Jump to content
ioyza

New 4K Neural Remaster of PGF

Recommended Posts

Bill

What you are describing is usually called the "Foot as Ruler" method. It has been suggested by several researchers.

 

The problem which I have not seen anyone deal with is that when the foot is raised so the sole of the foot goes straight down (so you can try to measure it), that part of the walk cycle has the foot moving  upward and then forward very fast, much faster than the body overall is propelled forward. As such, the foot is subject to motion blur far greater than the body overall. So regardless of how sharp one might think the foot is in the common frame where we see her foot pointing straight down, the fact is the foot is in very rapid motion, and thus subject to motion blur that can potentially make the foot appear larger or smaller, depending on how the film copies bump up contrast and the blurred edges may drop out or become more solid.

 

Motion blur is a factor affecting apparent foot size, and until that issue is studied and resolved, the "foot as ruler" concept will always be weakened by that unknown variable.

Share this post


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

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

 

 

Better stop beating around the bush and start calling yerself a believer!

 

And yes, I think the creature was tall and bulky. And as we know the foot size? 15 inches.

 

Andre the Giant was 7’4” tall and weighed 650 lbs and had a size 26 foot. Between the McClarin comparison, the cast size and the stride length and the impression depth? I’d say Patty and Andre were similar in size and weight.

 

 

776829B3-1CE4-4A06-9C43-FF9F14D9AD85.jpeg

0E833C4C-054B-4646-A2AE-DB5527215F95.jpeg

B9138222-B948-427D-A75B-6DBCB14060E1.jpeg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
5 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

My fellow skeptics might consider me a trader.:D

 

Whatcha trading?

Share this post


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

 

Better stop beating around the bush and start calling yerself a believer!

 

And yes, I think the creature was tall and bulky. And as we know the foot size? 15 inches.

 

Andre the Giant was 7’4” tall and weighed 650 lbs and had a size 26 foot. Between the McClarin comparison, the cast size and the stride length and the impression depth? I’d say Patty and Andre were similar in size and weight.

 

 

 

There are a few 'height calculation' methods which show a 'walking height' of roughly around 6'4"....(give or take a few inches). The 'foot ruler' method....using a few different film frames....indicates such a height. Also, a 25MM lens on the camera produces a height on the 'shorter' side. 

 

A few methods showing a significantly greater 'walking height'....such as the Jim McClarin comparison...the Nasi Report....and Patterson-Gimlin's "I'm 7 foot tall, and I know one when I see one ;) " method.....are all flawed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
10 hours ago, norseman said:

.........Andre the Giant was 7’4” tall and weighed 650 lbs and had a size 26 foot. Between the McClarin comparison, the cast size and the stride length and the impression depth? I’d say Patty and Andre were similar in size and weight.

 

 

776829B3-1CE4-4A06-9C43-FF9F14D9AD85.jpeg

0E833C4C-054B-4646-A2AE-DB5527215F95.jpeg

B9138222-B948-427D-A75B-6DBCB14060E1.jpeg

 

I would agree with your comparison of Patty and Andre with the suspicion that Andre might have been an inch or three taller, but that Patty likely outweighed Andre. My bet is that her bone structure was likely thicker and heavier, and she was likely more muscular. She likely didn't weigh any less than 650 lbs, but might have gone as heavy as 950 lbs..........maybe even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NorthWind

Well, you never did see Andre and Patty at the same party.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Patty size vs man size?  

 

Sounds like a work in progress.

 

Let's see how big people were back in the 1960's:

 

 

55c9efb674f8b0c027fd7fb0ad5ca61f.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, norseman said:

 

Chris Murphy's "analyses" are loaded with errors...and unsupported propositions, made by Chris. 

 

But, thanks for posting it, anyway...  :no:  

 

Someday, I'll put together a lengthy post, showing his many errors. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
Posted (edited)

One method of height calculation, which gives a shorter height figure for Patty...is the Photogrammetry equation.  

 

As Bill Munns has shown....a 25MM Lens on the PGF camera produces a height on the short side...(somewhere around 6').

 

So, here is a comparison of photos….which, as far as I can tell...(not being an expert, in camera lenses/photography)....seems to show that the lens of the PGF camera was most likely not the only alternative to the 25MM Lens....the 20MM lens.

 

A 20MM lens...being a 'wider angle' lens....produces a greater degree of 'perspective distortion'....than lenses with a narrower field of view....(i.e...a 25MM lens.)

 

One image detail which can be compared between these two images....is an object running horizontally across each image...the steps in the wedding photo....and the 'Main Log', in the PGF...

 

20-MM-Lens1-D.jpg

 

 

PGF-Main-Log-Close-up-FF1-H.jpg

 

 

In both cases, the camera person was standing close to those objects...only a few feet away. But yet, there is a much greater degree of narrowing/distortion of the dimension of the steps.....(across the horizontal 'field of view')....than there is narrowing/distortion of the diameter of the 'main log'. 

 

Note how much perspective distortion there is within the wedding photo....such as the size difference between the bride, and the two men at the door.…(who are not very far away from the bride). Note also how the 'apparent size' of the blocks encasing the doors changes.

 

I would be interested in Bill's take, on these images...with regards to the lens size. :)

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

the narrowing is most likely a factor of the different distance of the two measure points from the lens. Further objects appear smaller, and an object at an angle relative to the camera's line of sight will show narrowing of the more distant aspect of the object. Lens distortion would not account for the narrowing to the shown extent.

 

But with any photographic device (camera, smartphone, etc), you can test the lens distortion by photographing an object so it is on the outer edge of the frame, and then another photo from the same spot with the object in dead center of the frame. Then compare the two objects in Photoshop.

 

You can do the same with PGF frames by taking a frame from the lookback segment (where Roger is stationary and just pans the camera) and find a specific tree or object, so it is on the edge of the frame in one image, and dead center in another. Measure the object in both frames. That will give you a good estimate of peripheral distortion of the lens used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, norseman said:

 

Better stop beating around the bush and start calling yerself a believer!

 

And yes, I think the creature was tall and bulky. And as we know the foot size? 15 inches.

 

Andre the Giant was 7’4” tall and weighed 650 lbs and had a size 26 foot. Between the McClarin comparison, the cast size and the stride length and the impression depth? I’d say Patty and Andre were similar in size and weight.

 

 

776829B3-1CE4-4A06-9C43-FF9F14D9AD85.jpeg

0E833C4C-054B-4646-A2AE-DB5527215F95.jpeg

B9138222-B948-427D-A75B-6DBCB14060E1.jpeg

Lol. No body. No belief. 

I once shook hands with him and he made me look small. Of course I am better looking and more muscular 

 

Edited by Patterson-Gimlin
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
7 hours ago, Bill said:

the narrowing is most likely a factor of the different distance of the two measure points from the lens. Further objects appear smaller, and an object at an angle relative to the camera's line of sight will show narrowing of the more distant aspect of the object. Lens distortion would not account for the narrowing to the shown extent.

 

 

Thanks for your input, Bill. :) 

 

I did a little reading-up on-line regarding the 'perspective distortion' effect....but, am still not fully understanding how it works, regarding different size lenses capturing a scene from the same distance away. 

 

One aspect of lenses which I just read about, that I wasn't aware of...is 'rectilinear lenses' vs. 'curvilinear lenses'. That may be what is behind the difference in the appearance of objects within the two images I posted. 

 

I'll have to do some more reading, on this subject. 

 

 

Quote

But with any photographic device (camera, smartphone, etc), you can test the lens distortion by photographing an object so it is on the outer edge of the frame, and then another photo from the same spot with the object in dead center of the frame. Then compare the two objects in Photoshop.

 

You can do the same with PGF frames by taking a frame from the lookback segment (where Roger is stationary and just pans the camera) and find a specific tree or object, so it is on the edge of the frame in one image, and dead center in another. Measure the object in both frames. That will give you a good estimate of peripheral distortion of the lens used.

 

It's not that type of distortion, that I am concerned with.  But, again...thanks for the explanation. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
10 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

Chris Murphy's "analyses" are loaded with errors...and unsupported propositions, made by Chris. 

 

But, thanks for posting it, anyway...  :no:  

 

Someday, I'll put together a lengthy post, showing his many errors. 

 

And I await your expert in depth report with bated breath.....🤥

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
Posted (edited)
On 7/6/2019 at 6:46 PM, hiflier said:

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.

 

Especially seen in the musculature on the lower outside leg/thigh just above the right knee, very compelling if I may use an overworn word. 

Edited by bipedalist
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...