The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[SweatyYeti]

Taking a closer look at one of the "questionable images" in kitakaze's 'shopping cart'......

....we can see that the Poser 7 skeleton that Mangler produced has a Major problem....


First.....here is what happens....(in the REAL world)....when an object is viewed at a significant angle...(in this case, 40 degrees)....

...it's width becomes fore-shortened...or, 'compressed'...

The number .64, in the comparison above, is the equivalent of the cosine of the angle-of-view.
Looking-up that figure in a Trig Chart tells us that the angle associated with it is 40 degrees.

(That angle, btw, is exactly what Grover Krantz estimated Patty's angle-of-view is, in the middle part of the film.)


Now....here is what happens when the angle-of-view of Mangler's Poser 7 skeleton changes ....from straight-on, to approximately 40 degrees...

NOTHING happens. It Violates a law of physics that REAL-world objects obey.

It's width doesn't fore-shorten, or compress.....as it would, if it accurately represented REALITY.


Yet again, the skeletons are SHOWN to conflict with, and contradict how REAL, physical objects behave.....in the REAL world.

 

[kitakaze]

Sweaty, I don't know what you were trying to do but you've made two significant errors that unfortunately renders your attempt there to be in vain.

1) The image that your are saying is Bob viewed at 40 degrees and the image of the Poser 7 skeleton that you are saying is approximately 40 degrees are significantly different. You can not say the P7S is about the same as Bob. Bob is quite close to profile while the P7S is closer to being straight on.

2) You are using the wrong images. Here, let me help you...

You might want to try running the numbers again.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

You are using the wrong images.

Actually.......NO, I'm not.


You use those images in your collection of junk images.....so it's perfectly correct, and appropriate to take a critical look at them.


Let's do some more of that....here are 4 things which are incorrect, or flawed, in this skeletal comparison...

First....the body-width only fore-shortens by a couple of pixels, despite a significant difference in the angle-of-views, between the two images.


Secondly....the upper-arm bone fore-shortens by a large amount, despite only a small change in the arm's position, in it's swing-arc.


Thirdly....the pelvic bones are mis-aligned by a few inches.


And, fourthly....as for Patty's 'walking height'....here is another foot-ruler measurement, using a different frame...(where Patty and Roger are on the same ground level...hence, no 'height fore-shortening' of Patty, as in Frame 72).....which gives a height of approx. 6'3".....7" taller than the Poser 7 skeleton shows, for her walking-height...

Bottom line.....the Poser 7 skelly's are "Gobbledy-Gook".


GARBAGE.


Bonus flaw in the Poser 7 skeleton comparison.........in the overlay of Patty, it's several inches short, in it's "apparent upper-torso width".......which translates into an even greater width-shortage, when corrected for the angle-of-view.

Maybe someday I'll do some measurements, and add that FLAW into the graphic.

 

[William Parcher]

I don't know if it matters, but the head isn't right. There's too much of Bob's head visible around the CGI skull. The human scalp is only a thin layer over the skull.

 

[Vortigern99]

Here's what's happening in Sweaty's post 2543.

1. 98 pixel humerus ---> 85 pixel humerus
Foreshortening. In the 85-pixel image you can see that foreshortening is occurring, not only by the reduction in measurement, but also by dint of the visible underside of the radial-ulnar conjunction (ie the wrist). As I've tried to explain before, if you will hold in front of your eyes a cylinder, such as a can or paper towel tube, straight on, ie perpendicular to your line of sight, then turn it into a foreshortened position so that you can see the cylinder's underside, you'll understand what is happening with Bob's arm. If you can not understand this principle, and continue to argue that some technical error is occurring in the software, then you are merely arguing from ignorance and you have failed to comprehend a very simple visual phenomenon that you can read about in any book on perspective or figure drawing.

2. Pelvic bone doesn't align
The figure with the lower pelvis is crouching. Once again, you can repeat this exact phenomenon by standing up straight in a full-length mirror, marking where the pelvic crest is with a marker on the wall or mirror, or even by placing your own hand at the line, then bending at the knee. As you bend, you'll note that your pelvis drops accordingly. Failure to understand this phenomenon is another instance of argument from ignorance. Simply because you cannot grasp the concept does not mean that something paranormal or extraordinary is occurring.

3. Walking height 72" ---> 5'8"
The height drops when the figure bends or crouches. This is related to 2., above. If you will mark the top of your head while standing erect, then bend at the knees, you will note that your height drops accordingly. This is an incredibly basic geometrical concept.

4. 87 pixel ---> 89 pixel shoulder-to-shoulder reduction; if foreshortened, why is the reduction so minimal?
Measuring tool imprecision; inaccurate placement of said tool; difference in measurements more or less expected; imprecision of software image placement relative to underlying photo image. First, the measuring tool you're using -- a white line created with basic Paint software -- is blocky and imprecise; second, your placement of that blocky line is subjective, overlapping certain features of the anatomy (namely, the acromion of the scapula) in one image, while falling short of those features in the other image; third, a two-pixel difference in measurement is not too far afield of what I would expect given the slight shift in the angle of the torso from the first image to the second; and fourth, the Poser 7 skeleton, haphazard and imprecise as it is, likely does not accurately match the precise angle of tortion evident in the underlying photo.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Vortigern wrote:

4. 87 pixel ---> 89 pixel shoulder-to-shoulder reduction; if foreshortened, why is the reduction so minimal?
Measuring tool imprecision; inaccurate placement of said tool; difference in measurements more or less expected; imprecision of software image placement relative to underlying photo image. First, the measuring tool you're using -- a white line created with basic Paint software -- is blocky and imprecise; second, your placement of that blocky line is subjective, overlapping certain features of the anatomy (namely, the acromion of the scapula) in one image, while falling short of those features in the other image...

third, a two-pixel difference in measurement is not too far afield of what I would expect given the slight shift in the angle of the torso...

from the first image to the second; and fourth, the Poser 7 skeleton, haphazard and imprecise as it is, likely does not accurately match the precise angle of tortion evident in the underlying photo.

Here is what's wrong with Vort's explanation......and his 'expectations'...


To start with, Patty's 'angle-of-view' is approx. 40 degrees...not a "slight shift in angle", as Vort describes it.
(I can demonstrate this, later.)

And, using the cosine value for a 40-deg. angle-of-view....we know that the fore-shortening, or, compression, of Patty's width.....(and the Poser 7 skeleton's)....should be about 24%.

In other words, the "apparent width" should be about 24% less, or 76%, of the subject's "actual width".

Far beyond a mere 2 or 3 pixels......as Vort would expect to see...

So, with regards to Patty's and Bob's body-widths....here is what's wrong with the Poser 7 skeletal "Match"....( )...

1) The skeleton doesn't even cover Patty's full apparent width.

2) The skeleton is even further short of Patty's actual width.

3) The skeleton doesn't compress, or shorten, by 24%......or anywhere near that amount.


And, then there's the discrepency with Patty's "walking height".....(of approx. 7")....which Vort didn't address.....at all.

More on that.........lay-ta....

 

[lucaschorak]

Me

Hi everybody I am new to this.I came here for one thing I talked to Bob Heironimus on the phone.Any questions?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Hi everybody I am new to this.I came here for one thing I talked to Bob Heironimus on the phone.Any questions?

Sure....when did you talk to him? And, did you ask him many questions about his alleged performance, as Patty?

If so, was there anything noteworthy in any of his answers?

 

[Cuddles]

This thread is being taken off moderation. Due to the length it has reached, it has been restarted as an unmoderated thread here.

Posted By: Cuddles