The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[makaya325]

Bill has to be kidding me when he said "No human's head could fit inside this costume perfectly". What a load of bull. Is not making it look real the whole point of making a costume?

 

[SweatyYeti]

One thing to note, in the animated-gif I just posted, is that Bob's head is already on the 'small' side, compared to Patty....with respect to the vertical distance from the eyes to the mouth.

You can see that very easily, by placing your mouse cursor over the mouth, in either image.


So, there's very little 'wiggle room' available, for downsizing Bob's image much further.....in order to make his over-sized head fit within Patty's dimensions.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Apparently you missed Bill's work, on Monsterquest, with Patty's cone-shaped, very narrow, head.

This had NOTHING to do with what you have posted recently. I was describing your work and not something that I had not seen yet (BTW, I still have not seen it but it is DVR'd).

As far as the "vary narrow" head. How about some measurements and numbers? Saying it is too narrow is not the same thing as demonstrating it. Your little gif file is invalid for the very reasons stated already. You can't make the comparison because the subjects are positioned differently. This skews the results.

 

[SweatyYeti]

makaya wrote:

Bill has to be kidding me when he said "No human's head could fit inside this costume perfectly".

What a load of bull.

Well.....that's it!

We can all go home, now. I'll send Bill a PM, in the AM, and tell him the bad news.......little mak just annihilated his analysis. Crap!

 

[Astrophotographer]

One thing to note, in the animated-gif I just posted, is that Bob's head is already on the 'small' side, compared to Patty....with respect to the vertical distance from the eyes to the mouth.

You can see that very easily, by placing your mouse cursor over the mouth, in either image. .

1. the position of the "mouth" is in question since it is not clear for "Bunny".
2. I could see very little difference between the two.
3. Measurements please.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

You can't make the comparison because the subjects are positioned differently.

I sure can.....and I sure did.....and I sure will continue to make comparisons......and they sure will continue to show similar results.....which neither you, nor anyone else, will ever be able to demonstrate to be false results.....most assuredly.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I sure can.....and I sure did.....and I sure will continue to make comparisons......and they sure will continue to show similar results.....which neither you, nor anyone else, will ever be able to demonstrate to be false results.....most assuredly.

You can make the comparisons all you desire but it does not make them valid. Postioning of a head differently is going to skew any comparison. If you can not understand this, then you really are out of touch with reality.

 

[kitakaze]

Now, how about answering these questions:

1. What are your comparison drawings trying to demonstrate?
2. What is the standard for placing the upper point of your line? Is it the back of the head or the ear?
3. What is the standard for placing the lower point of your line? Is it the butt or the thigh?

You still are avoiding my questions. Can you explain what you are doing and what it demonstrates? When you draw a line, you need two data points. You have given a vague standard for the first point. What is the second point by which you drew your lines?

Finally, why is the line for Bob in a suit's head not intersecting the ear? Why did your line parallel the back of his head? Why was it wrong for me to do that with "Bunny's" head?

Remember, this is your evidence and theory. I would think you could explain it clearly (i.e. identifying your data points for the lines) so everyone could follow and see if your work is valid. I also would think you could clearly explain what this is supposed to show.

Finally, unless the two figures are identically posed (i.e. head position, head tilt, etc.) then this kind of comparison based on a small scale is probably going to be severely flawed.

Still no dice, hey?

 

[makaya325]

...'Jeopardy music playing'.....

 

[Astrophotographer]

Still no dice, hey?

Plenty of time to post new pics and arguments but not time to answer the questions, which he should be able to do since it is HIS work that I have questions about.

 

[kitakaze]

Plenty of time to post new pics and arguments but not time to answer the questions, which he should be able to do since it is HIS work that I have questions about.

Sweaty doesn't want to be slowed down with the basics. This is heady stuff, man, and he's on a roll...

That was a cool episode of MQ, that just ended.

I thoroughly enjoyed Bill's analysis of the cone-shaped head of Patty.


Here's a comparison I put together a couple of days ago....showing a similar result.....(as is typical)....the human head doesn't quite fit...

That is just a shining example of Sweaty logic.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Flipping Bob's image horizontally.....and rotating it 17 degrees, we have this shining example of how Bob's head is a little too.....large......squarish...roundish...wide-ish...(how am I doing, Astro??? )....biggish....not-pointy-enough-ish...

Next.....I'll put together another animated-gif comparison, with Bob's image size reduced to the point where his head just fits inside Patty's head...along with the resulting body-size comparison.

 

[kitakaze]

Next.....I'll put together another animated-gif comparison, with Bob's image size reduced to the point where his head just fits inside Patty's head...along with the resulting body-size comparison.

I really wish you'd roll on down to your nearest university and take a physics course, instead.

A wildlife biology course wouldn't hurt, either.

 

[SweatyYeti]

I really wish you'd roll on down to your nearest university and take a physics course, instead.

A wildlife biology course wouldn't hurt, either.

A laugh wouldn't hurt, either...

Bob was Patty...

Edited.....to remove 2,500 laughing doggies....

(Oh, don't forget....Bob said the costume head had some type of 'football helmet' inside of it... )

 

[kitakaze]

A laugh wouldn't hurt, either...

Bob was Patty...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/PBHeadCompAG3.gif[/qimg]

It's just really like one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. It's like the concepts of photography and perspective are completely foreign to you. It's like someone could take a picture of another person holding an upturned open hand positioned in just the right way and you'd be like, "Oh my god, that person is holding some type of fairy or miniature human." It's like your physics teacher in school was Charles M Shulz or something. It's like you wonder how someone could think that way and then you remember the sun reflecting on a rock they call evidence of Martian civilization. It's like a two-handed facepalm, is what it is.

(Oh, don't forget....Bob said the costume head had some type of 'football helmet' inside of it... )

He did?

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

It's just really like one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. It's like the concepts of photography and perspective are completely foreign to you. It's like someone could take a picture of another person holding an upturned open hand positioned in just the right way and you'd be like, "Oh my god, that person is holding some type of fairy or miniature human." It's like your physics teacher in school was Charles M Shulz or something. It's like you wonder how someone could think that way and then you remember the sun reflecting on a rock they call evidence of Martian civilization. It's like a two-handed facepalm, is what it is.

It's like.....you can't demonstrate where the error is, in that comparison...

 

[kitakaze]

Sure, I can...

1) Different head positions, angles, distances from cameras, and perspectives.

2) Why only one eye dot under the red scribbles? Try making two dots on Bob's eyes and then scaling down the image so that the dots approximate where Pattys's eyes would be. Mind you, it's still flawed because the heads are still in different positions so the eye positions will be affected.

3) No answer to the questions in post #1728 of Astro's which have been hanging there for days, hey, Slippery?

4)







It's like you're some type of fanatic who has no idea what he's saying or doing.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Flipping Bob's image horizontally.....and rotating it 17 degrees, we have this shining example of how Bob's head is a little too.....large......squarish...roundish...wide-ish...(how am I doing, Astro??? )....biggish....not-pointy-enough-ish...

It doesn't work well at all. Bunny's head is not pointed towards the camera the same way Bob's is. Additionally, using the eyes for reference, I get Bunny's eyes tilted at 16-17 degrees and Bobs at around 11. Meanwhile, after using screen capture software for the images (I hate animated GIFs btw but when I used Adobe fireworks I got similar values), Bob's eyes are 42 pixels apart while Bunny's are 38 so you have a scaling issue IMO of Bob's head being about 10% too big (and that is ignoring the profile of Bunny being different). However, if you actually MEASURE the distance for the widest part of the forehead (just above the eyebrows), I discovered that Bob's head was 74 pixels across. Bunny's was 76 (even with the improper scaling). That seems to indicate to me that Bob can fit in Bunny's head if properly positioned. Back to the crayons for you Sweaty.

You have been trying really hard to answer the bigfoot questions I asked previously haven't you? I could care less if you don't answer them because your silence is thundering to everybody that you really don't know what you are doing or talking about.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

It's like you're some type of fanatic who has no idea what he's saying or doing.

It's like.....you can't demonstrate where the error is, in that comparison....


None of those images in your post show where an error is in this comparison...

It's like.....you're some type of fanatic who has no idea what he's saying or doing.


It's like.......funny......



It's like......nobody here can demonstrate where the error is, in that comparison!


It's like.....COOL!

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

However, if you actually MEASURE the distance for the widest part of the forehead (just above the eyebrows), I discovered......

The WIDEST part of Bob's and Patty's foreheads???


The problem area (for Bob H.) is not in the wider part of the head....it's in the narrower part of Patty's forehead.


More later......