Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[William Parcher]

Cibachromes can be made from any transparency (slide).

 

[Bill Munns]

AMM:

"Well, not exactly. Details outside the film that point to a hoax can strengthen or refute your findings, depending on the conclusion that you reach. "

Guess we'll have to cross that bridge when we get to it, and it's a ways down the road.

Bill

 

[Crowlogic]

.



As Diogenes noted, that wouldn't necessarily make things cease to be problematic. After all, film development times don't mean much if it was impossible to have sent the film to a lab (and since the post office was closed when Patterson and Gimlin claimed to have mailed it...).

Was not the Post Office at Al Hodgson's store? In rural areas its not uncommon to have PO in general stores. If Al Hodgson had a PO in his store then the film could have been handled in the off hours. Post Office centers run day and night. Just because the general post office closes after business hours does not mean that mail processing comes to a halt. An in with the local rural PO could have gotten the film on its way that night.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Was not the Post Office at Al Hodgson's store?

Nope.

It was almost dark by the time we got back down to the truck and got the horses fed and tied up. By the time we got into town at Al Hodgson's store, it was good and dark. I imagine it was about 8:30 or 9 o' clock. Then we went on over to...[reflecting]...oh whatever town that was to mail the film up to Al de Atley, Roger's brother-in-law, so he could take it and get it developed to see if there was really anything on the film.

Speaking of Bigfoot encounters, I found some early references (by the same author) to Patterson using Kodachrome film.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Cibachromes can be made from any transparency (slide).

So it seems I misunderstood the quotation from that site about slides. Is it at all possible to resolve whether or not the original film was shot on Kodachrome or not? I kinda doubt they'd botch documenting the type of film Patterson used, but it'd be nice to have some set-in-stone confirmation.

I was tempted to inquire if the camera Patterson used (Cine-Kodak K-100) could only use a certain type of film, but I have a gut feeling that it could take both Ektachrome and Kodachrome filmstock.

According to MK Davis' posts in this old thread, he claims that a man named Bruce Bonney was the one who made the cibachromes from the original film. Perhaps Mr. Bonney has some information that could help with the matter? That thread also has this interesting quote:

The original 16mm Kodachrome II film was first enlarged and printed on 4x5 inch Kodak Ektachrome duplicating film 6121. These 4x5 inch color transparencies were then contact printed on Ilford Cibachrome A color print material, the sharpest color printing paper available.

 

[Bill Munns]

AMM:

"I was tempted to inquire if the camera Patterson used (Cine-Kodak K-100) could only use a certain type of film, but I have a gut feeling that it could take both Ektachrome and Kodachrome filmstock."

Your gut feeling is correct. Both film stocks are interchangable in the same camera.The only compatability issue on 16mm cameras and films is that a film stock which was single perf (one side only) and had a mag stripe on the other (for news people then, so they could record sound on the film's mag stripe as they filmed), can't run in a camera with double perf (both sides of the film strip) sprocket drives. But both Kodachrome and Ektachrome were double perf stock.

Bill

 

[Correa Neto]

In the case of the gorilla photo the accurate thing to say is a real living animal exibiting suit like features. Its not a suit and therefore cannot be referred to as being one.

Crow, if one is going to make a costume representing an animal, it is to be expected an attempt to reproduce features seen in the real animal, such as color variations. Now, most of the "seams" seen at the gorilla photo you posted (as well as others I've seen) are located at areas where there is a change in hair pattern (lenght, area density and color). Of course, in some cases the effect may be completely unintentional (a costume seam casually located where a natural "divide" is located). Note that such "natural divides" would be nice places to hide seams, BTW.

Now we don't know exactly how Patty suit looked like, who built it, how it was made and how it was projected. We know possible construction ways; we know possible materials used and possible "looks". Thus we really can't say, for example, what was the exact hair tone and how it changed (if it changed) along the suit. We don't know if certain features were supposed or not to mimic natural features seen at gorillas. Only if they were not we could say "its a real animal ehxibiting suit-like features".

Small digression based on my personal perceptions of PGF- When I look at the best frames, I see hair with a nearly constant distribution, lenght and color. The color variations are mostly, I my opinion, generated by image processing tools with excessive contrast enhacement, for example.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

....................

Depends on the Ektachrome. 7255 was was about as good as Kodachrome. . The high speed daylight and Tungsten Ektachromes were not as good a quality as the 7255 stock. I used them all. Saw the screen results myself.

Bill

Like I said, it would have less resolvable detail than Kodachrome ...


____________________________


Crow,

Who says the film is grainy ?

Kodachrome had the finest emulsion available at the time .. A 16mm frame was approx equivalent to a 10mp CCD today ...
The problem with the resolution of the subject, has to do with the distance from the camera and the motion of the camera ..

If Roger had been ten feet from patty, with the camera on a tripod, you can rest assured we would have been able to see his handy work in all it's glory ....

 

[Crowlogic]

Like I said, it would have less resolvable detail than Kodachrome ...


____________________________


Crow,

Who says the film is grainy ?

Like you're actually seriously asking that question? Perhaps it would be easier to ask who says the isn't grainy. Matters not whether the master is as perfect as the best restored example of Gone With The Wind because we can't see the PGF master. We can only deal with the copies and dubs that are in the public domain.

Saying that its the distance of the subject and not the film grain is a weak argument. The film is what the film is and the distance can't be changed. There are frames closer that Roger?Gumlin shot that while less grainy still possess a high degree of grain. Notice the frames where Roger is holding the casts and the cast pouring frames.

So I'll but the question on the table. Who says the PGF (as available to the public) isn't grainy?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

So I'll but the question on the table. Who says the PGF (as available to the public) isn't grainy?

All that is available to the public is video, and quite pixelated .. ( 720 x 480 at best )
Which of course is grainy when compared to film ..

My comment, was that the original 16mm film, would not have been considered grainy by photographic standards.. This is born out by the sharpness of near foreground elements in the film ..

However, the detail of the subject was severely limited due to the distance from the camera ..

 

[William Parcher]

So it seems I misunderstood the quotation from that site about slides. Is it at all possible to resolve whether or not the original film was shot on Kodachrome or not? I kinda doubt they'd botch documenting the type of film Patterson used, but it'd be nice to have some set-in-stone confirmation.

I was tempted to inquire if the camera Patterson used (Cine-Kodak K-100) could only use a certain type of film, but I have a gut feeling that it could take both Ektachrome and Kodachrome filmstock.

According to MK Davis' posts in this old thread, he claims that a man named Bruce Bonney was the one who made the cibachromes from the original film. Perhaps Mr. Bonney has some information that could help with the matter? That thread also has this interesting quote:

If the true original film (what actually came out of the camera) is available then it would be easy to see what the film stock is. I don't know if you can start with Kodachrome and copy that to Ektachrome.

I've posted quotes and links that suggest that the whereabouts of the "original" are known to some. But even if this were offered for examination, it would require some confirmation that it is the true original. If Patterson made various edits (cuts and splices) to the true original he would likely want to make a copy of the result so that nobody could look closely and see the physical cuts and splices on the celluloid strip. Once you have a clean copy of your edited film you begin to tell people that it is the true original. You can let anyone examine it with a magnifying glass knowing that they won't see any physical cuts and splices. The various copies of the PGF that we can see today show evidence of editing.

Green's 1st Generation copy shows a few flipped frames. He has offered no public explanation for this. That is bombshell.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, let's have a look at the film Roger shot before and after Patty. That ought to have been done under ideal conditions. No running around and shaking, either. Let's see if it's grainy...

 

[Bill Munns]

Since we've been having a lively discussion on film stocks (Kodachrome vs Ektachrome), just wanted to mention the finest source for info on these is the Americal Society of Cinematographers (ASC) Manual, widely regarded as the cinematographer's bible. The Second edition was published in 1967 and has data on all film stocks, cameras, lenses, formulas for calculating optical issues, etc. Great book.

I just ordered a copy and will be glad to share with all what it has to say about the film stocks under discussion. Anyone interested in ordering a copy can try Rare/Used book sellers online. I used AbeBooks.com and they had several copies, at $15 including shipping in USA. They listed some UK sellers as well.

Bill

 

[tube]

Chapter 17 of The Making of Bigfoot by Greg Long is entitled "The Photo Lab Film Processors". Page 278 details Long's interview with Clive Tobin, who worked at Seattle's Alpha Cine photo processing lab.

Long asks Tobin:

"Who brought in the original film for copying"?

(Tobin) only remembered that "It was definitely original Kodachrome film. We were probably copying it onto Ektachrome film".

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Your gut feeling is correct. Both film stocks are interchangable in the same camera.

Thanks for the input about what types of film that camera could use. I don't suppose you could provide some documentation...

Like I said, it would have less resolvable detail than Kodachrome ...

Good point. I wonder if it'd be possible to "work backwards" using the footage and stills that're available in order to determine for sure if Kodachrome film was used or not.

I've posted quotes and links that suggest that the whereabouts of the "original" are known to some. But even if this were offered for examination, it would require some confirmation that it is the true original. If Patterson made various edits (cuts and splices) to the true original he would likely want to make a copy of the result so that nobody could look closely and see the physical cuts and splices on the celluloid strip. Once you have a clean copy of your edited film you begin to tell people that it is the true original. You can let anyone examine it with a magnifying glass knowing that they won't see any physical cuts and splices.

Excellent point. Does anyone know if the development date would printed on the film's leader?

The various copies of the PGF that we can see today show evidence of editing. Green's 1st Generation copy shows a few flipped frames. He has offered no public explanation for this. That is bombshell.

Why give an explanation when the other proponents came up with the film duplication error excuse?

Chapter 17 of The Making of Bigfoot by Greg Long is entitled "The Photo Lab Film Processors". Page 278 details Long's interview with Clive Tobin, who worked at Seattle's Alpha Cine photo processing lab.

Long asks Tobin:

"Who brought in the original film for copying"?

(Tobin) only remembered that "It was definitely original Kodachrome film. We were probably copying it onto Ektachrome film".

Thanks for the quote! Speaking of "The Making of Bigfoot," here's a Youtube video in which Kal Korff explains why he broke ties with Greg Long.

I recently rediscovered an old post that shows another big problem with the PGF timeline.

 

[Bill Munns]

AMM:

"Thanks for the input about what types of film that camera could use. I don't suppose you could provide some documentation... "

As I noted above, I've got the ASC Manual on order, and that's more or less the definitive source for film and camera documentation. Hopefully will have it soon, and can cite from it.

But in general, standard 16mm films are either single perf or double perf, and then it's an issue of the emulsion put on the acetate base (Kodachrome emulsion or Ektachrome). The perfs are the same on either. Single perf was used then for the mag striped sound (which ran in cameras Called Auricon, I believe, and they captured audio as well as the film image) while any 16mm camera that didn't have a sound recording head built in ran double perf sprockets. I think the perf size varies on duplicating stock used in the lab for copies, because when it is run in contact with the source developed film being duplicated, it rolls over sprockets in the printer bipacked on the source film, and since sprocket teeth taper, the outer film stock has smaller perfs for the smaller tapering position on the sprocket teeth. So a duplicating stock might not run through a camera well because it's perfs are smaller, but any stock, Kodachrome or Ektachrome, which is a camera stock instead of a lab stock is interchangable in all standard 16mm cameras.

Have to refresh myself on the details, with the manual though.

Single perf 16mm for "Super 16" frames (slightly bigger than regular 16mm frames, because the image spread out over the one side with no perfs) but that needed a different camera with a different film gate and apeture size and position.

Anyways, I'm just pulling this from memory, and the ASC Manual is the source I'll cite when I get it.

Bill

Here's a source, from Wikipedia, under the entry for "16mm film"

Double-perforation 16 mm film has perforations down both sides at every frame line. Single-perf only has perforations on one side of the film. The picture area of regular 16 mm has an aspect ratio close to 1.33, and 16 mm film prints use single-perf film so that there is space for a monophonic soundtrack where the other perf side would be on the negative. Double-sprocket 16 mm stock is slowly being phased out by Kodak, as single-perf film can be used by regular 16 mm as well as Super 16, which requires single-perf.

Today, most of these uses have been taken over by video, and 16 mm film is used primarily by budget-conscious independent filmmakers. The variant called Super 16 mm, Super 16, or 16 mm Type W uses single-sprocket film, and takes advantage of the extra room for an expanded picture area with a wider aspect ratio of 1.67. Super 16 cameras are usually 16 mm cameras which have had the film gate and ground glass in the viewfinder modified for the wider frame. Since Super 16 takes up the space originally reserved for the soundtrack, films shot in this format can be "blown up" by optical printing to 35 mm for projection. However, with the recent development of digital intermediate workflows, it is now possible to "digitally blow up" to 35 mm with virtually no quality loss (given a high quality digital scan).

A variation of the Super 16 format is the DIY-crafted "Ultra-16", which is formed by widening the gate of a standard 16 mm camera to expose the area between the perforations. The placement of the perforations on a standard strip of 16 mm film (to the left of the division between frames) allows for use of this normally unexposed area. The Ultra-16 format, with frame dimensions of 11.66 mm by 6.15 mm, allows for a frame size between those of standard 16 mm and Super 16 while avoiding the expense of converting a 16 mm camera to Super 16, the lens requirements of Super 16 cameras, and the image vignetting caused by traditional 16 mm cameras. Thus, standard 16 mm optics may be used to achieve a wider image.

 

[SweatyYeti]

LTC8K6 wrote:

Well, it's only apparent, and in other frames the back of her legs look awful lumpy or even like flapping pants legs.

In response to these questions of mine...

What about the apparent muscle movement on the back of Patty's left leg?

Do you think anybody can re-create that effect, using padding??

The point of my questions concerned the very real movement, bulging, on the back of Patty's leg....whether or not it can be recreated using some form of padding.

All you said, in response to my questions, was to agree with me by saying..."it's 'apparent' muscle movement"......but that wasn't what I was asking you about, LTC. Exactly what is moving may be refered to as "apparent"...but the movement itself goes beyond simply 'apparent'....it's quite real.


Again...what I asked you was this.....

What about the apparent muscle movement on the back of Patty's left leg?

Do you think anybody can re-create that effect (bulging) with padding??

If it cannot be replicated....then the odds that it is padding drop way down to close to, or equal to...0%.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Hancock House has announced the publishing of e-book

Bigfoot Film Journal

by Chris Murphy ..

Over 10 years in the making ..

Part of the flyer I received

....

" Chris has worked with many
researchers and others to get what he believes to be a accurate
account of what occurred before, during, and after the filming. Among
his primary resources were Mrs. Patterson, Bob Gimlin, John Green, and
of course the late Rene Dahinden. Roger Knights was the prime editor,
and the noted researchers Thomas Steenburg and Daniel Perez were
associated editors and consultants. "

 

[Crowlogic]

Hancock House has announced the publishing of e-book

Bigfoot Film Journal

by Chris Murphy ..

Over 10 years in the making ..

Part of the flyer I received

....

And this is going to change anything from the previous 40 years?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Change anything ?

Murphy's bank account balance ...