Bill Munns

Tom: Thank you for your humor. Can we get back on topic now, cameras, lenses, that sort of stuff? Bill

Karl: Roger Patterson rented the k-100 camera, with a 25mm lens on it, in May of 1967, and had it until about November of that year. Perviously he had used other cameras for his documentary as well. I have seen this footage and scanned frames from it, and found markedly different camera ID aperture shapes from the K-100. But the lens on Roger's camera on Oct. 1967 does not have to be the one he rented five months before. As we all know, it's a C mount lens type camera, and there are lots of C mount lenses one could put on the camera, and changing from one to another is a matter of a minute or so. SO we cannot make any assumption what lens was on the camera that day, from a rental document of five months before. There is no documentation about most of Roger's rentals during the year of 1967, when he filmed with several types of camera, none of which was owned by him. So not having documentation about getting another lens for the K-100 is well within the range of plausability. We are not talking about Birns & Sawyer, Mark Armstead, or Alan Gordon Ent. here, as a rental house. We are talking about some local camera rental place in Washington state, 42 years ago. Documentation is questionable at its very best. That is why I am trying to resolve lens issues by sterio-photogrammetry technology. Second, the camera I keep trying to identify in this thread is not Roger's film and not shot with a K-100, and is not a rental camera. It is either one owned by John Green, or another John had access to and it is his statement that it's a Keystone K-50, but i an trying to verify that by Camera ID Markings if I can see what they look like on the Keystone. Bill

Tom: "You don't want to scan too clear of a copy or the original because in that Bigfoot is smoking a cigarette and holding a beer. Plus you can see the stitching on the costume. Better to keep it blurry. And didn't the original have something like 17 edits in it? And what about the feet. Nobody wants to address that. " You just don't want to give up, do you. I noted above I have 6K scanned Tiffs of ten frames from a true first gen master contact printed version, at remarkable clarity. More may be coming. The film, even the camera original, couldn't resolve "stitching" in a costume for a full body figure never larger than 1.5mm in image size in a frame. That is a laughable myth, that such detail can be seen, and I'm surprized you are buying into it. And in any fur costume, the stitching is on the "Inside". The fur is on the outside. There is no proof the original has any edits in it. I have scanned resource of what edits look like, both glue and tape spliced edits and no one has ever shown proof that there is any actual edit in the film. This is just more Youtube Academy of Science rumor. What about the feet? At their very largest, they are never more than 10 lines of resolution in total size, and the foot is reported to be 14.5" long. That's 1.5" for each line of resolution. And you think any difinitive evaluation can be made of a foot like shape that is composed of only ten lines of resolution in it's very best film image version, and anything you are looking at is at least 2 generations removed from that? Then you have the motion blur, because with a bipedal figure walking, the feet are among the fastest moving parts of the body, the most suspetable to motion blur, and that motion blur has never been properly studied in regard to the feet. That's why I never debate the feet. You are not bringing any useful knowledge to this discussion, just recycling the junk rumors that abound and do not hold up to any critical analysis or have any real proof to back then up. Can you spare us any more junk rumors passed off as "facts", please. Bill

Karl: I do not dispute your knowledge of cinematography. I am simply pointing out that you are making erronious assumptions about my work on this specific film. Every step of copying a film reduces resolution and detail (as well as likely building up contrast), when the film is copied to the same size stock. Agreed. A 4th gen copy on 16mm stock is certainly a poor copy, agreed. But it still has image data, and if that image data included banding marks on a tree which vertically occupies more than half the frame, we can still reliably measure those banding marks on that tree, in relation to total frame height, and get some kind of measurement with a margin of error of maybe 1-2% If you filmed an old Volkswagen Beetle well enough to read its license plate, on the camera original, after a 4th gen copy, you might lose the ability to read the license plate numbers but you can still tell it's a VW Bug, and not a Corvette. Some image data is still reliable, even after copying, for larger objects, and so I only use the 3rd or 4th gen copies of this film for gross objects (like the larger trees and logs) for scaling and position reference. But I am continuing to work toward getting access to far better versions, in true full frame format, so I can phase out the scan of the more copied version I now have. Among the image material I have collected over the last year and a half, there is much of it which is the finest visual quality a Kodachrome II film stock can deliver, and i can claerly see detail like small branches at about 200 feet away, with diameters at about one line of resolution, and they are clearly identifiable. So I am simply saying there is more quality image data in the film research materials (collectively) than you may be aware of, and i hope you will not judge the quality of material you have not personally inspected. As I said, one of my goals is to actually clear up the whole issue of how much image quality is available in various copies or forms of this film, so people can go more easily to the good stuff and not mistake the bad stuff for the good. I think that is a worthy goal for any film which is debated as much as this one has been for 42 years. Also, I don't know why you referenced a rental house. I haven't discussed such, as much as I recall. The camera I am trying to ID is not a rental camera. Bill

Anthony: I guess you were posting as I was writing. The K-100 camera is confirmed as the actual camera used originally by the camera identification marks both on a true first generation contact print, and with recent filming tests with a k-100. it was definitely not a Bolex used by patterson for the famous Bluff Creek footage,, although he may have used a Bolex for other filming of the documentary he was working on all that year. Bill

Karl: Why are you speaking with such authority on matters you are merely assuming and in some cases are assuming incorrectly. 1. You have not seen frames from the film at varying copy generation levels, so you cannot appraise the quality of any copy I am referencing. I have 30 GB or more of data collected thus far, including 6K scans of ten frames from a true first generation contact printed copy among that inventory and I can see clearly what is lost and what remains intact as far as image data goes, among the varied levels of copying. You probably do not know the difference between the zoomed in version and a full frame version (in so far as why the full frame version has useful data), or the difference between the Cibachromes and the Noll images, the Beckjord images, Anything you see on Youtube is visual junk, and so far below the actual quality of the film as to be laughable. 2. You are confusing which copies are from film stock and which are from DVD format. I did not take my 4K scan from a DVD version. 3. You are clearly unaware of what I am looking at in the various film frames I am examining, so you cannot appraise the degree of which the image data in the frame is reliable, or what the margin of error may be. In the 4k scans, I am primarily looking at banding marks on trees, and landscape object positions, both of which are still very clear on that copy. 4. You are confusing my interest in the camera aperture of the example I posted herein with the K-100, which I have excellent camera aperture data on already, as to both dimension and shape, with ID marker. I have all the positive ID info I need on the K-100, both single lens and three lens turret models. I am trying to ID the Keystone K-50 magazine camera's ID aperture markings in my requets here. I would have hoped by now that you might see I am trying to approach this thing from a rational and well reasoned, cautious manner, with consideration for the technical realities and some realistic basis of understanding about photography and cinematography. My request for information in this forum is every bit as reasonable and factual as anyone elses, and if you feel its a waste of time, don't read it or post to it. But please do not judge for others who may want to continue posting information. I am also a realist. My analysis of this film is based on realistic apparaisal of the film image data, with consideration for what data endures through the copying process and what data does not. That is actually one issue I am perhaps the first to actually study in a systematic way. People before me simply assumed, as you are doing, with no factual analysis, what image quality is or is not present, and you judge very poor examples (like the YouTube junk) as if it were as good as it gets, when it is a mere fraction of the true image quality and image data that exists. So please lighten up. Bill

Karl: I am using many different image resources, the 4K scan simply being one of them. I continue to look for opportunities to obtain better material, and that has been one of my main objectives, to both get better material and grade material objectively as to its merit or reliability in analysis. I have been advised many times over the last year and a half that I am wasting my time, and I have ceased to pay attention to that advice, because I believe that I am in fact adding to the understanding of the film, and that is not a waste of time. The film, if nothing else, is a unique entity that has captivated people the world over, and seperating fact from misconception for such a curtural icon has merit as an endeavor for one's time. . So it is with no disrespect to you that I choose not to take your advice. Bill

John: "Bill do you have the 2K scanned 16mm first generation footage posted somewhere for us to see what you are seeing? " The best version of the film available to general public is on the Legend Meets Science TV Special DVD, in the Special Features section. The 4K scan of the film I did in February was from a third (maybe fourth) generation copy in John Green's possession, and I did the scan to get a close to true full frame copy for an attempt at a photogrammetry analysis to build a 3D digital model of the Bluff Creek site. This scan was not any better in terms of showing the film's subject that the LMS DVD material shows. The scan was valuable to me, because the LMS footage is a version that was zoomed in on an optical printer, and thus is not full frame and didn't show the landscape objects sufficiently to do the photogrammetry analysis. So this 4K scan served that purpose, moreso than to serve as analysis of the film's subject directly. There is a wealth of film frame still material already widely circulated, but much of it is plagued by copy degradation, plus false detail induced by marco photography of individual frames (including 12 done by the Cibachrome process) which actually introduced a false sense of finer grain and detail which confuses the analysis. One of my current areas of analysis is to try and sort out what detail is in fact reliable, and which stills from the film are indeed the truest in terms of what was captured in the camera original. Karl: "Also, why didn't he keep following him?" On the behavior of the cameraman, Roger Patterson, there is a lot of discussion about what he did or should have done, but I personally don't like to participate in such discussions, preferring to stay with the more factual issues for now. "Back on topic though, why isn't the original negative or reversal original available? Everything seems to be from bad dupes of the original." The generally described explanation of the camera original is that it was included in a business venture, during a time when Roger was trying to publicize the film and show it in theaters, and this business venture apparently failed, its assets sold off in an auction. The camera original film was reportedly sold among those assets and now is reportedly in the possession of lawyers in Florida, representing the owner whom nobody has publicly identified. Occasionally there is talk of somebody trying to re-acquire the film for study but the stories generally report the asking price is "outrageous". I cannot confirm the truth of any of this, just saying this is what I have heard from multiple sources who have been interested in the film camera original for many years. I, like many others, would like to see this original, but it does not appear likely I ever will. I am currently doing research on the various copies and still frames, to try and sort out a genealogy of the copies, and see what may be the most reliable version for analysis. There is more work to be done. Bill

Patrick: Thank you for the link. I do have the ASC Manual, second edition, and it also has a fine list of lenses and their MFG (Cine Lens List, page 236-240), but this link you provided does compliment the Manual with additional material. Bill

Karl: It was a still from a Sony HD Video camcorder, trying to autofocus as best it could. I will try to replace it with a better digital still and macro lens. Bill

Hunter: Could you explain what file format you put into the software for the grain reduction? Is it a video file, like a .avi or .mov or could it be a numberd image sequence to be assembled into a video file? Thanks, Bill

Through the vast information in this forum, I learned about 16mm film camera identification marks, and found a chart from the American Cinematographers' Handbook and Reference Guide, 1947, showing these marks for each make of camera. The chart is shown in this thread, Post #3 http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=36987 But I, and others, have been searching in vain for more recent charts showing the Camera ID Marks for cameras of the 50's and 60's, to no avail so far. It would seem such updated charts don't exist. But I, like some of you, do have old 16mm cameras, and so I would like to encourage those of you who have any such camera to post a photo of the camera aperture plate, showing it's camera ID shape. In the spirit of this goal, I am posting a photo of one old camera I personally own, a Cine Kodak Magazine 16A camera. I would welcome any photo of a 16mm camera's aperture shape, with a positive ID of the camera and model, but I personally am most interested to see any of the B&H, Revere, Keystone, and other Kodak models in the magazine camera group. Perhaps we can collectively make a new chart of Camera ID Marks that will be a valuable reference for ourselves and others. Thanks, Bill

Tom: "Bill, you're wasting your time and money. Can you say with a straight face that this creature on the film doesn't look exactly like a human in a monkey suit?" Yes, I can say that with a straight face, and absolute confidence, because I wroked professionally for nearly 40 years as a makeup effects artist, and made many ape suits, fur costumes, ape masks, and the like. I know what can be done, and what can't. I started in 1967 and know the fur and suit technologies of the time. That said, I must ask why you are so determined to discourage me from "wasting my time and money", as you say. This is perhaps your fourth or fifth post trying to tell me to give up my research. You seem genuinely bothered by this very discussion, and leave me no alternative but to say, simply and directly, that I do not intent to follow your advice. This is my last divergence from the thread topic and discussion goals I specified when I started this thread. I will ignore any further posts which are off topic, (which is cameras, lenses, and camera identification marks). I plan to continue this research, and continue to try and learn more factual matters about this most curious film. Bill

Karl: Photogrammetry technology has the potential to solve a lens focal length if there is enough images from differeing camera locations to triangluate the various objects across the varied camera positions. From my study thus far, there appears to be a sufficient number of camera positions to accomplish this. Also the prints of the film are being studied to determine which is most faithful to the camera original, and that should be suffifiecntly relaible for a photogrammetry analysis, although i do acknowledge that there is debate on this question of what constitutes "sufficiently reliable". So I consider it worth a try to find these potential solutions. Bill

Karl: I am not attacking you or anything you say. I won't speak for the behavior of others, but my sole intent in this forum is to ask for, or provide factual information about camera/lens related subjects. The film in question is like a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle, and many of the pieces are not yet connected into a relaible larger image. The puzzle has not been solved, although individuals certainly have a right to their opinions of the solution. I am simply trying to clear up some of the missing or minunderstood pieces of this puzzle, in a factual and verifiable way. Bill

Charles: The film I am trying to ID is definitely Kodak, because I personally scanned the camera original and it has the "Kodak Safety Film" latent image, on it. And the info contributed by Charlie Peich showing the difference betwen the Kodak and the Ansco cartridge apertures also verifies the Kodak type as matching the film frame in question. So the remaining question for me personally is trying to ID the camera aperture marking of a Keystone K-50 magazine camera, to see if that supports or excludes the Keystone as having taken the film frame I posted. But if there are other carridges, IDing them would be approprite simply for being thorough in this point of analysis. Chris I thank you also for your comment. I suppose it would be appropriate for me to explain a bit more about the context of this research, in other words, what would it prove. The Patterson/Gimlin film is, if nothing else a rather unique piece of film history. And as Patrick noted, documentaries about it have been subjected to a lot of pseudo-science passed off as analysis. The only way to get rid of pseudo-science is to replace it with good science and responsible research. If an iconic film, which has been subjected to a lot of pseude-scientific discussion, can be re-evaluated with a much more responsible method and consideration, than maybe the documentary people will take note and make other types of documentaries with better sceince and responsible methods. Now this camera and lens thing I'm trying to sort out does not directly prove anything about the subject of the film. Any factual determinations I may find through this are just as much facts for people to argue the film is hoaxed, as facts for people to argue the film is not hoaxed. They are facts all can rely upon, as a foundation for further discussion. The K-100 reported to have been used for filming the original film in 1967 was reported to have a 25mm Ektar lens on it, the standard issue of that camera, in its single lens configuration. But in my attempt to make a digital model of the Bluff Creek Site, (using 12 years of experience in 3D computer graphics work, including archaeological visualizations), the digital model simply would not solve with a 25mm lens specification, while a 15mm lens specification solved quickly and splendidly. And Kodak makes a 15mm Ektar lens with companion viewfinder lens, so it is a plausible option for the original filming. That is persuasive enough for me to simply ask, could it be a 15mm lens on the K-100 instead of the 25mm? I am trying to answer that question. Now the second film I refer to, John Green's filming of Jim McClarin (one frame shown in this thread) was made the following summer in 1968, and the attempt was to have a man walk the same path so the films could be compared. And Jim McClarin, reportedly about 6' 5" (with shoes) is fairly similar to the subject in the Patterson film in terms of apparent height. What I noticed in comparing the two frames from the two films, was Green's film shows the distant background trees as scaling about the same in image size on film, while the main foreground log does not scale as large at all. Now, as much as i know about cinematography, that is the likely result of Green being farther away from the camera position of Patterson, which makes everything smaller, the foreground objects shrinking more than background objects, but with a slightly longer lens focal length, the background object sizes were restored to comparative size while the foreground objects were still too small. So I concluded Green was about 10' further back than Patterson's filming position, and Green had a lens of a focal length maybe 1 or 2 mm longer in effective focal length. Now Green's own testimony is that he used the Keystone camera and a 1" Cine Raptor lens on it (and he still has the camera today). So I have a digital model, which works quite splendidly with a 15mm specification, but fails to solve with a 25mm specification, and a second filming that the lens should be off by only 1 or 2mm but is reported to be a 25mm (1"). Something is seriously wrong. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm trying to find out. If the camera identification marks on the Keystone camera do not match what's in the scanned Green footage, than that disqualifies the Keystone and its 25mm lens. If it is confirmed that Green's camera has a 25mm lens and it is a good one, on spec in effective focal length, then Patterson's lens should be about 23mm, but that's way off spec for the Cine Ektar 25mm lens I tests and found only 2% off spec (22.65 degrees horizontal angle of view, compared to the ASC Manual stated spec on 23.0 degrees HAOV), not enough to account for the discrepancy. And my digital model still fails to solve with a 25mm spec. Known distances and measures from the site also do not compute in a rational way with a 25mm spec. So I have this curious mystery I am trying to solve, using responsible science and applied optics, and i am trying to sort out issues of cameras and lenses and camera identifications relying on facts, documentation, real proof, not pseudo-science. I have also done some studies just trying to clear up what constitutes "full frame" since each camera is apparently a bit different, and some studies about the film's genealogy and copying history, because many flawed arguments are based on material in copies induced by the copy process, so resolving what's a true representation of the original camera film, and identifying what is an alteration made by copying, would also eliminate false arguments based on artifacts, not true film image content. So if factual issues can be cleared up, regardless of whether you wish to argue for the film being hoaxed or not, at least you will be argumeng from a factual foundation instead of arguing about false data. And if this search for foundation facts can be done in a responsible way, it may encourage more responsible analysis of controversial films and photogrpahs, and not let pseudo-scientific methods prevail. That's the goal, pure and simple. Find factual answers to specific questions. Bill

Tom: "It's too late. I think it's rather funny that we are even discussing Bigfoot on a cinematography forum just because it was shot on 16mm." The only people I see talking about Bigfoot and ape suits are people here who apparently cannot read the subtopic of this thread, which is "camera and lens research questions I have encountered". Since you think talking about this is "funny", and you are one of the people derailing this thread off of it's stated topic to discuss the "funny stuff", then you must think your own behavior is funny. Wouldn't you rather take your time and contribute to a thread where you think your contribution is respectable, knowledgeable, and meritorious, instead of funny. Patrick: " I get irritated (from a purely photographic perspective) with the dumptruck-loads of pseudo-science surrounding the particular chunk of film that Bill is referring to (Discovery Channel, ugh), so it's kind of refreshing to see someone making the effort to at least look into that basic aspect of it." Thank you for this observation. It is precisely because so much "pseudo-science" has been mis-applied to this film that I am trying to do factual research on foundation issues and topics that might facilitate some factual determination down the line. And as an indication of my interest in going to factual sources where there is no bias or pre-disposition to agree with me, I came to this forum precisely because it is a respectful repository of cinematography and film camera expertise. I did not go into this film research looking for discrepancies of filming camera lenses, but once the issue came to my attention, I felt it deserves a factual and conclusive analysis. By helping to establish foundation questions resolved with good scientific and responsible research methods, maybe we can get the pseudo-science out of the picture, and that would benefit all, I believe, regardless of what final determination is made about the content of this film. Bill

Charlie: Thanks for pointing that out. Of the posting by the person who started the thread, one of the photos(the right film edge example in the posted photo) is the film frame Iscanned on Feb. 1 this year, so it is the same film (maybe a different specific scan from that footage) and thus likely is my scan as the source. And the question is likely a derivitive of my question of the edge shape, from another forum on the same issue. Bill

Gentlemen: I am here in this forum asking legitimate questions about respectful issues of cinematography, questions about cameras, lenses, camera identification marks, and such. I will continue to do so. Bill

Because of Charlie's fine contribution, above, it seems that I've discovered something quite unexpected. I have a Cine Kodak magazine camera myself, and I pulled the aperture plate out to spec it with a micrometer, and the height measured out at 0.320", even though 16mm pulldown is 0.300". So that suggested the vertical masking of the exposure comes from the magazine's aperture plate, which as best I can tell from Charlie's images, is slightly under 0.300" (looking like the ASC spec of 0.292" for image frame height). But the magazine aperture is way too wide, probably allowing for for the camera identification marks to show through. So it would appear that the image on film is defined vertically by the magazine aperture, while being defined on the horizontal by the camera's aperture plate. If so, it's a truly curious design concept. And his posting of a kodak cartridge as compared to an Ansco cartridge does support the film frame I'm trying to ID as being a Kodak film. Now, i still need to see a Keystone K-50 camera aperture plate, to see it's camera identification mark shape in the plate, and if by chance, anybody here has such a camera, and could post a photo of the camera aperture plate in close up, I would be most appreciative. Thank you. Bill

Tom: It is not my intention to debate that here. I respect that each person is entitled to their opinion of what's in the film. In the matter of this effort of mine, I am confident it is a worthy matter to investigate further. Bill

Charlie: I am presuming the magazines shown are in your possession. Any chance you could take a micrometer and measure out a vertical and horizontal measurement for reference. I tried scaling one of the images up and using a 0.300" perf to perf dimension (bottom of perf to bottom of next perf) and then scaled a width, and got a width perf to perf inside dimension that seemed a bit wider than ASC film stock spec chart. So i couldn't scale the image up reliably to compare with my film frame scan photo. It would seem to me the wide notch area is intended to allow for a camera identification mark in the actual camera aperture to show through. This is a presumption for the moment. I don't know that for a fact, but it seems logical. Anyway, if it isn't imposing to ask the measurements of the magazine window opening, I thank you in advance for providing same. Bill

Charlie: Thank you. The images are very helpful Bill

Patrick: "So I'm kind of curious why this is so important-" (Your question in reference to my goal of identifying the camera which took the frame shown above in this thread) The main goal is a forensic analysis of the filming site, including a 3D computer model of the location, and identifying camera positions for all the known filming examples. To accomplish same, identifying the camera used for the film frame above may help determine the lens options, as well as clear up discrepancies between recollections of the make of camera used and mechanical certainty of camera ID. Why this all is worthy of discussion is that there are some major optical and position discrepancies (between the original film camera and this recreation filming camera) which need to be cleared up. If that is done, the classic lens optics formula (subject's image height, divided by lens focal length, equals actual subject height divided by distance from subject to camera) may allow us to solve for the original film subject's height, and that height may be well outside human norm. So I feel it is a question well deserving of a factual answer determined by the science of optics and technology of cinematography. Bill

Charles: "The outline of the frame may have been reduced by the mask in the magazine as well as the camera." I do have a Cine Kodak magazine 16 camera i purchased for my research, but I don't have an actual magazine to put in it, but from the camera, it appears that the combination of camera aperture plate and the magazine together form the film gate, and assuming that is so, then only the camera structure is in front of the film, and would impact on the exposure pattern formed on the film. Not having a magazine, i can't tell what you mean by the "mask in the magazine" but it seems all magzine structure would be behind the film, and thus would not mask the exposure pattern. Bill