Jump to content
SweatyYeti

Patty's Mouth Moves

Recommended Posts

PBeaton

Here is is slowed down.

Notice that there seems to be movement in the right cheek bone area that corresponds with the mouth corner. Both move down at the same time.

3RDpn2.gif

Sweaty,

Interestin'...

Harry,

You had me smilin' with the faster version, to cool ! :lol:

Myself, there is a strange little anomally goin' on when I look at it that I can't put my finger on. I can see the mouth thin', brow ridge thin' an cheek bone as well. The same goes for the darkness created by eye socket area an that little light spot, the fleshy little bag under the eyes, they both appear to elongate(as does cheek bone area). It's hard to say if it's actual movement, or a variation caused by the reflection of light or...huh...hard ta say? Interestin' just the same an once again SweatyYeti, good stuff.

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Just wanted to elaborate on the issues needing consideration before conclusions can be drawn.

1. We know Cibachrome F352 is affected by an artifact (something that looks suspiciously like a hand and fingers) and it is not on the actual film, so we know the cibachromes can contain false image data. So with that in mind, we do need to cross check these two cibachromes in question F362 and F364, against other copies of the frames, to at least get a sense of whether any image error is a factor.

2. We need to verify the two images are scaled correctly to each other (using the landscape behind patty as the scaling reference) because the cibachromes are not exactly scaled the same as we receive them.

3. We need to ideally know where the anchor point is on the frames compared (the one common body feature used to position one frame over the other). It looks like the nose highlight is the anchor, but it would be helpful for Sweati to verify. This enables others to replicate the comparison with cibachrome copies they may possess.

4. There are actually two different versions of the Cibachromes (and DamnDirtyApe started a thread showing them, and he and I posted the two versions of the 12 known cibachromes for others to see and use). The DDA version is more grainy and the versions I have are more detail-blended/enhanced, so the two versions have slightly differing levels of detail. It would be wise to do this same comparison on both versions of the Cibachromes, and see if the apparent motions are in both versions.

5. I did notice some shifting of the highlights in the skull area, which is not a head moving part, and this must be considered in any oonclusion, to discount the prospect of highlight shifts being mis-construed as real facial motion.

Summing up, facial motion is potentially within the film grain resolution potential to show, but it is on the border where copy artifacts and highlight blooms caused by contrast enhancements could potentially skew the apparent results. SO the analysis under discussion here is a worthy one to consider, but we should be cautious about jumping to conclusions while we try to resolve the various factors of concern.

Bill

Note: Just a quick reminder that the Cibachromes are mis-numbered, and their verified frame count numbers are off by 2 (so cibachrome-362 is acually VFC-2 frame 364, and cibachrome-364 is actually VFC-2 Frame 366). But the cibachromes are commonly referenced by their common numbers 362 and 364.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Bill - I can only answer one question posed.

When I aligned the two frames, I used both the nose highlight and the right eye.

Of course there are no absolute elements to use to register because of the resolution. Just as best as could be done, given the images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

:blink: Maybe Kitakaze was right ... Bob H must have confused his alleged part in a Bluff Creek spoof with Patterson and Gimlin with another film shot of someone else only weeks later. :wacko:

Let us call it 'the dual Patterson suits that honest Bob H couldn't tell apart'. And to the 'I can see an artificial eye thinkers' ... Bob H must have given Roger two fake eyes and had forgotten about it. Then spin that into the second fake eye was put on the suit that had the mechanical mouth. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Harry:

The nose highlight is a relatively good anchor point because it tends to be consistent in shape and form across multiple frame images, so that tends to rule out artifacts, and lends support to a fixed stability. Plus the nose highlight is generally considered a fixed facial point since it does not move as the mouth does.

So the nose as the anchor point is one good option for such an analysis.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Harry:

The nose highlight is a relatively good anchor point because it tends to be consistent in shape and form across multiple frame images, so that tends to rule out artifacts, and lends support to a fixed stability. Plus the nose highlight is generally considered a fixed facial point since it does not move as the mouth does.

So the nose as the anchor point is one good option for such an analysis.

Bill

Thanks, Bill. Yes - the nose highlight as the central anchor point, then rotated the frame until the right eye was in the correct place compared to the other frame.

Edited by Harry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Hi everyone....I'm glad to see mostly (if not all) positive responses to this gif. :)

I haven't had access to a computer today, up until a few minutes ago....because of an 'odd job' I've been working at all day....'cargo surveying' on a Ship.

I haven't spent a lot of time working with these 2 Frames...yet...but, I'm pretty much 100% certain...(that means 99.999% certain) that they legitimately show a change in the shape of Patty's mouth.

I noticed the same thing that xspider and Bill noticed...that her cheek, and possibly the eyebrow also appear to move.

The detail that stands out to me which supports the mouth movement being real....is the dark line running from the nose down to the mouth. It looks like the natural crease, on a human face....and, it appears in the correct Frame....the one where the lip appears to pull-up.

Here are the 2 Frames...side-by-side...(they look best, if 'clicked-on' and enlarged)...

Frame362Frame364FaceComp2.jpg

And, darkened-up slightly...

Frame362Frame364FaceComp3.jpg

Darkened...because the multitude of computer monitors out there that people are viewing these images on are undoubtedly set at different brightness levels. And, since the brightness/black level is extremely important in seeing the differences, from frame-to-frame....I thought it would be a good idea to display the images at different brightness levels.

Is that OKAY with you, wolftrax??? Oh, do me a favor, please.....don't bother answering... :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Interesting. I must admit I can only see a slight difference and it may be due to the different angle. I was sure there was another GIF done where the mouth appears to open slightly. Wasn't that one of yours too Sweaty?

I've always thought that Patty looks quite ticked off there. I don't blame Roger for staying where he did. :o

I did just recently post another animated-gif of Patty's mouth appearing to move, Kerchak... :) ....but in that one, I used Frame 362, or 364...with a different, more distant Frame...and the head was turned at a different angle.

So, that one wasn't quite as meaningful a comparison.

Gotta fly....I won't be able to post/reply again, until tomorrow.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Hi everyone....I'm glad to see mostly (if not all) positive responses to this gif. :)

I haven't had access to a computer today, up until a few minutes ago....because of an 'odd job' I've been working at all day....'cargo surveying' on a Ship.

I haven't spent a lot of time working with these 2 Frames...yet...but, I'm pretty much 100% certain...(that means 99.999% certain) that they legitimately show a change in the shape of Patty's mouth.

I noticed the same thing that xspider and Bill noticed...that her cheek, and possibly the eyebrow also appear to move.

The detail that stands out to me which supports the mouth movement being real....is the dark line running from the nose down to the mouth. It looks like the natural crease, on a human face....and, it appears in the correct Frame....the one where the lip appears to pull-up.

Here are the 2 Frames...side-by-side...(they look best, if 'clicked-on' and enlarged)...

Frame362Frame364FaceComp2.jpg

And, darkened-up slightly...

Frame362Frame364FaceComp3.jpg

Darkened...because the multitude of computer monitors out there that people are viewing these images on are undoubtedly set at different brightness levels. And, since the brightness/black level is extremely important in seeing the differences, from frame-to-frame....I thought it would be a good idea to display the images at different brightness levels.

Is that OKAY with you, wolftrax??? Oh, do me a favor, please.....don't bother answering... :)

SweatyYeti,

In image on right, notice there seems to be a scratch/line that runs from right nostril, near straight down to bottom left corner of image. It crosses down at right corner of subjects mouth at cheek. Not sure if that is the crease you're talkin' bout, but I think it might be ?

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wild eyed willy

Dats certainly not a happy monkey... She looks really ticked off, but certainly real... A mask would not have movement of the types shown in the footage. In order for the mouth to move the whole head would have to move and that doesn't seem to be happening here. Nice work Sweaty and Harry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

"I can't personally consider the discussed facial motions conclusive ...."

Bill, post #15

"I'm pretty much 100% certain ...(that means 99.999% certain) that they legitimately show a change in the shape of Patty's mouth."

Sweaty Yeti, post #22

"Certitude is not the test of certainty. We have been cocksure of many things that were not so."

Oliver Wendell Holmes

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."

Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

I did just recently post another animated-gif of Patty's mouth appearing to move, Kerchak... :) ....but in that one, I used Frame 362, or 364...with a different, more distant Frame...and the head was turned at a different angle.

So, that one wasn't quite as meaningful a comparison.

Sweaty, I can see the movement better now with the addition of the other GIF posted. You are onto something very interesting.

It's fascinating that it's the small details about the PGF that further cement it's authenticity. Why was Roger clever enough to bother with all these small details if he was then dumb enough to hand over the 'suit' to Bob H and dumb enough to not think though the film development timeline? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

It's fascinating that it's the small details about the PGF that further cement it's authenticity.

Hey, Kerchak! I think you're right about that. If it were a hoax then I doubt that infinite details would tend indicate other-wise. :thumbsup:

'"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."

Voltaire'

lol really?? :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dopelyrics

Bill, thank you for your response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolftrax

When it comes to things moving in the film, especially something as detailed as the mouth, a good frame of reference is that you can take any part of the background from two different frames, like here in 362 and 364, and how the exposure gives the illusion of movement:

362364backcheck.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...