Green/MacLarin Filming Comparison -
After the actual PG film was taken, researcher John Green went to the site and a man identified
as Jim MacLarin was instructed to walk through the estimated subject path while John filmed this experiment. MacLarin's height is
known, and so photographic comparisons between him and the subject of the PG Film have been made, to try and determine PG Film subject
height.
However, there are variables to this experiment which have not been fully accounted for.
1. A photo of the PG Film,
such as F352, compared to a scan at full frame of John Green's film, shows unmistakable proportional differences between foreground
and background object proportion, leading to the firm conclusion that John Green's camera must be further back than Roger Paterson's
camera was. So subject to camera distance is different, by about 10' based on the current site model analysis. See the site measuring
notes for John's position vs Roger's.
2. - John's camera lens was slightly longer in focal length than Roger's 15mm lens, again
validated by the discrepancies of foreground and background proportion, and object size in frame.
3. - John's camera is being
held higher than Roger's camera, another variable introduced to this comparison and not properly addressed.
4. - Finally, we
cannot certify either that MacLarin is in the exact location of the PG Film subject, not can we certify that if he were, that the
ground would be the same elevation. Rain could have washed earth away eroding it by a few inches, or sediment could have been deposited
raising the elevation. This is impossible to determine, yet it remains a factor or variable which could affect outcome.
So we
have four variables which will affect the outcome of any height comparison, and as far as I can determine, no one has fully analyzed
these variables and determined what impact they may have in the height comparison. With so many variables unaccounted for, this method
similarly cannot make any reliable determination, until such time as these variables are factored into the analysis with documentation.
Both
of these issues will continue to be studied and a subsequent release of my report will document this analysis in detail, with appropriate
documentation.
Other Height Analysis Methods and Concerns of their Lack of Accuracy:
The Foot as Ruler - Basically, in frame 061 and 072 (both
of which were copied as Cibachromes and are widely distributed among researchers) one of the subject's feet is bent back so the sole
appears to be full on view to camera. This apparent foot is then measured and estimated to be 14.5" because that is the stated measurement
of footprints taken from the site. This measurement is then compared to apparent subject height and the calculation is made.
Proponents
of this theory argue for its reliability, but my analysis of the method has yielded the following concerns which question its accuracy:
1. - Film Resolution, since the foot being measured is only about 10 lines of resolution, so an error of one line of resolution
is 1 1/5 inches. That would calculate to 7.5" or more in added full body height.
2. - Motion Blur, because the foot is
in motion greater than the body (the foot and the hand are the two fastest moving objects on the body during a walk cycle) and the
foot measurement of toe to heel is on the line of motion, meaning the motion can easily (in fact likely will) expand the apparent
size. So the actual foot is almost assuredly shorter in length. You may think, because the toes seem so sharp (in F061, for example)
that there is no blur, but the toes are below one line of resolution in size, so the apparent sharpness is likely a result of the
next point, below.
3. - The Cibachrome Print everybody uses to measure the foot from has a false level of detail introduced
by the Cibachrome photography process. In effect, it creates detail which was not actually in the original camera master Patterson
took, which means it may (emphasis on "MAY" not proven "IS") have introduced false detail.
4. - Sole/Heel Color. There
apparently is pale skin color going up the back of the heel, in frames that immediately follow the studied ones, and from the view
of the foot, it may be that some of what is presumed to be sole of foot is actually heel behind the foot, and thus doesn't count as
measurable foot base. The lack of resolution and false detail introduced by the Cibachrome duping may prevent us from determining
this one way or another. If some is the heel back, that may shave another inch off the foot length. (that would add 5.5" to 6" to
body height)
Finally, the body is hunched over considerably in the photo, and no one has yet established a fully reliable way
to calculate how far bent over the subject actually is, which also makes the body height calculation suspect.
So far, no one
has effectively studied these elements, with actual filming tests, so far as I know.
A more reliable way to measure the body
is using a full body measurement, first because it is a larger measurement in proportion to grain or resolution lines (larger image
means less error) and because that measurement is not affected by walking motion blur, because the walking motion blur for the body
is lateral (side to side) and the measurement is vertical (head to toe) so blur along the lateral vector does not skew the measure
of a vertical dimension.
So the foot as "ruler" to scale the body height is potentially flawed by these considerations, and I
have not seen any analysis that uses the foot measure as the "ruler" which fully and effectively addressed these other factors. With
so many variables unaccounted for, this method cannot make any reliable determination, until such time as these variables are factored
into the analysis with documentation.