• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

Status
Not open for further replies.
1. The Vision Realm Patty shows her with a locked knee. Since they didn't get that right how much of the rest can be trusted.

2. Dfoot's exaggerated arm out pose to exibit shortening is all well and good but it clearly looks like an unnatural posture. The BBC short arm nonsense is simply short arms and whatever outward arm positioning may be happening is mild at best. Give that BBC mime longer arms, shorter legs and longer torso and of course make him the correct color and you may have a humble representation of whats on the PGF.
 
neltana wrote:
As the camera addresses the subject more and more to the rear, the perceived length of the "backswing" arm gets longer and longer.
Click to expand...


Well, then....you have a big problem, neltana, with your computer-animation. :)


Here is your circle diagram, again....

Nelscircles1.gif




Applying what it shows to this image, from mangler's animation....



FF22.jpg




There is a major discrepancy.

In this image, Patty is seen more from the rear, than Bob is....(according to the Poser 7 skeletons).
You can see this very easily, by the wider distance between the shoulder blades on Patty/Fric...compared to the more closely-spaced shoulder blades on Bob/Frac.


So that should mean, according to you...that your elliptical-shaped diagram (and resultant distortions) would apply to the skelton overlayed on Patty, moreso than on Bob.


That being the case....Patty's/Fric's upper arm, seen in the forward part of it's swing....


FF22BB.jpg




....should actually be distorted in such a way that it is appearing shorter than it truly is....(and shorter than Bob's upper-arm).

But yet..........Patty's upper-arm appears longer than Bob's upper-arm.



The 'upper-arm lengths' in mangler's animation are contradictory....BACKWARDS.....from what your "viewed from the rear", elliptical diagram says they should be. :)


Another look at your statement, above...with an added comment, by me...

As the camera addresses the subject more and more to the rear, the perceived length of the "backswing" arm gets longer and longer. (...and the length in the forward half of the swing gets shorter and shorter.............only occasionally. :( )
Click to expand...





neltana wrote:
The length of the "straight down" arm will only have the largest vertical component when the plane of view is perpendicular to the viewer.
Click to expand...


That's not true.

An object which is in a vertical position will appear to be the same height when viewed from any direction...from the front, the side, the back....anywhere....(as long as you maintain the same distance from it).

I can demonstrate this very easily, someday soon.
 
Last edited:
Crowlogic said:
2. Dfoot's exaggerated arm-out pose to exibit shortening is all well and good but it clearly looks like an unnatural posture.
The BBC short arm nonsense is simply short arms and whatever outward arm positioning may be happening is mild at best. Give that BBC mime longer arms, shorter legs and longer torso and of course make him the correct color and you may have a humble representation of whats on the PGF.
Click to expand...



Yup....Dfoot's arm is screaming.... "I'm away from my body right now....please leave a message". ;)


ArmJoke22.jpg
 
Last edited:
I don't know who to blame for Sweaty Lloyd Webber and his amazing technicolour dreamposts but I love it. I especially love the fact that Sweaty has upped his game from the usual italics, bold, all-caps, elipsis fit strewn posts to individually coloured letters. It's the fantastic devotion of a true fanatic. There's Sweaty cackling away deciding which colour to make the "y" but he can't take 15 seconds to hang a pencil then a piece of paper in front of his face per post #1400.
 
Sweaty, this will be the last time I write this. Bob's arm is foreshortened; it's in perspective; it's angled toward the viewer's eye and therefore appears shorter.

End of discussion. If you cannot grasp this simple principle then you are not qualified to engage in a reasoned and logical debate.
 
Vortigern99 said:
Sweaty, this will be the last time I write this. Bob's arm is foreshortened; it's in perspective; it's angled toward the viewer's eye and therefore appears shorter.

End of discussion. If you cannot grasp this simple principle then you are not qualified to engage in a reasoned and logical debate.
Click to expand...

Dont say I didnt warn you
 
Been there done that...

Still waiting for sweaty to show his counter to perspective issues among many other questions...
 
SweatyYeti said:
....(as long as you maintain the same distance from it).

I can demonstrate this very easily, someday soon.
Click to expand...

If you are moving both the plane and the arm within the plane, you could contrive to hold the apparent length constant for any arbitrary shift of one element of the other, I think. In my head (if not in my text), I was referring to a situation with a static plane. Then my statement holds true...but I was overly broad in my words, so I apologize. However, very often, the longest apparent length will not be straight down. That is obvious.

As Vort tacitly points out above, this discussion of basic geometric fact is unnecessary. There is no mystery here that needs to be explained. We can directly observe why and how the skeleton's apparent arm length changes in the animation.

The changes in the apparent length of the skeleton's arm can be explained entirely by the movement of the figure and the camera. This is not really in doubt. The effect can be easily reproduced by anyone who cares to look, both in the software (free!) or in real life (using toothpicks and a digital camera you could confirm the effect).

Everything in the skeleton images can be explained by basic geometry. The skeleton images, in turn, help explain what we are seeing in the Patty and Bob photos, even if they do not match exactly.
 
neltana wrote....with my added note...

As Vort tacitly points out above, this discussion of basic geometric fact is unnecessary.

There is no mystery here that needs to be explained.

We can directly observe why and how the skeleton's apparent arm length changes in the animation. (We just can't demonstrate 'why' and 'how'.)
Click to expand...



In other words.....just take the good skeptic's word for it. ;) .....the skeptics who say that any analysis of the PG Film is "purely subjective". (Meaningless)

Yeah, right.


Regardless of whether or not any "skeptics" on this board choose to support their claims, and demonstrate that what they're stating is actually true....I'll continue to do as much analysis as I can.....purely for the sake of the analysis itself. :)
 
Last edited:
Sure, Sweaty, just keep "analyzing", regardless of how many errors we point out in your methodology or conclusions.

We have in fact demonstrated time and again the principles at work, using diagrams, videos, software overlays and text descriptions -- all of which you continue to ignore, fail to address, pretend don't exist.

If you were actually interested in discussing this from a rational standpoint, you would at least address our points and seek to overcome/rebut them, instead of ignoring them and then claiming we've never made any points or demonstrated our work.

It's becoming more and more obvious to me as I attempt to engage you that you are either delusional or having us all on. Either way, I can see no point in continuing this "discussion" until you acknowledge the most basic assertions we've made, such as the principle of foreshortening and the use of a circle to control the length of an arm in rotation.
 
Vortigern99 said:
Sure, Sweaty, just keep "analyzing", regardless of how many errors we point out in your methodology or conclusions.

We have in fact demonstrated time and again the principles at work, using diagrams, videos, software overlays and text descriptions -- all of which you continue to ignore, fail to address, pretend don't exist.

If you were actually interested in discussing this from a rational standpoint, you would at least address our points and seek to overcome/rebut them, instead of ignoring them and then claiming we've never made any points or demonstrated our work.

It's becoming more and more obvious to me as I attempt to engage you that you are either delusional or having us all on. Either way, I can see no point in continuing this "discussion" until you acknowledge the most basic assertions we've made, such as the principle of foreshortening and the use of a circle to control the length of an arm in rotation.
Click to expand...



Do you see an error in my post, from last night?


The more posts that I see of yours, Vort.....the more I see nothing more than just another typical 'Jref skeptic'.


In post #1386, you said this to me...

Sweaty, I just don't know what you're talking about.

Do you want to discuss this, or not?
Click to expand...


My answer to that was a very compliant....."Sure"....followed by a detailed analysis, of a specific point.


And now, all you can do in response to a post of mine, with additional analysis.....is respond with general, vague, meaningless accusations. Essentially....."tomato throwing".

If that's the only way you are able to respond to the analysis in my post from last night......that says a lot about your intentions here.


Is there an error in my post from last night?



If you were actually interested in discussing this from a rational standpoint, you would at least address our points and seek to overcome/rebut them, instead of ignoring them and then claiming we've never made any points or demonstrated our work.
Click to expand...


Completely general, non-specific accusation.


Which point of yours have I ignored? I will respond to any specific point that I can.
 
Is there a point here, somewhere? I have the feeling there may have been one once but it's long been lost.
 
Sweaty, before we can continue, please acknowledge that you understand the principle of foreshortening (figure construction in perspective) and how it relates to the image of "Bob/Frac" that you've posted many times.

Also, please acknowledge that you understand the principle of arm/leg length control via the arc circle, and how it relates to the skeletal overlay figures.

These are long-standing points of contention which you initially brought up, which we then explained/clarified, which explanations you then ignored, post after post after post. If we are going to have a rational discussion, you need to acknowledge, please, that you have at least read and understood our explanations. If you disagree with them, please describe why or on what basis.

Thank you!
 
Vortigern99 said:
Sweaty, before we can continue, please acknowledge that you understand the principle of foreshortening (figure construction in perspective) and how it relates to the image of "Bob/Frac" that you've posted many times.

Also, please acknowledge that you understand the principle of arm/leg length control via the arc circle, and how it relates to the skeletal overlay figures.

These are long-standing points of contention which you initially brought up, which we then explained/clarified, which explanations you then ignored, post after post after post. If we are going to have a rational discussion, you need to acknowledge, please, that you have at least read and understood our explanations. If you disagree with them, please describe why or on what basis.

Thank you!
Click to expand...

I keep trying to tell you Darth
 
Also, Sweaty, specifically, Neltana and I have already addressed your points, above:

Vortigern99 said:
Bob's arm is foreshortened; it's in perspective; it's angled toward the viewer's eye and therefore appears shorter.
Click to expand...

Neltana said:
If you are moving both the plane and the arm within the plane, you could contrive to hold the apparent length constant for any arbitrary shift of one element of the other, I think. In my head (if not in my text), I was referring to a situation with a static plane. Then my statement holds true...but I was overly broad in my words, so I apologize. However, very often, the longest apparent length will not be straight down. That is obvious.

As Vort tacitly points out above, this discussion of basic geometric fact is unnecessary. There is no mystery here that needs to be explained. We can directly observe why and how the skeleton's apparent arm length changes in the animation.

The changes in the apparent length of the skeleton's arm can be explained entirely by the movement of the figure and the camera. This is not really in doubt. The effect can be easily reproduced by anyone who cares to look, both in the software (free!) or in real life (using toothpicks and a digital camera you could confirm the effect).

Everything in the skeleton images can be explained by basic geometry. The skeleton images, in turn, help explain what we are seeing in the Patty and Bob photos, even if they do not match exactly.
Click to expand...

... but as usual, sir, you have chosen to ignore these posts and continue to pretend that we are not offering specific information in rebuttal to your contentions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom