[Lyndon]

Hi Sweaty,

Glad you found the X-Creatures programme of some use. As I said the Patty/McClarin matchup was the only real plus point of the show. Well that and the fact that the orange furball recreation looked so pathetic, including the way it walked. :hysterical:

In that still the top of Patty's head looks a good 3 inches higher than McClarin's head. Considering he was 6ft 6inches (6ft 5 inches plus boots I believe, which are on average around an inch) then that makes Patty around 6ft 9 inches. Then factor in her bent posture and we might be looking at 7ft or more for a standing height. Walking height is of course different.

[Washingtonian]

SweatyYeti, on 05 February 2010 - 01:35 AM, said:

Different lenses create a different relationship between the 'lengths of background and foreground objects', within the picture....so, therefore...regardless of how you scale any two images, you can't get the objects within them to all match-up.

Sweaty, you have described exactly the problem that Bill Munns describes in his work.

Just a side note here - I want to be very careful here because it is at points such as this that the conversation often breaks down into, shall we say - unwanted territory.

Many assumptions are made when comparing the PGF to John Green's film of Jim McClarin. When I did some research on John's filming I found something that cleared up some of the questions in my mind and I posted them here.

Looking at the pictures that are posted of the truck, with my limited knowledge of photography, I can see some problems in using them as a comparison with one another for the purpose of object size. There is a difference in the distance between the camera and the truck in the two photos that are marked 15mm and 24mm. In fact the camera position in relation to the truck laterally is also different.

I have given some thought to doing my own comparison between a 15mm and 25mm lens, but there are several variables that I run into problems with. The first of which is the film size. Film size determines what is used as a 'normal' lens. Simply put, a 15mm lens for 16mm film is not going to be comparable to a 15mm lens for 35mm film. Add to that the fact that the digital camera I have does not have an image collection microchip (the digital equivalent of film size) that is equal to either 16mm film size or 35mm film size. So to do such an experiment with a better level of comparison one would have to - - - -

1. Determine more closely which focal lengths should be used for that particular camera that would equal a 15mm and a 25mm lens for a 16mm camera.

2. Determine what distances should be used that would give an image of an object the same height as Mr. Mclarin equal height in the images from the smaller focal length lens and the larger focal length lens. Which begs that question - if the same distance is used for both lenses, what is the difference in the height of the same object if measured in the image or more precisely on the film/capture chip? If different distances are used for each lens, for the purpose of aligning everything possible in the view finder, how much does the object change in height from one distance to the other if measured in the image or more precisely on the film/capture chip?

[SweatyYeti]

Lyndon, on 06 February 2010 - 09:24 AM, said:

Hi Sweaty,

Glad you found the X-Creatures programme of some use. As I said the Patty/McClarin matchup was the only real plus point of the show. Well that and the fact that the orange furball recreation looked so pathetic, including the way it walked. :hysterical:

Along the lines of the BBC joke suit......you know the old saying, Lyndon......"A picture is worth a thousand words".....well, some pictures are worth a thousand laughs...:D...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Gorilla%20Suits/BlevinsPattySuit3B.jpg


Note the attention to detail....:hysterical:....the protruding butt....the breasts....the extra-long arms....the stunning realism. :wacko:


Here's something I recently posted on the JERK forum....


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Gorilla%20Suits/PattyBlevins3.jpg


Bonus thousand...:)....(feet by "Minnetonka Bigfoot Supplies")...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Gorilla%20Suits/BadSuit2.jpg

Quote

In that still the top of Patty's head looks a good 3 inches higher than McClarin's head. Considering he was 6ft 6inches (6ft 5 inches plus boots I believe, which are on average around an inch) then that makes Patty around 6ft 9 inches. Then factor in her bent posture and we might be looking at 7ft or more for a standing height. Walking height is of course different.

That could be the case, Lyndon.....I plan on making more comparisons of Jim and Patty, in several different positions, in their walks....and seeing what the 'average' relative heights for them are.


Edited to add:

Go Saints!! :cheer:

This post has been edited by SweatyYeti: 07 February 2010 - 12:00 PM

[SweatyYeti]

Washingtonian, on 06 February 2010 - 10:42 PM, said:

Sweaty, you have described exactly the problem that Bill Munns describes in his work.

Just a side note here - I want to be very careful here because it is at points such as this that the conversation often breaks down into, shall we say - unwanted territory.

Many assumptions are made when comparing the PGF to John Green's film of Jim McClarin. When I did some research on John's filming I found something that cleared up some of the questions in my mind and I posted them here.

Looking at the pictures that are posted of the truck, with my limited knowledge of photography, I can see some problems in using them as a comparison with one another for the purpose of object size. There is a difference in the distance between the camera and the truck in the two photos that are marked 15mm and 24mm. In fact the camera position in relation to the truck laterally is also different.

I have given some thought to doing my own comparison between a 15mm and 25mm lens, but there are several variables that I run into problems with. The first of which is the film size. Film size determines what is used as a 'normal' lens. Simply put, a 15mm lens for 16mm film is not going to be comparable to a 15mm lens for 35mm film. Add to that the fact that the digital camera I have does not have an image collection microchip (the digital equivalent of film size) that is equal to either 16mm film size or 35mm film size. So to do such an experiment with a better level of comparison one would have to - - - -

1. Determine more closely which focal lengths should be used for that particular camera that would equal a 15mm and a 25mm lens for a 16mm camera.

2. Determine what distances should be used that would give an image of an object the same height as Mr. Mclarin equal height in the images from the smaller focal length lens and the larger focal length lens. Which begs that question - if the same distance is used for both lenses, what is the difference in the height of the same object if measured in the image or more precisely on the film/capture chip? If different distances are used for each lens, for the purpose of aligning everything possible in the view finder, how much does the object change in height from one distance to the other if measured in the image or more precisely on the film/capture chip?

That's a complex, and thoughtful post, there, Washingtonian. :)

I could ask you a bunch of questions about what you wrote...but, the main one would be...."Huh??" :huh:

I don't know much about 'camera optics', and the like.....but I'll spend some time thinking about what you wrote, and see what I can respond to, later.

Hopefully, Bill Munns can respond, and help out with this subject.


For now, regarding this statement of yours...

Quote

Simply put, a 15mm lens for 16mm film is not going to be comparable to a 15mm lens for 35mm film.

Do you know what the difference would be, in the picture.....between the 2 different film sizes, using the same lens, taken from the same distance?
Would it simply be that one picture will contain more of the same scene, and the other picture less.....with the lengths of all the objects in the scene exactly the same...in both images?

This shows what I mean....one picture being the full-size image...and the other picture represented by the square outline...

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty/PattyCameras1.jpg

That would be my guess, as to what the difference would be.

[Washingtonian]

SweatyYeti, on 07 February 2010 - 09:55 AM, said:

Do you know what the difference would be, in the picture.....between the 2 different film sizes, using the same lens, taken from the same distance?

Excellent question. While I have a basic working understanding of photography, I have turned to some of my photography references to get a clearer description.

For some reason a field of view of 50 degrees is used as the "normal human eye view" when determining what is to be considered as standard view for photography. I have heard several times that a 50 degree field of view is actually much smaller than what we are seeing with our eyes if you were to consider peripheral vision, however for photography it has more to do with the relationship of objects to one another being as close as possible to what we perceive with our vision, not the capturing of the entire human field of view.

So to answer your question - using the same sizes that were once considered standard film sizes (16mm and 35mm) If I were to use a 15mm focal length lens on a 16mm camera and a 15mm focal length lens on a 35mm camera and take pictures from the same camera location and distance of the same sized objects the difference in what would be captured on the films would differ greatly, much more than the illustration you posted.

A 15mm lens on a 35mm camera falls under what is called a "fisheye" lens. It will have a field of view of 180 degrees. Not to be confused with a simple horizontal or vertical field of view.

A 15mm lens on a 16mm camera is simply considered a wide angle lens, taking in more than a standard lens FOV but no where near the 180 degree fisheye effect on a 35mm camera. See here or here.

Also we need to remember that these numbers may vary from manufacturer to manufacturer when it comes to both lenses and cameras. As much as I would like for all of these to be consistent for all makes and models of cameras, they aren't.

For example, even though the 'rule' for identifying a standard lens says that the diagonal measurement of the image area of the film will give you the correct number for the focal length lens to use to capture the 50 degree FOV this 'rule' is not applied as a must. The diagonal measurement of 35mm film (which also may vary from camera to camera) in the information I have been using is 43mm, yet most camera manufacturers use a 50mm lens as a 'normal' lens for their 35mm cameras.

[BillMunns]

Okay, gang. Here's my shot at trying to help you sort out the lens thingy.

First, for any given focal length, the smaller the film format (size of image on film), the "longer" that focal length lens will be, in general theory.

So a 25mm on a super 8 is a telephoto, on a 16mm, it's a mid range general purose, on a 35mm film camera, it's a wide angle, and on a 35mm still camera, it's very wide angle.

But different camera types have different mounts, so you don't put a lens made for a 16mm camera on a 35mm camera (as one example.)

The operative numbers are Horizintal and vertical field of view you want to compare.

Using the ASC Manual, Vistavision (the 8 perf widescreen system) is pretty close to standard 35mm still photography, with a frame size of 1.485" by 0.991" (which is pretty close to the 35mm still size of 1.5" by 1" So i'll use that as compared to 16mm.

for 16mm lenses, a 25mm lens has a 23 degree horizontal angle of view. On the 35mm Vistavision or still camera, a 85mm lens has a 25 degree horizontal angle of view, so a 90mm would be about the same as a 25mm on Roger's camera for a 25mm lens.

for a 16mm camera, a 15mm lens has about a 37 degree horizontal angle of view, and the 35mm still would need a lens around a 55mm to match.

If your digitial still camera has a CCD sensor about 1.5" x 1", then that's about the same as real film, in terms of lens spec to get the angle.

Aside from this, there's so many apples and oranges (and a few kumquits) in your comparisons, I'd be hard pressed to sort the rest out.

But there may be another weird twist to this lens issue that is really off the wall, and i can't mention more until I really sort it out and back it up with a whole lot more documentation than I had for the first thing with the 15mm. But I'm determined that I'm not giving up on this issue until I really do have a true solution, once and for all. Might just take awhile, because of the costs of the tests and experiments.

Best thing anybody can do now is just take the time to really learn about lenses and film back sizes (the size of the image the particular camera generates.)

But if you have more specific questions, I'll try to explain what I can for you.

:)

Bill

[Washingtonian]

I did some more reading last night on this lens size/film size idea and found that everything changes if you jump from movie cameras to still cameras.

Bill, do you know why 35mm movie cameras do not capture the same image size that 35mm still cameras capture?

I suspect that it might be to give room for the sound track on the movie film and good projection fit onto a movie screen, but I am just guessing.

The more I read the more factors I find that make comparing Jim McClarin to the subject in the PGF more complex.

Bill, another question I've had from time to time is this, in working to solve the lens focal length question how important is it to use the full frame of the closest to the original film?

Also how important is it to use full frame images when comparing John Green's film to the PGF?

[BillMunns]

Washingtonian:

"Bill, do you know why 35mm movie cameras do not capture the same image size that 35mm still cameras capture?"

35mm film cameras run the film vertically, so the total width is 35mm and the image area is that dimension minus the sprocket holes on each side. The height is less than thr width. 35mm still camera film runs horizontally through the camera, so the 35mm dimension is the height, not the width. That way, the horizontal width can be longer, Only a specialized widescreen camera called a Vistavision ran the film through sideways and created a movie film frame approximating still photography proportions,



The more I read the more factors I find that make comparing Jim McClarin to the subject in the PGF more complex.

You are correct. The comparison betwnne the PF and McClarin footages is far more complex than most people assume. That's why it's taking me so long to clear up the issue.

Bill, another question I've had from time to time is this, in working to solve the lens focal length question how important is it to use the full frame of the closest to the original film?

Cropping an image screws up one of the input numbers (size of subject in the film) and can give a false calculation. If we use a cropped film image, we must know exactly how much it was cropped, essentially reconstructing the original film image dimensions.

Also how important is it to use full frame images when comparing John Green's film to the PGF?

Depends on what is being compared, but having true full frame of both does make any comparison more reliable.

Bill

This post has been edited by BillMunns: 08 February 2010 - 05:35 PM

[Washingtonian]

Quote

Cropping an image screws up one of the input numbers (size of subject in the film) and can give a false calculation.

So the formula used requires the size of the full frame and not just the size of an object within the image captured?

I can see where the size of an object within the image can easily be measured incorrectly if all measurements are not kept to the original size of the entire frame.

In your online report you show how much of the original image ended up being cropped out of a "full frame" copy of the PGF.

So if I were trying to use the lens formula and I didn't know that the "full frame" image that I had was not truly a full frame it would be the same as slightly enlarging the image the I am working with to make it fit the true full frame size and there by enlarging any object in the image? (If I am understanding things correctly).

[BillMunns]

Washingtonian:

Look at it this way. The formula requires a measurement of "Patty" (her image on film, actually) in fractions of an inch (or millimeters, if you was to run all four numbers metric).

The only way to know patty's measurement in a given frame (let's say F352) is to see what fraction of the true 0.300" the actual frame vertical height she is. So if my calculation is that Patty in that frame has a true standing height of 15.8% of the full vertical height, that will result in the 0.0474" true measurement of image size.

If you have a cropped image, how do you know what percentage to that 0.300" Patty is?

One way I did work out was to take scans of the film, and adjust the scan image size so the frame is a true 3000 pixels high, from the base of one frame image to the base of the next. That made each pixel 0.0001"
If Patty were cropped with no further image resizing, and she measured 474 pixels standing up (or the human poser figure matching her were that tall straightened up), that 474 pixles would equal the 0.0474".

But that only works if the scan is absolute true full frame, and scales to 3000 pixels vertical height, and not resized after that.

So true full frame on the actual physical film does count as an essential for accuracy in using the formula.

Bill

[SweatyYeti]

Thanks a lot, Bill, and Washingtonian....for contributing all that information. :)

I haven't been ignoring your posts...I've just been extremely busy, working.....two jobs.



Bill wrote:

Quote

But there may be another weird twist to this lens issue that is really off the wall, and i can't mention more until I really sort it out and back it up with a whole lot more documentation than I had for the first thing with the 15mm. But I'm determined that I'm not giving up on this issue until I really do have a true solution, once and for all. Might just take awhile, because of the costs of the tests and experiments.

Sounds interesting, Bill....:popc1: I'm looking forward to seeing exactly what that is....whenever you get your results.

[SweatyYeti]

Melissa, on 04 September 2010 - 01:23 PM, said:

Guess I should have put in here - Kathy Strain cleared up this issue, and posted on the BFF that the casts Kitakaze is referencing are mis-labeled. I guess that ends that conspiracy..

I am looking forward to your new work Sweaty http://searchforbigfoot.org/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

Glad to hear that, Melissa...

So...I put together a graphic, regarding the 'Frame 72 Foot-Ruler' measurement, which makes some corrective adjustments for several 'error factors', that it contains...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20Height/PattyFR72FootRulerEFCAG7.gif


The 'Foot-ruler' measurement, at first, appears to show Patty's height to be approx. 5'5".....but, after correcting for 4 error factors....it ends-up in the range of about 6'8 - 6'10". That's quite a difference.


Some notes on my correction figures...

For the 'Blooming' of Patty's left foot...I took Patty's right foot, as seen in Frame 61...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20Height/PattyFrame61A.jpg

.....and...(with the image scaled properly)....I 'grafted it' into Frame 72.
The length of the right foot is significantly less than the length of her left foot.



Then, for the 'Foot being closer to the Camera, than the Body is'....I just made a conservative estimate of how much of a difference that would make....by reducing the size of the Foot, by only 4 pixels.

As a comparable example....I made a Foot-Ruler measurement of Roger, holding Patty's footprint cast....and it comes up a few inches short ...(3 to 4 inches)....of Roger's actual height....apparently due to the same 'error factor'. He's holding the cast out in front of his body....by several inches...and it's closer to the camera than his body is...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Footprints/RogerFootRuler1.jpg



As for Patty's 'angled/slouched posture'.....I used this Poser 7 graphic, of mangler's....as a guide.
It shows Patty's height changing by about 7", as her posture changes from slouched, to standing straight up...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20Height/SkelBobHeightChange1.jpg



And....the last one, I'm not too sure about. But, it appears that, initially, Patty was on a higher-level of ground than Roger and Bob were....and, depending on just how much of a difference there was....there would be a certain amount of 'vertical foreshortening' of Patty, due to a small 'angle-of-view'...in the vertical direction.
That may be causing an inch, or two, of error in the appearance of her body height.

This post has been edited by SweatyYeti: 05 September 2010 - 12:03 PM

[CrowLogic]

BTW with respects to McClarin's height I believe McClarin was wearing tennis shoes when he was filmed by Green.

[lost1arc]

SweatyYeti, on 31 January 2010 - 01:55 AM, said:

So, Lyndon.....as far as those details I was refering to, which are pretty consistent from frame to frame...a few examples are the line running down Patty's back...the dark shading at the top, and bottom, of her back....and the shaded area just below her right shoulder blade...



http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty/PattersonBack2.jpghttp://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty/PattyMidDetails1.jpg



Those shaded areas are all still visible in this frame....including the detail in the shoulder blade area....


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty/PattyFarAwayDetails1.jpg



It's because of the degree of consistency in the film frames, that the hair on the back of my neck stands-up, every time I watch the shading of the hair on Patty's back darken-up, in this little clip....http://searchforbigfoot.org/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif ...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Neck%20Hair/PattyNeckHairAG9.gif http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Neck%20Hair/PattyNeckHairLarge3.jpg

What bothers me the most about the footage(mind you I have only seen it on TV and frames on the puter) but there seems to be the lack of a butt crack. (not trying to sound crude) you would think the shadow line would change as the subject walked.
there wouldn't be a need to include this detail if it were a costume,, however there does seem to be an amazing amount of detail as far as muscle movement and the obvious breasts. this begs the question, why put so much detail into a costume and leave that out.

as far as the height is concerned, I don't know if the film was shot from a tripod, or if the camera was hand held, if it was hand held and the holder were moving either closer to the subject or farther away from the subject, it would change the dynamics of the equasion.

I have not seen all of the footage,I am sure they do not show it all on tv, but it seems to me, that if Patty walked near a large boulder, her height should be able to be calculated in relation to the object. rocks don't change that much over the years.

[SweatyYeti]

Here is a comparison of Patty and Jim's heights.....I put together, using an image from Bill's Report.

It's a montage of Jim and Patty images, along their walks....


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20Height/RowJimPattyAG3.gif


Patty appears to be slightly taller than Jim.....and, moreso in the frames just before Frame 352.

But, it is possible that Patty is a little closer to the camera, than Jim is...in the Frames around 352....causing some degree of error, in the comparison.


Here's a link to the page in the 'Munns Report', where the image is from...

http://www.themunnsr...20part%203a.pdf



When I was working with these images, I noticed one interesting little detail.

In this image, you can see a distinct difference in the paths they walked....as their heights change by very different amounts, as they go along.....(Jim's apparent height stays about the same, while Patty's apparent height decreases steadily)...



http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20Height/RowJimPatty5B.jpg


It looks as though Jim walked more parallel to the plane of the camera, after he turned to 'look back'....while Patty continued to walk away at more of an angle....moving further away, towards the background, as she moved to the right.

And, since, earlier in the walk...(at the point where they passed by a stick on the ground).....Patty appears to be slightly closer....stepping just in front of the stick, while Jim stepped just behind it...



http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Jim%20McClarin/PattyJimWalkComp4.jpg


....it means that at some point around Frame 352....their paths must have crossed.

At that point....obviously....they would have been exactly the same distance from the spot where Roger's camera was. http://searchforbigfoot.org/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif That could be a very useful piece of information....in comparing their heights.



Here's a simple diagram to show what I'm talking about...as far as their paths crossing, at some point, around Frame 352.....(it could have been before, or after, Frame 352)...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20Height/JimPattyPaths3.jpg

[Washingtonian]

I think that there are several things at play here.

I drew some solid lines in the walk comparison photos and I noticed something. View photo here.

I saw the blue dots which look to me like markers for the top of the BF's head and the small of her back. I drew lines connecting the dots from the image at the far left to the image at the far right.

I did the same for the images of Jim using the top of his head and his waist.

Notice how Jim's head lowered in relation to the line, especially in his 3rd image (L. to R.) while the BF's head goes above it's line of travel. She was just beginning her look back so she might have been straightening her back at that point, however at Jim's 5th image his head is still well below the line.

Overall the BF's head stays more consistent along the line than Jim's head - the same with her waist.

John Green mentioned that some but not all of the tracks in the track line were still visible and that Jim walked where there were no tracks but he was following as close as he could remember to where the tracks were. Since there was a spring run off in between Roger's filming and John's filming I think that there is a good chance that the ground level was altered in spots by the run off.

Another thing to consider is that an object being photographed with a smaller focal length lens will 'shrink' faster the more it moves away from the lens.

[SweatyYeti]

Washingtonian, on 07 September 2010 - 01:01 AM, said:

I think that there are several things at play here.

I drew some solid lines in the walk comparison photos and I noticed something. View photo here.

Thanks for your input, Washingtonian. http://searchforbigfoot.org/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

I tried viewing your image....but the page wouldn't load. I'll try it again, later.

Quote

I saw the blue dots which look to me like markers for the top of the BF's head and the small of her back. I drew lines connecting the dots from the image at the far left to the image at the far right.

I did the same for the images of Jim using the top of his head and his waist.

Notice how Jim's head lowered in relation to the line, especially in his 3rd image (L. to R.) while the BF's head goes above it's line of travel. She was just beginning her look back so she might have been straightening her back at that point, however at Jim's 5th image his head is still well below the line.

I'll have to take a look at your graphic, first, before I comment on that.

Quote

Overall the BF's head stays more consistent along the line than Jim's head - the same with her waist.

That's true....Patty's head doesn't 'bob' up and down nearly as much as a typical human's does, as they walk.
That's because Patty doesn't fully straighten her legs as she walks. Either the upper, or the lower leg is always...or almost always....at some angle. That means that, in most frames...Patty's 'walking height' is less than her 'standing height'...by a few, to several inches.


As one example....in the comparison image I posted earlier...Patty has 3 body limbs/sections angled.....and, with all three angles corrected for...I'm sure it would add several inches onto her apparent height...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Jim%20McClarin/PattyJimWalkComp4C.jpg

Quote

John Green mentioned that some but not all of the tracks in the track line were still visible and that Jim walked where there were no tracks but he was following as close as he could remember to where the tracks were.
Since there was a spring run off in between Roger's filming and John's filming I think that there is a good chance that the ground level was altered in spots by the run off.

That may be true....but, if the run-off only affected small areas, or spots....(as opposed to evenly 'raising or lowering' a very widespread area).....then that wouldn't account for Jim's 'apparent height' staying so consistently even, throughout his walk...while Patty's apparent height steadily, and consistently decreases.

It seems to me that the more likely explanation is that Jim just walked a different route, after the 'turn and look' spot.


(Edited to add)...
I just put together an overlay of Jim and Patty, at the point where they're near the highlighted trees....to make it a little easier to see just how different their apparent heights had become, by that point...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Jim%20McClarin/JimPattyRowEndAG2.gif

Quote

Another thing to consider is that an object being photographed with a smaller focal length lens will 'shrink' faster the more it moves away from the lens.

Bill Munns is better qualified to comment on this point, then I am....but, from what I've seen, and read, it appears that John Green's camera had the same size/focal length lens that Roger's camera had...(whatever that was.)


Gigantofootecus did a pretty in-depth analysis of Patty's height....using the 'photogrammetry analysis' method....and he concluded that the two cameras used the same size lens. So, that shouldn't be a factor, to deal with....(as far as I know.)

This post has been edited by SweatyYeti: 06 September 2010 - 10:17 PM