Jump to content
Bill Munns

Researching the famous Patterson bigfoot film

Recommended Posts

John:

 

Thank you for your encouragement about keeping this thread on topic.

 

Karl:

 

You are making assumptions about the imagery and film quality even though you have not seen the actual material in it's best form, as i have. So I know there actually is substantial image data worthy of analysis, which may lead to a new understanding of what we see in that film.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John: I'll thank you not to apologize on my behalf any more.

 

...

 

Despite my attempts at humor, I have tried to provide as much information as possible to the conversation.

 

Ya ever wonder if that is why people feel compelled to apologize for you ? Either that or maybe he wasn't apologizing for you in the first case ?

 

Just wondering ... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question for anybody who knows more about 16mm Kodachrome II film resolution.

 

I have a composite scan (actually the four corners scanned at 4K with overlap in the middle, and the four scans assembled into the composite scan image) of a 4" x 5" Kodak made transparancy of one frame from the camera original of the Patterson film, and I scanned this transparancy so the full frame width came out at about 7000 pixels wide.

 

On it, I can easily see clear plant twigs or stems in the landscape which are between 3 and 4 pixels wide, in this image. So it appears I'm looking at detail that's about 1/2000th of frame width, or about 0.0002" wide in actual measured size of the image on film, for the camera original.

 

Just wondering how this compares with the film stock's rated resolution.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi-

 

I think you'll find K-II resolution stated at around 63 lpmm, and that's under optimal lab test conditions.

 

To put things in one kind of perspective, I had some 16mm Kodachrome out awhile back and was looking at some frames (a seagull, not Bigfoot) sitting still on a piling, shot with a tripod mounted bolex and switars, and I could see just about everything detail-wise the emulsion had to offer with a 8x loupe.

 

And that was a camera original, shot with a good lens in good light on a tripod of a static subject, not a hand-held, moving subject on a dupe, or dupe of a dupe of what is probably the worst stock ever for duping; kodachrome (or kodachrome-II, if that's what the original was.)

 

Not to be a party pooper, (and not picking on your post, Bill) but it's hard to take too seriously proclamations about the minute details people are finding on that particular film.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi-

 

I think you'll find K-II resolution stated at around 63 lpmm, and that's under optimal lab test conditions.

 

To put things in one kind of perspective, I had some 16mm Kodachrome out awhile back and was looking at some frames (a seagull, not Bigfoot) sitting still on a piling, shot with a tripod mounted bolex and switars, and I could see just about everything detail-wise the emulsion had to offer with a 8x loupe.

 

So, at 7.5x10mm, at 8x, that'll give you roughly 60x80mm (2-2/5x3-1/5") of high-resolution imagery, upon magnification, before the image falls apart. That's first-generation.

 

As a fellow Kodachrome shooter, Patrick, the emulsion (was) incredible to work with.

 

 

But God didn't make it. It isn't divested with magical properties. Just because this film is shot on 16mm doesn't give it some sort of claim to fame. They shot autopsy footage, probably concentration camp footage on film as sharp as this. They shot porn n K-II, too.

 

I just don't get the credibility that shooting with an expensive camera and sharp film gives this poorly photographed footage. I could do a better job trashed than Patterson did. Terrible, shameful footage, even for an amateur.

 

 

And, after four generations, it is probably less sharp than 200T S8 neg they sell now. To put it in modern terms, this film has worse resolution than MiniDV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, repeating with illustration:

 

I have a composite scan (actually the four corners scanned at 4K with overlap in the middle, and the four scans assembled into the composite scan image) of a 4" x 5" Kodak made transparancy of one frame from the camera original of the Patterson film, and I scanned this transparancy so the full frame width came out to 7552 pixels wide (as shown)

 

On it, I can easily see clear plant twigs or stems in the landscape which are between 3 and 4 pixels wide, in this image. So it appears I'm looking at detail that's about 1/2000th of frame width, or about 0.0002" wide in actual measured size of the image on film, for the camera original.

 

The image shows the full frame reduced 20 times from what's in my computer now (top image), and the red square highlights the area enlarged in the second image, and the red square in that second image shows the final enlargement in the bottom image, which is actual image size of my scan for that portion. There is a solid vertical white line which is 3 pixels wide, as a reference.

 

So those twigs are between 3 and 4 pixels wide in parts, and that's 1/2000th of the frame image width.

 

These twigs are in frame after frame, film version after film version, (to varying degrees, depending on the copy generation) so they are not an artifact induced by any copying process. The Kodachrome II film stock camera original resolved them.

 

post-41718-1246426993.jpg

 

Now if this is just a grainy, out of focus, amateur photo hack job by a cowboy with a amateur camera and a poor lens, please show me what a pro can do better with a fine camera, a great lens, and far more cinematography skill.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill

 

 

NOTE:

 

I had to delete a photo from earlier in this thread so the system would allow me to upload this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1st of all- who cares if it is bigfoot or not, Bill Munns is asking for your help and you should give it to him, if you so choose, regardless of whether you think it is a costume or a living beast.

 

 

Bill Munns,

 

Why does it matter what lens this second film you are referring to is shot on? It seems that an overlay would tell you if they used the same lens or not. I'm just a prop guy, so I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew:

 

"Why does it matter what lens this second film you are referring to is shot on? It seems that an overlay would tell you if they used the same lens or not. I'm just a prop guy, so I could be wrong."

 

The second filming (of Jim MacClarin by John Green) appears to be taken from a position slightly farther back (maybe 10 feet back) and seems on preliminary optical analysis to be usinga lens 1 or 2 mm longer in focal length than the original filming camera and lens. So making some determinations about the lens in the second filming may clear up issues of the lens in the original filming.

 

Knowing the lens allows for the prospect of using an optical formula from the ASC Manual to calculate the filmed subject's height, because the lens focal length is one of three numbers put into the formula to solve for subject height.

 

Given there are many discrepancies in the lens issue at present, any method which helps clear this up is of value. And so considering ways to determine the second filming lens may clear up the first filming lens.

 

That's the intention, or should I say, the hope.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.history.com/content/monsterquest/full-schedule

 

MonsterQuest : Critical Evidence Airs on Wednesday July 08 09:00 PM

 

Frightening encounters with the legendary monster known as Sasquatch are reported in almost every state of America. These run-ins with terrifying upright hairy beasts date back centuries and sightings number in the thousands. Despite the many Sasquatch reports, skeptics point to the lack of evidence as compelling reason for the creature being merely a myth. Now, however, new analysis of the best existing evidence could finally uncover proof of this elusive beast. A special investigation gathers together the critical evidence--from startling videos to tracks, prints and sighting maps. State of the art analysis may finally give definitive proof that Sasquatch is among us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    The Original Slider



    Paralinx LLC



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Just Cinema Gear



    Serious Gear



    G-Force Grips



    FJS International



    Wooden Camera



    Abel Cine



    Visual Products



    Glidecam



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    CineLab



    Ritter Battery



    Tai Audio



    Metropolis Post


    Cinematography Books and Gear
×
×
  • Create New...