software, drew a line from heel to toe on the bottom of the foot matching the angle of my measurement of the cast, then copied and pasted the line several times. I colored the lines alternately in contrasting shades, green and red if memory serves, then stacked them up aligned end to end over the image of the subject. The bottom half of the lower portion of the supporting leg was obscured, so I estimated using a frame where it was visible. Then I simply multiplied the number of segments by 15 and divided by 12 and the final measurement was very close to 7.5 feet. It was a couple of years ago that I posted the process with images in a thread discussing Patty's height that may possibly still be going on, though I don't recall its name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...