The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[SweatyYeti]

The one (The claim) you make in post 2.

This is what I said in post #2...

Lining-up the eyes, (which had to line-up if Bob was inside the "suit")....and the feet.....Bob's arms come up well short of Patty's.

I'm not sure exactly what you're refering to, as my "claim".
I can't help but see a difference in the lengths from both subject's fingers to their feet.

Do you see a difference, Darat?


Or, are you refering to this statement of mine, as my "claim"....

...which had to line-up if Bob was inside the "suit"....

If so, I supported that claim earlier today, with a profile view of Patty.

 

[Astrophotographer]

if Bob's arm is too short (which it is),

Said with all the certainty of somebody who can not admit he could possibly be in error because he has better crayons than everybody else. Sweaty reminds me of another great photo analyst from the 1960s:

http://www.acervoclube.com/images/mr_magoo_3.jpg

Edited by Cuddles: 

Do not hotlink. See rule 4

Sweaty gets the Mr. Magoo award for not being able to see the obvious in front of his own eyes. Just like Mr. Magoo.

 

[William Parcher]

It may help the newcomers to the Sweaty arguments to know that the "bending fingers" gif is composed of two nonconsecutive film frames. They are frames 61 and 72.

 

[GT/CS]

It may help the newcomers to the Sweaty arguments to know that the "bending fingers" gif is composed of two nonconsecutive film frames. They are frames 61 and 72.


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/handmove1ag.gif[/qimg]


[qimg]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/c30aea35.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/17988178.jpg[/qimg]


[qimg]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/92c3ffa6.gif[/qimg]

Uh, never mind.

Maybe a newcomer will see and point out the obvious to Sweaty!

 

[technoextreme]

If so, I supported that claim earlier today, with a profile view of Patty.

Do you live in such a bubble that you can't read anything that contradicts your view of the world? I pretty much shot your argument down with my website.

 

[Darat]

This is what I said in post #2...




I'm not sure exactly what you're refering to, as my "claim".
I can't help but see a difference in the lengths from both subject's fingers to their feet.

Do you see a difference, Darat?

...snip...

No. However I can see a difference in the length of the arms of the images.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Do you live in such a bubble that you can't read anything that contradicts your view of the world? I pretty much shot your argument down with my website.

The problem with Sweaty is he can't understand your arguments. He has bigfoot tunnel vision. What he thinks supports his cause must be right and ANYTHING that contradicts his myopic viewpoint is wrong, no matter how much science and math you use. Sweaty is blinded by "the will to believe".

 

[technoextreme]

The problem with Sweaty is he can't understand your arguments. He has bigfoot tunnel vision. What he thinks supports his cause must be right and ANYTHING that contradicts his myopic viewpoint is wrong, no matter how much science and math you use. Sweaty is blinded by "the will to believe".

I'll admit I just want a response. Anything. Yes. No. Your insane.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Do you live in such a bubble that you can't read anything that contradicts your view of the world? I pretty much shot your argument down with my website.

Shot down my argument??? Pardon me while I laugh....


This is what you said in an earlier post, in which you provided a link to your website...

trying to determine DISTANCE from an image IS DEPENDENT ON THE CHARACTERISITICS OF THE CAMERA USED!

I highlighted the word "distance" in your statement, because the 'distance' that is being affected (the distance between 2 objects spaced several feet apart) by the different lenses in those images on your site, is not the same thing as the 'distances' in the Bob/Patty comparison image (the vertical distance from the fingertip to the foot).

Your statement is not specific enough, techno.

Not all of the distances within an image are dependent on the characterisitics of the camera, or camera lens.

For example...in these 2 images, taken with very different lenses....

.....the distances between any two points within the truck, proportionally speaking, have not been changed, or distorted, from one image to the other.
The lengths and proportions of distances within the truck can be reliably measured.....and compared.....without knowing what size lens was in the camera.



BTW....Darat already posted something about this "lens distortion" effect, back in post #10.
Here is the link he provided...

http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15566

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astrophotographer wrote:

The problem with Sweaty is he can't understand your arguments. What he thinks supports his cause must be right and ANYTHING that contradicts his myopic viewpoint is wrong, no matter how much science and math you use. Sweaty is blinded by "the will to believe".

Astro, see my post above......and see if you can understand it.

 

[SweatyYeti]

What he thinks supports his cause must be right and ANYTHING that contradicts his myopic viewpoint is wrong.....

Just thought I'd point out, Astro, that in my post above, I said....and I quote:

Your statement is not specific enough, techno.

I did not say techno's statement was flat out wrong, I said it was "not specific enough".

Hope you can understand the difference.

 

[sanguine]

For example...in these 2 images, taken with very different lenses....

.....the distances between any two points within the truck, proportionally speaking, have not been changed, or distorted, from one image to the other.
The lengths and proportions of distances within the truck can be reliably measured.....and compared.....without knowing what size lens was in the camera.

Did it not occur to you to test this statement before making it?

Some quick measurements:

(In all cases, "A" refers to the 105mm picture, "B" to the 550mm picture; distances are in mm as measured on my screen, which you should be okay with, from what you've shown before.)

Front headlight to back headlight - A: 27mm; B: 29 mm; +7% change
Front bumper to back bumper - A: 101mm; B 104mm; +3% change
Center bottom of back wheel to upper corner of camper cover - A: 35mm; B: 27mm; +6% change
Front left headlight directly upward to base of windshield - A: 7mm; B: 5mm; -29% change
Vertical measure of side window - A: 7mm; B: 8mm; +14% change
Windshield base - A: 25mm; B: 26mm; +4% change
Front bumper chrome - A: 32mm; B 32mm; +0% change

These are all point-to-point measures, and they're hardly consistent -- one of them even decreased when all the other measurements were stable or increased!*

Even if you don't want to take the word of physics for it, it would behoove you to test your assertion with the evidence that you're putting forward to make the assertion.

*On that note, how did you not simply look at this pictures and know they were going to come out inconsistent if measured at several points? It's not just some weird optical illusion due to the different zoom on the background object. Cover the house with your hand and really look at both truck images.

 

[mangler]

As I shake my head.


m

click image

 

[drapier]

Shot down my argument??? Pardon me while I laugh....


Not all of the distances within an image are dependent on the characterisitics of the camera, or camera lens.

For example...in these 2 images, taken with very different lenses....

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/105MM1.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/550MM1.jpg[/qimg]



.....the distances between any two points within the truck, proportionally speaking, have not been changed, or distorted, from one image to the other.
The lengths and proportions of distances within the truck can be reliably measured.....and compared.....without knowing what size lens was in the camera.

Can you demonstrate this point?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Sweaty, how do you know that those are not two different trucks and one is actually half the size of the other ?

 

[technoextreme]

Sweaty, how do you know that those are not two different trucks and one is actually half the size of the other ?

Thank you. Without the camera.... You don't.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Astro, see my post above......and see if you can understand it.

1. You still have never addressed the problems I pointed out with your initial comparison images.

2. Your argument above has not been proven to be correct. You provide no measurements to prove your point. Somebody made some measurements and found your argument to be false. I got similar (but not the same) values when I made some measurements. Once again, put away your crayons and do some real analysis.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Did it not occur to you to test this statement before making it?

Some quick measurements:

(In all cases, "A" refers to the 105mm picture, "B" to the 550mm picture; distances are in mm as measured on my screen, which you should be okay with, from what you've shown before.)

Front headlight to back headlight - A: 27mm; B: 29 mm; +7% change
Front bumper to back bumper - A: 101mm; B 104mm; +3% change
Center bottom of back wheel to upper corner of camper cover - A: 35mm; B: 27mm; +6% change
Front left headlight directly upward to base of windshield - A: 7mm; B: 5mm; -29% change
Vertical measure of side window - A: 7mm; B: 8mm; +14% change
Windshield base - A: 25mm; B: 26mm; +4% change
Front bumper chrome - A: 32mm; B 32mm; +0% change

These are all point-to-point measures, and they're hardly consistent -- one of them even decreased when all the other measurements were stable or increased!*

Even if you don't want to take the word of physics for it, it would behoove you to test your assertion with the evidence that you're putting forward to make the assertion.

*On that note, how did you not simply look at this pictures and know they were going to come out inconsistent if measured at several points? It's not just some weird optical illusion due to the different zoom on the background object. Cover the house with your hand and really look at both truck images.

Thanks for making those measurements, sanguine. I figured someone would be checking the dimensions closely.

I wrote that post while I was at work, and finished it during my lunchbreak....I didn't have time to do any actual measurements.

I did notice, without measuring, that the truck in the 550mm image was slightly larger than in the 105mm image. That's why I said "proportionally speaking"...in this line....

...the distances between any two points within the truck, proportionally speaking, have not been changed, or distorted, from one image to the other.

Your measurements show, for the most part, an increase in lengths in the 550mm image....but that increased size would be adjusted for in a comparison, by simple scaling.

But, still, I was wrong to say that there was no change....there is a very slight bowing, or curving, to the truck.

I'll post more on that tomorrow.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Sweaty, how do you know that those are not two different trucks and one is actually half the size of the other ?

In principle, that could be the case, when dealing with complete unknowns.

But in comparing images of Patty with Bob H., we don't have to be concerned about something like that happening.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

We do if you are going to claim BH can't fit inside the suit ...