Jump to content

20 mm lens experiment, P-G filmsite


Daniel Perez
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't offer this remark as a conclusion, more of a thoughtful consideration, the proverbial "food for thought"

 

An unskilled camera operator points the camera at the subject and holds it there. Bob did this filming Roger riding along a road, then riding toward camera and passing the camera (the scenes where the reddish foliage seems to overwhelm the setting. These are the shots where Roger is unmistakably identifiable 9as compared to the others where the man is either back to camera or in silhouette. 

Plus in the last of these segments, there's a clear operator error an unskilled operator might make, and Bob admits he had no camera or photography skills.

 

A more skilled camera operator or cinematographer likes to pan away from the main subject to take in the surrounding scenery, as we see in the first two segments and the last, the man riding away from camera down the road. Roger, by 1967, was a relatively skilled camera operator, based on his other documentary footage, and the various cameras and lenses he used.

 

It was largely on this basis that I offer my opinion on which shots are Bob, not Roger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the pre-encounter sequence clue us in as to the detail we could expect to see on Patty?   That is, before the encounter we have the Bob and Roger on the film complete with footage of the woods and fall trees.   If no changes were made to the camera after, the camera goes into the saddle bags based on the last settings and last use.   

 

Many argue how much detail we can see on the PGF, Patty specifically.  Example:    Some see lips and face movements on Patty.  Some see bulging muscle injuries.  Other claim to see a zipper and so on.  Some see extreme detail I doubt they could really see while others pretend the very good detail we can see if just a blob.

 

I have in the past suggested we compare the detail of what we see on the Jim McClarin walk to Patty.  Yet, that was filmed with another camera the following spring/summer.   

Roger's film captured the pre-encounter sequences as well as the PGF encounter on the same film from the same camera.  

 

It makes the most sense to compare Roger and Bob pre-encounter with Patty.  Whatever the detail level we can see on Roger or Bob or the Horses should define what we could expect to see on Patty.  If we can't make out extreme detail such as if Roger had a watch on or what time was on his watch we can't expect some Extreme Detail claims of Patty to be accurate.   The opposite holds true.  If the horses muscle movements or details of the Roger and Bob figures are fairly obvious then we should say that defines at least what we should be able to see on Patty.  

 

Roger, Bob, and the horses appearing in the pre-encounter part of the film should be a minimal standard to guide us.  The detail we can identify there should tell us some of the detail we can see on Patty.   

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The level of detail is largely determined by two things, the type of film (and how fine a grain it has) and the size of the subject in a full frame picture. So the first order of business would be to compare Patty's size to the images of Bob or Roger, since they're the same film (and same reel). I haven't done so my self, but it is an interesting avenue to explore. A worthy suggestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...