Jump to content

20 mm lens experiment, P-G filmsite


Daniel Perez
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 11/7/2021 at 3:34 PM, Bill said:

 

Now, why might Roger put a 20mm lens on his K-100 camera. The standard 25mm lens was a bit too narrow for what he expected to film, as he knew he'd be outdoors and filming the scenery as much as filming his and Bob's activity. So Roger might have thought he's like to go a bit wider than the 25mm lens allows, but not full wide as the 15mm produces. We can only speculate, of course, first that Roger was sufficiently knowledgeable in lenses to make that decision, and second, to know the 20mm was available, but evaluating his other documentary footage, he did use an Angineaux 12mm-120mm zoom lens, so he had the chance to see how various focal lengths work for various situations. So he may have shot with the zoom lens set at 20mm or so, and realized it was a useful focal length for his purposes. And it would have been a reasonable assumption for the same camera shop that rented him his K-100 may have stocked a Model E camera as well, and thus had a 20mm on hand to rent out.

 

I disagree, Bill. 

 

Roger's primary concern, on his trip to Bluff Creek, was filming a sasquatch. And substituting a 20MM lens for a 25MM lens would serve to diminish what he was hoping to do....get convincing footage of the creatures. The wider-angle lens reduces the subject's apparent size, on the film. With the 20MM lens...Roger would be 'zooming-out', instead of zooming-in, on his elusive target.  And I don't think he would have chosen to do that.

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/8/2021 at 9:55 PM, Bill said:

Backdoc:

 

In answer to your question, in theory (in the perfect world), doing lens tests on site at Bluff Creek would be ideal, from a research standpoint. However, in practice, the setting has changed so much, it is unlikely that doing any test research filming there will yield an ideal result. The new growth obscuring the view from Roger's filming position, plus the fact his exact position is now about 10 feet up in the air, due to heavy erosion, makes replicating his footage unlikely (putting it mildly). Using a replica environment is the more pragmatic solution if it is accurately reconstructed from the extensive survey work done on site. But such replication is costly, so the issue of cost is a significant factor.

 

Either approach has issues that challenge the effort. So there is no perfect solution. Thus any researcher looking to experiment must weigh these challenges of each approach and select the one that researcher can best manage.

 

Bill

 

 

I have a suggestion on how to solve the 'lens' issue much more simply/easily....get Gigantofootecus back onto this forum!!  :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sweaty:

 

I am under the impression Roger went to Bluff Creek to film the trackway Green and Dahinden found two months before, and to generally "investigate". That was the determining factor that apparently moved him to select Bluff Creek as his next expedition location. The "he went to film a sasquatch" claim is from Greg Long's interview with someone, but I suspect what Roger told the guy wasn't "I'm going to film bigfoot" but "I'm going to film evidence of Bigfoot (meaning the trackway) and the "evidence of" part got lost in the guy's memory recycling bin given it was thirty years before Long's interview that Roger spoke to the guy.

 

So I don't buy the "Roger went to film a sasquatch" and selected a lens appropriate for that filming need. It what you say is true, he's have put a 50mm or longer lens on instead of the 25mm, just like any experienced wildlife photographer would. And he probably would have gotten a three lens turrit model, so he had multiple lens options and a very easy switch to the desired lens.

 

So while I respect your disagreement, I stand by my opinion.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill is correct in that Roger and Bob were in the area as a follow up on the Blue Creek Mountain tacks seen by John and Rene in late August/September 1967. Roger's motivation was to to get film footage of more tracks to including in a documentary he wanted to make but instead he got the track maker. I have been reading all the posts and it gives me pause and opens up ideas for questions I have not thought about. The 20mm as per our experiments looks better than the 25mm at the present time but nothing is set in stone. Not one of use in our group is a photographic expert or lens expert, just folks with a curiosity to try different ideas to see what looks best in matching F352, F354. What keeps bothering me is how that camera was sold in a cardboard box and a nice shiny box within it and the default lens was the 25mm lens, so a part of me thinks the camera shop gave Roger just that lens. But in truth I don't know.

 

I like the idea of doing the experiments on site rather than a baseball diamond.

 

I recall Meldrum was part of a television documentary in which they film at Stanford and noted the walk of Patty is not that hard to duplicate. BUT THEY WERE WALKING ON A CONCRETE FLOOR!!!

 

Apples to apples, I always say.

 

Doug Hajicek might be willing to go with us next year. I know he has a little expertise with film and cameras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Daniel Perez said:

I recall Meldrum was part of a television documentary in which they film at Stanford and noted the walk of Patty is not that hard to duplicate. BUT THEY WERE WALKING ON A CONCRETE FLOOR!!!

 

Apples to apples, I always say.

 

There is little value to duplicating the walk on a pristine, hard, and flat surface.  A reenactment should be done on a similar surface to the creek substrate that Patty walked on with all it idiosyncrasies.

 

That said, I challenge anyone to go to an uneven surface, mark a dozen points 41" apart, then go back and walk along the marked pathway.  I don't care how long your legs are, a 41" step length is extraordinary.  Those who I've seen on video that have attempted it looked like they were ready to topple over with every step. There was nothing graceful, smooth, or fluid in their movements. All three describe Patty's walk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Daniel Perez said:

 

 

I like the idea of doing the experiments on site rather than a baseball diamond.

 

I recall Meldrum was part of a television documentary in which they film at Stanford and noted the walk of Patty is not that hard to duplicate. BUT THEY WERE WALKING ON A CONCRETE FLOOR!!!

 

Apples to apples, I always say.

 

 

 

Daniel,

 

I applaud your efforts.   On the lens issue I just was curious if what is being tested needed bluff creek as an essential ingredient or could the test be completed anywhere.   Normally it is best to test closer to duplicating the conditions at play during an actual event.

 

I would suggest for some issues this can be a critical and only the actual location will do.   Examples might include: testing the actual bluff creek soil to see if it is "white as snow" as Bob Heironimus claimed.  Also, bluff creek measurements  might be needed such as the distance to a landmark tree or the tree's size.   How long does it take to walk/ hike to a reported camp site to see if a story adds up?   In all these things and more, the actual site is needed.

 

I just wondered since lens issues are math/ focus/ size related, if that math between many lenses options could be tested anywhere.  If so, I just wondered if a simple location might yield a clearer result vs the dark overgrowth of present time bluff creek which might present challenges.  

 

Dr. Meldrum's/ Stanford walking experiment had to start somewhere.  They started with a limited test but the conditions were more controlled.  Yes, the Next Step would be to test a suited man in actual terrain like Bluff Creek or Bluff Creek itself.   But, if a man couldn't walk like Patty across a well-lite air conditioned lab floor at Stanford it could be assumed they couldn't achieve it under tougher walking conditions.  At the time I said even if the walking experiment had been a complete replication the only issue that matters is replicating it under the similar conditions as the Bluff Creek event.   (I think the Stanford experiment was a fail by the way)

 

With this lens thing I am hoping smart camera people can come up with the exact answer.  Such an answer may yield expected and even unexpected information to help us all.  

 

I remember seeing a Youtube video where you and a team of others went to Bluff Creek and confirmed the site. ( it is the vid where Bill Munns eats a candy bar- sorry Bill )   In that video you had a camera and looked to be filming Bobo with a camera which looked like a K100 camera.   I was curious if there was ever a film of that result you published somewhere.  What if anything did that tell us?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Backdoc:

 

Probably a Snickers, the only candy bar I usually eat. I think they were my main food source on the site trip.


:)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a quick reply on my day off, Veteran's Day. The Summer 2012 26mm film I had in the camera was almost all overexposed and nothing came out. It was such a disappointment. I read your letter. You have lots of ideas, comments and questions. More later.  Getting the second batch of Bigfoot Times out in the mail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^
 

Sorry to hear of the ruined film.     Repeating it would be a great idea with great value.  If there is another Roger Patterson-like attempt could Kodachrome film even be commercially developed anymore?  Maybe a similar type of film in its place.

 

Here is hoping for another future attempt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor
On 11/11/2021 at 9:26 PM, Backdoc said:

If there is another Roger Patterson-like attempt could Kodachrome film even be commercially developed anymore?  Maybe a similar type of film in its place.

 

Sort of no and no. Kodachrome production ceased in 2009. The last Kodachrome processing was in Dec. 2010 at Dwaynes. Today, Kodachrome can be processed as a black and white film. The color chemistry is not available. The reason not to use old Kodachrome is the film speed. Kodachrome is very slow. Roger and Bob were lucky that the flood deposited overburden was very light colored and reflected light well and the flood removed vegetation to give them a good view of a black haired forest animal. Kodachrome will not work under a forest canopy for lack of light.  

 

Today films with faster speed for low light situations are available.  Between now and 'go-time', the Bluff Creek group will have a lot of Kodackery going on.

Edited by Catmandoo
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites


The last Pre- Encounter filming segment:

 

Roger and Bob did some pre- encounter filming.   The final shot/ segment just before the PGF event is the important one.   That segment was filmed and then the camera was put away in the saddle bag.  Other than winding the spring-if needed, I see no reason Roger changes settings and then puts the camera away.  Whatever those settings, can we assume those were still the settings when Roger grabbed the camera in haste and filmed Patty?   I think it is a safe bet the settings which came out of the saddle bag to film Patty where the same settings that went in to the saddle bag before Patty was encountered.      I don’t think Roger ever claimed to change them or had the time to change them when the rush was on to film Patty.  

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Backdoc:

 

A reasonable assumption. A camera operator likely would not change the lens or the f/stop setting on the lens (or the focus setting if the lens was a focusing type) when he/she wrapped a shot and put the camera away. The only thing an operator may have done would be to wind the camera spring back to full tension, but this varies from operator to operator. Roger likely didn't wind the camera spring at any point during the PGF filming, and a full wind will take about 1600 frames, and Roger shot only 954 before the runout, so he didn't use the full spring potential. Even if he did a full wind before the last horse/rider shot (Bob and the pack horse riding down a road, away from camera), he's likely have enough spring tension to film the full PGF to film runout.

 

Typically, you would do a full wind before a planned shot, not after, but given Roger's expectation he might need to shoot something on very short notice, winding to full tension after a shot isn't an unreasonable habit for a wildlife photographer to adopt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/8/2021 at 2:49 PM, hiflier said:

Or see how things stand up on any of the expedition sequence footage taken before Patty? Or the short footage from reel 2?

 

I guess this got missed? I'm bringing it up again because maybe Bob would remember about how far away he was when filming Roger doing the footprint casting. I doubt any lens changes or settings were altered for that either? Although there's no size references to go on for scaling, Bob may have distance-to-subject information which may be of some interest for this conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger being filmed casting a footprint was second reel, hours after sighting Patty. The footage immediately before Patty, on reel one, was Bob on a horse, leading the white pack horse down a dirt road, back to camera and moving further away. Then Roger panned the camera around to the trees on the side of the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The footage you see before the P-G film is Roger Patterson, not Bob Gimlin. Bob Gimlin shot that footage. Have a look at it again. We are going back next year to do some more work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...