• 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.
No JREF skeptic actually believes the Patterson footage to be legit, this is just whether Bob Heironimus is inside the suit, right?
 
Cicero said:
No JREF skeptic actually believes the Patterson footage to be legit, this is just whether Bob Heironimus is inside the suit, right?
Click to expand...

That is my understanding of Sweaty's OP. However, I think Sweaty believes that Patty is a real, non-human creature.

So, when we are being strictly on topic, we are comparing poor resolution pictures of Bob with poor resolution pictures of Patty.

But I think the larger question of whether Patty could by any typical human form in a suit is a logical digression, since Sweaty has made the claim in this thread that Patty has inhuman proportions.
 
neltana said:
Well, I know I put your questions off before because I was dealing with Sweaty's feedback and didn't want to muddy the waters. However, as I have mentioned before, you have some valid reasons for criticizing the skeleton overlays as "proof" of Bob.

However, I don't believe either mangler or I ever put them forward as proof of Bob. The skeletons are not perfect matches for Bob or for Patty. They were went to illustrate that neither Patty nor Bob were outside of the normal human range...or something like that.

Now, I like the CG comparisons because they are easy to pose and repose, etc. It is harder to get actual models to cooperate.

I will endeavor to put together a comparison that more directly addresses the topic of this thread. I'm picturing using an actual figure rather than a skeleton (since it is hard to figure out where bones fall).

I'm not 100% sure how it will go, but I will try to come up with something that is more valid in your eyes.

I may fail, but I will give it a shot!
Click to expand...
I think the CG packages do a great job aligning the skeletons. They do a ton of the work, including the reverse kinematics. I also think they are a valid measuring tool. But they have their limitations. Especially when they aren't being modified to fit the model. But that takes many frames.

I look forward to your future efforts. Also you might want to consider fitting the skeleton over Bob in the Morris suit. I'll bet you get a nice fit.
 
Óðinn said:
I look forward to your future efforts. Also you might want to consider fitting the skeleton over Bob in the Morris suit. I'll bet you get a nice fit.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was going to try that. It seems a logical comparison to make.

And, for the record, I fully expect I will screw something up and you will helpfully point out my error.
 
makaya325 said:
Are there any features on the PGF subject that are seen on real Gorillas, Sweaty?
Click to expand...


Well, I think that there are plenty of realistic features, or aspects, of Patty. But, as for features that are specifically Gorilla-like....I haven't really thought much about that.

One thing that comes to mind, though, is the sharply-sloped upper half of her head. That's very 'gorilla-like'.
 
SweatyYeti said:
One thing that comes to mind, though, is the sharply-sloped upper half of her head. That's very 'gorilla-like'.
Click to expand...

Before the piano fell on her, you mean...

picture.php


picture.php


Sweaty doesn't like to talk about that, though.
 
Kit, tell me you made that up.

One thing that comes to mind, though, is the sharply-sloped upper half of her head. That's very 'gorilla-like'.
Click to expand...

Sweaty couldn't have typed that...we've already had discussions about the varying shape of patty's noggin and cherry picking which shape to use to make a "point"...no way he forgot...
 
SweatyYeti said:
That's wrong, LTC.

I use the term "average human's"....not 'inhuman'. There is a significant difference in the meaning of those terms.

It's kitzo who mis-represents....(as always ;)).....what I say in my posts....and twists it into 'inhuman'.

I may have used the word 'inhuman' before....I don't know for sure that I never have......but lately, I've been using 'average'.
Click to expand...

Yes, you have...

SweatyYeti said:
But since Patty is much more than just a 'still picture'......a stationary recreation simply doesn't mean anything in the way of analysis of Patty's apparent muscle movements, and inhuman body proportions.
Click to expand...

Sweaty, simple question. Does mangler's Poser 7 skeleton depict an average human skeleton? Yes or no?



But that's not what kitakaze is using the Poser 7 skeletons to show.
He's using them to claim that Bob's body limb lengths/proportions MATCH Patty's.

Again.....there is a difference.
Click to expand...

Let me be clear, I think Patty's arms are longer than Bob's. But not by much and not in any such way that extensions in the arms were required. Just gloves and nothing more.

I'm exactly 6 feet tall....the same height as 'Uncle Bobby'....and have average body proportions. I plan on using my body limb measurements as a 'stand-in' for Bob H....and will use them in some future comparisons with Patty.
Click to expand...

Will you mind if they are ignored the way you've ignored such measurements from others? Both Astro have given you multiple measurements of our proportions which you have refused to address. I am the same height as BH and have made many measurements, all of which you've ignored. Why is that?
 
Dude, total-Sweaty-pfail!!111! . I will eat KFC until Kitakaze posts another Tommy Lee Jones-looking over his glasses picture.





 
Last edited:
Not sure where to put this since it's not really about BH, someone can move it if they like.

neltana,

I hope you still go to the trouble of creating a model, but I'm going to go ahead and post this hack.

First off, neltana is correct in stating that I never implied that it was BH in a suit, actually I have stated pretty much the opposite (Pg. 18 Post 707, Pg. 27 Post 1076), Kit is the one pushing for BH. I don't have any preference what-so-ever, it simply appears to me that average male human Long Bone Indices work. I used BH photos because they were handy, nothing more, in retrospect I concede that I probably shouldn't have.

No matter how many time I do this exercise I come up with basically the same results. This process is not intended to prove that the PGF is a man in a suit, it is simply intended to help me (myself, me, mangler) justify that it could be a man in a suit. With that said...

Below are several skeletal overlays, they simply represent average Long Bone Indices (69.7 - 72), none of them will fit the skeleton I use perfectly, they are not suppose to, just as the skeleton that I use is not intended to fit the PGF perfectly. The fact of the matter is you can't accurately measure Long Bone Indices from a live subject let alone a subject on film, to compound this problem we are forced to use Imaging from piss poor images. With these non-invasive measuring techniques, be it this method or a Pendulum of sorts Method accurate anthropometric dimensions wont come easily if they come at all, and I have my doubts. As stated earlier this is a hack, nothing scientific here folks simply visual stimulation. This is not about size or suits, strictly the IM.




Óðinn, as far as the left shoulder goes this one is specifically for you. I totally understand what you are seeing but the fact of the matter is the collar is right where it's suppose to be, and I don't have to force anything. Below are three images from different angles, the skeleton and smaller figure are from a rough animation that I'm working on, the larger figure, as goofy as it looks, is meant to roughly represent something of the approximate size of Patty. I am simply of the opinion that a suit of roughly these dimensions would be do-able, I also believe that the subject matter skeleton is within the average human male IMI range.



Now I'll be the first to admit that there are problems with some of my representations but I'm fairly confident that they are the direct result of a lack of knowledge on my part in driving this software as well as the Cracker-Jack Box software itself, this specific application (Poser7) is about as bad as it gets and like DAZ is not intended for high end anything.

The link below will be active for a couple days then I'm going to pull it, if you want the file let me know what format and I'll pipeline you one.

Get the crayons out.

http://notthemunnsreport.com/page6a.html



m
 
I am amazed by the quality of some of the animations and image analysis that have appeared in this thread. It would really be nice if they could end up as some sort of cohesive whole on a web site some place.

I think I have mentioned this before, but I am skeptical of the idea that the creature displayed in the PG film is anything other that a man in a monkey suit.

But one of the reasons that at least some of SweatiYeti's analysis shows significant variation between the body proportions of men and the image is that he assumes the PG film's creature's legs are short and he scales his images to match this assumption.

Mangler's animation seems to assume that the PG fils creature's legs are of normal length and the feet are deeper than is apparent from the film. The difference in approach to determining leg length seems to lie at the heart of at least some of the difference in body proportion determinations.

Could somebody comment on why one assumption of leg length is better than the other? To a casual observer (at least this one) it seems like SweatiYeti's assumptions about leg length seem reasonable.
 
davefoc said:
......
Could somebody comment on why one assumption of leg length is better than the other? To a casual observer (at least this one) it seems like SweatiYeti's assumptions about leg length seem reasonable.
Click to expand...
I believe the costume disguises joint locations. Particulary the hip and shoulder .. Less so for the knee and elbow ..

Sweaty seems to favor positions and angles that give the impression of odd proportions..

Here is a shot where the arms and legs look fairly human in proportion, IMO ..
 

Attachments

  • mm1.jpg
    mm1.jpg
    35 KB · Views: 8
mangler said:
Óðinn, as far as the left shoulder goes this one is specifically for you. I totally understand what you are seeing but the fact of the matter is the collar is right where it's suppose to be, and I don't have to force anything. Below are three images from different angles, the skeleton and smaller figure are from a rough animation that I'm working on, the larger figure, as goofy as it looks, is meant to roughly represent something of the approximate size of Patty. I am simply of the opinion that a suit of roughly these dimensions would be do-able, I also believe that the subject matter skeleton is within the average human male IMI range.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_82644ae1dfb929d64.gif[/qimg]

Now I'll be the first to admit that there are problems with some of my representations but I'm fairly confident that they are the direct result of a lack of knowledge on my part in driving this software as well as the Cracker-Jack Box software itself, this specific application (Poser7) is about as bad as it gets and like DAZ is not intended for high end anything.
Click to expand...

The animations look great m. The transparent layers were a great idea to show suit, skin and skeleton. I had another look at the left shoulder and I'm not quite convinced yet. That's a lot of shoulder pad on mounds of muscle for a good fit, IMO. However, it looks like your poser's left shoulder is closer to being "normal" looking, if not a bit low relative to the right shoulder. This would be a sign that the poser has been positioned considerably closer to the camera than Patty. Hard to say, but since Patty was >100 feet from the camera, the vertical length of her left scapula should be about the same as the right scapula. The poser's left scapula looks a bit undersized, which might be why there appears to be so much shoulder above it.

The position of Patty's left shoulder looks almost deformed, IMO. It looks unnaturally high. I'm wondering how much hair pattern is at work here on top of the shoulders. This "hairy" difference seemed to crop up when measuring Patty's right arm in frames 61 & 72. The sun on the hair pattern might be screwing with our perception of the shoulders.

Otherwise, I think you've done a great job matching up the poser. The legs aren't always in view so they might be a bit iffy. The feet in particular could line up a bit better at points. After all, the actor's feet are probably less than a toe length smaller than the costume feet he's wearing. I think you can go for a pretty snug fit.

The animation can only be as steady and fluid as the film from which it is derived. Which is why the setup to create this animation is crucial and also a tall order to pull off. For optimal results:

  • use best quality digital frames available
  • ensure the aspect ratio is correct/consistent for all frames
  • map the trackway & distances from the camera, including angles of the trackway w.r.t. camera
  • stabilize Patty's images, exclude the overly distorted frames (interpolate any gaps)
  • scale/position/modify/revise the poser & build the model
  • save the poser's positional coordinates and image overlays in a digital format so we can review them for accuracy
Needless to say, I know how tedious this all is, which is why I haven't done it myself (that and not having the best images to work with). This also requires some dynamic software to accomplish the goals. I'm not sure how flexible the Poser/DAZ software is for building models and simulating POV and body orientation. Can these posers be positioned at specific distances from the camera? An image distorts significantly at close distances. What distance were they set at? And what body proportions were settled on?

Then there is the fact that Patty is receding from the camera, making her image smaller with each frame. This is why the trackway must be mapped out. We need to know the trackway orientation and distances from the camera to accurately scale and position the poser. Otherwise, you're forced to overlay the poser over a moving, shrinking, fuzzy target.

I hope your poser's positions, proportions & orientations were saved and can be applied to any new footage you happen to get. Regardless, it's the best animation I have seen to date. I'll have another look and might post some more later. Keep up the good work!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom