Guest Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 (edited) redacted Edited September 12, 2012 by bipto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest crabshack Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 If permision to make a kill on the property was given, then the kids had no busnesss on the property at all, you must have control of who is or is not in the area when hunting something that looks like a man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 I agree, all completely hair covered, 7' tall teenagers with a saggital crest should clear the area before the TBRC gets there. Also, Robin Williams might have been out there running around naked, to break in his new furry cone shaped hat. if I remember correctly, Colyer stated that he had a clear view of the animal with the exception of the lower extremities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 He did. There was no misidentification whatsoever. And, as I have stated many, many times, the two individuals were not in the line of fire and were never in danger. It was an unfortunate incident from which we have learned and all involved have moved on. The only place it remains an issue is on internet forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 [sarcasm] Nice try Bipto, but we have already been made wise to the TBRC's rootin-tootin, bad-boy-buggie drivin', yee-haw shouting, drunken, machine gun wielding, Yosemite-Sam like ways. A clear visual confirmation of your target is insufficient, next time ask for your intended target for two forms of idenfification. Based on the fact that someone was drinking iced tea, we can obviously deduce that they were definitely and directly in the line of fire. [/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Next time I have a chance to frisk one, I'll be sure to check its ID! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Man Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 He did. There was no misidentification whatsoever. And, as I have stated many, many times, the two individuals were not in the line of fire and were never in danger. It was an unfortunate incident from which we have learned and all involved have moved on. The only place it remains an issue is on internet forums. I can back this up, 100%. I saw where the incident occurred...those individuals were never in danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 (edited) Consider this. If those 9 shots had been from a good camera instead of a good shotgun... A video shot from 20-50 yards on a good camera in full daylight would have produced superior to PGF quality footage. You have my respect, but you were out there being "cowboys". Edited September 12, 2012 by Woodswalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Woodswalker - would you be so kind as to elaborate on your hunting experiences? Especially big game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Man Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Woodswalker: Do you think photographs or a video would convince anyone that wood apes are real? Or would they say it's a guy in a suit, like they do with every photo or video out there? A body can't be denied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 A video shot from 20-50 yards on a good camera in full daylight would have produced superior to PGF quality footage. It would be worthless. Even 1080p video doesn't have the resolution of the PGF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 ^^^^^"1080p doesn't have the resolution of the PGF."...citation needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 (edited) The image resolution of a Super 16mm film negative, using available prime lenses will be at least equal to the maximum possible resolution of uncompressed 1080p HD video. No fixed-pixel HD camera can achieve this resolution due to the effect of the optical low pass filter. Read on for the reasoning behind this: http://www.cinematec...super_16mm.html This article actually compares 1080 to Super 16 which is just a hair wider than standard 16mm, but the principle is the same. Edited September 12, 2012 by Irish73 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted September 12, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted September 12, 2012 Bill Munns weighed in about the most recent reel sent to Mike Rugg re: Roger Patterson's marketing and that film was NOT super 16, that makes me question whether the PGF was super 16 either? I'd like to hear it from Bill Munn's mouth, or you're comparing apples and oranges, what the difference between 16 and super 16 is would be within his purview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 ^^^^^"1080p doesn't have the resolution of the PGF."...citation needed Found on the interweb: Kodachrome has enough resolution to be scanned at 4,000 dpi (some would claim 8,000 dpi) before reaching it's resolution limits. A 4,000 dpi scan of a 4x5 Kodachrome slide would work out to 16,000x20,000 pixels (approx. 320 megapixels)! At 1920x1080 (about 2 megapixels) 1080P HD does not even come close. In fact 1080P does not even reach the same capabilities as a 35mm Kodachrome slide and modern high end DSLRs with 20+ megapixels are just barely comparable to 35mm Kodachrome in terms of resolution and detail assuming the same quality glass. I acknowledge it's not a true citation, but I'm pressed for time. It's either exactly right or very close. The particles on the surface of Kodachrome were fantastically small — significantly smaller than the pixels found in an HD camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts