The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[Vortigern99]

In passing, it's worth noting that obesity is not a known or documented characteristic of non-human, non-domesticated animals.

ETA: I've now found the Ignore function, so consider this a post-script to my previous message.

 

[LTC8K6]

Now you'll get a pic of a pot bellied primate...which has nothing to do with anything in this thread...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

By 'tapering'....you mean like this guy......

The taper can run either way..


Are we now discussing a different film than the PGF ?

You know; the buff Bigfoot with rippling muscles, that can't possibly be a costume ....

 

[SweatyYeti]

I'm still not clear precisely what properties a real, physical object would need to show, when filmed, to convince you that you are mistaken.

Sum it up for me in a simple sentence, would you? E.g., "I, SweatyYeti, would need to see X occur with constraints Y before I would be convinced."

I've explained very clearly, and in detail, exactly what my thoughts are concerning the computer-generated skeletons, Neltana.....in the posts with the 'arm-swinging device' analysis.... #2006 (with the arm swinging close to the body's side).....and #2027 (the arm swinging while being held out away from the body).


Is there anything in those posts that you don't understand, or would like me to elaborate on?


Here is one of my statements, from post #2027...

Bottom line....Neltana's video, showing Patty's upper-arm limb length morphing into the same length as Bob's upper-arm bone......appears to have no counterpart in the REAL world.


This would qualify it as being "Gobbledy-Gook".

Is the meaning of that statement unclear??

Okay, now that you have that out of your system, how about you fill in X and Y for me.
You went to the trouble of nailing boards to a post, surely you can explicate exactly what property of the 3D models you feel cannot be duplicated in reality.

This...

Neltana's video, showing Patty's upper-arm limb length morphing into the same length as Bob's upper-arm bone...



Neltana, could you possibly explain the procedure you used in making that skeleton video?
I may try replicating it, myself.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Skeptical Greg wrote:

Are we now discussing a different film than the PGF ?

No.

 

[neltana]

Neltana, could you possibly explain the procedure you used in making that skeleton video?
I may try replicating it, myself.

I've explained very clearly, and in detail how the video was created. I even provided links where you could download the software and buy the skeleton model...or you could use a free model that comes with the software.

But here is the high level procedure:

1) get the Daz Studio software
2) create backdrops with the images on them
3) place the model in front of the first image, posing it to match. Set this as a key frame.
4) place the model in front of the second image, posing it to match. Set this as a key frame some 300 frames later.

The software then interpolates the position of the model smoothly between the two keyframes.

5) follow the same procedure for the camera, since it needs to track the moving object.

I think the entire YouTube sequence has 4 keyframes, one for each pose.

Is there anything in those posts that you don't understand, or would like me to elaborate on?

Well, that depends...based on those statements, I conclude the following:

If I produce a video of a real world object where the apparent length changes in the same manner as my animation, it will be sufficient proof to convince you that you were mistaken and the computer visualization is reasonably accurate in how it represents 3D objects in space.

Is this indeed true? If this is true, you need not elaborate. If this isn't true, then yes, you need to elaborate.

 

[SweatyYeti]

I've explained very clearly, and in detail how the video was created. I even provided links where you could download the software and buy the skeleton model...or you could use a free model that comes with the software.

But here is the high level procedure:

1) get the Daz Studio software
2) create backdrops with the images on them
3) place the model in front of the first image, posing it to match. Set this as a key frame.
4) place the model in front of the second image, posing it to match. Set this as a key frame some 300 frames later.

The software then interpolates the position of the model smoothly between the two keyframes.

5) follow the same procedure for the camera, since it needs to track the moving object.

I think the entire YouTube sequence has 4 keyframes, one for each pose.

Thanks for those instructions, Neltana. I didn't see them in any of your previous posts.

Well, that depends...based on those statements, I conclude the following:

If I produce a video of a real world object where the apparent length changes in the same manner as my animation, it will be sufficient proof to convince you that you were mistaken and the computer visualization is reasonably accurate in how it represents 3D objects in space.

Is this indeed true? If this is true, you need not elaborate. If this isn't true, then yes, you need to elaborate.

If you can reproduce what the skeletal animation shows, using a real-world object....then, yes, that would mean that it is physically possible for that to occur. But that's rather obvious.....isn't it?


As for your upcoming video of such an event....I'll wait until I actually see the video before making any judgement on it.

 

[neltana]

Thanks for those instructions, Neltana. I didn't see them in any of your previous posts.

I didn't post that specific list before, no. However, I've always been perfectly clear that the animation was created with Daz Studio. The video itself makes it clear the images are placed on backdrops and that the skeleton is posed in front of each.

Since you said you were going to download the program and reproduce this back in April/May, and you never mentioned that you ran into any technical problems, I guess I assumed you were all set by now.

29th April 2009, 09:19 AM

Sweaty, DAZ Studio is a free download. The skeleton model isn't, but you could use one of the free models such as "Michael" to reproduce what is going on here. It isn't complex software...as a matter of fact, I had never used it until I started trying to reproduce Mangler's overlays.

Download this software and you should be able to easily see what a the arm should look like from any angle. It is great for guys like me who can never get foreshortening right!

It is free, so there is no reason not to!

29th April 2009, 09:41 AM

Thanks for that info, neltana!
I was considering asking you how long it took you to learn to use the DAZ Studio program.

I don't have time to do much of anything with it, right now....but I'll download it anyway, and try using it...sometime later.

29th April 2009, 10:55 AM

I have no doubt that you could be up and running and producing frames in a single evening. Just PM me if you have any technical problems.

29th April 2009, 01:14 PM

Thanks, neltana.

It'll probably be 2 or 3 weeks before I have the time to try the program....but if I have any questions, I'll ask 'ya.

I never got any kind of PM.

You did say, 5 days later:

4th May 2009, 12:43 PM

That's what I'm thinking, too. I'm not saying that I think there is deliberate fraud involved....it may simply be an unintentional error in the creation process.

That's one of the reasons why the animation should be reproduced/tested by someone on the other side of the fence.

[snip]

Yup....at this point in time, the method used in creating these animations is well-hidden.

I asked neltana if he could at least partially explain how he created his animation....but he didn't respond to that request, as far as I know. If he did...I misssed it.

At which point, I was just speechless. If you missed my offer of help via PM, it was certainly odd that you responded to it.

I also gave you still images of the entire sequence in question from not one, but two different camera angles.

I fail to see how I just provided you with any new, non-obvious information with my "procedure". Have you even installed the software yet?

 

[GT/CS]

Edited by Tricky: 

Removing link to infracted post.

 

[neltana]

Wait, does that mean Sweaty isn't actually building a partial BF suit?

I've been waiting for months to see it!

Now I'm disappointed! I have to go sulk.

8th January 2009, 09:22 PM

I'm in the process of putting together a padded upper-body suit, to replicate Patty's extreme upper-body (chest and shoulder) width....

27th March 2009, 06:51 PM

What happened to the bigfoot suit Sweaty was making?

27th March 2009, 06:51 PM

I'm working on it.......very slowly. But, I'll try to speed it up a bit.

27th March 2009, 06:51 PM

Do you have an pictures of what you have so far? Are you going for a complete Patty match, or just focusing on reproducing some aspect a la Dfoot?

Just curious, really.

27th March 2009, 06:51 PM

I don't have any pictures, yet. It's not far enough along....I've just started cutting some pieces.
But I'm planning on spending some time on it this weekend. It won't be too long before I can have some pictures to post.

I'm trying to replicate Patty's upper body dimensions, mainly, to see how the arms look when they swing back and forth.

 

[Vortigern99]

In fairness to Mr. Yeti, we did get some stunning pics of a block of wood with a slat pegged to it.

 

[SweatyYeti]

In fairness to Mr. Yeti, we did get some stunning pics of a block of wood with a slat pegged to it.

Which is more than we've ever gotten from Mr. Vort.......unsupported two-penny opinions, and a temper-tantrum!

 

[Vortigern99]

Au contraire, mon ami, my opinions have been supported by a quarter century of anatomical study, figure construction and professional illustration. Your opinions are "supported" by a bunch of improperly scaled photos with crude lines erroneously drawn on them, and a wooden post with a slat pegged to it.

(What, did you think I wouldn't respond to a false accusation directed at me? You're only on ignore when I'm logged in, tragically.)

 

[kitakaze]

It seems very strange to me....if Patty was actually a guy-in-a-suit...that Roger didn't get a good shot of Patty from directly behind, early in the film, while they were still fairly close together.

That wasn't in the storyboard.

No, no, no. Patterson was just lucky. Reaaaaallly, really lucky...



In fact, screw it. Want some luck? Just rub a picture of Roger and The Chief there and kiss the sky...



Just don't ask anything about wigs or horses.

 

[kitakaze]

Actually.....this is garbage......

Nice work, Astro.

A-ha...

 

[SweatyYeti]

Vortigern wrote:

Au contraire, mon ami, my opinions have been supported by.....

Sorry, pal...but not here, they haven't been.


The Randi Forum isn't here for us to play "Vort.......... SAYS".
If you can't support your two-penny opinions here, then your two-penny opinions are worth no more than anyone else's on this board.


The only way for issues to be resolved in this type of venue, is for people to provide, right here, supporting material.....a.k.a.....something of "substance". (Things of 'substance' carry 'weight'.)


Vort no do that.......Vort just say "It's a suit!!!!! It's a suit!!!!! I'm telling you it's a suit!!!!!"

 

[Astrophotographer]

The only way for issues to be resolved in this type of venue, is for people to provide, right here, supporting material.....a.k.a.....something of "substance". (Things of 'substance' carry 'weight'.)

I agree. Let's see some actual measurements. You know the type, don't you Sweaty? Numbers and stuff that everyone can measure and agree are accurate. I think subjective guesses and comparisons lack substance. Additionally, we should throw out all blurry pictures that are low resolution. These will remove the noise to see if there is any signal. Before you start throwing stones, be careful of your own glass house. It has a lot of broken panes as it is.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

Additionally, we should throw out all blurry pictures that are low resolution.

I think we should analyse the evidence...rather than just throw it away.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Does anyone know if Bob Heironimus is still going with this version of his 'Patty story'?...

Bob Heironimus is also quoted, saying that Patterson made the suit himself by skinning a dead horse and gluing fur from an old fur coat on the horsehide. It was in three parts, head, torso and legs that felt like bigger rubber boots and that went to his waist. He thought the feet were made of old house slippers. The suit weighted 20 or 25 pounds and he needed help to get in and out of it. It also smelled bad. "It stunk. Roger skinned out a dead, red horse."

Because, if he is...that will pretty much prove that he wasn't Patty.

I'll explain why I say that, at a later date.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I think we should analyse the evidence...rather than just throw it away.

If one can not define the edges or borders, what is the point? It is like taking a photograph of a planet out of focus. One can not get the resolution you desire with a garbage input. So, when you present your low resolution or blurry images, do not refer to them as something of "substance". They qualify as evidence but this evidence is poor and little can be done with it.