Bigfoot PGF Film The Munns Report

MY Full evaluation of the PG Film will be completed later this year, but as there has been discussion about me and my analysis in the forum, I thought it might be wise to set up a specific thread on the analysis.

Work is currently in progress.

A visit to the Bluff Creek site is being arranged for part of the analysis.

A talk on my work is currently scheduled for May 16, 2009 in Yakima, Washington, an event focused around Bob Gimlin.

My application for a presentation at SIGGRAPH 2009 has been submitted. Decision of acceptance or not is due around April 20, 2009. If accepted, my presentation would be in the week of August 3, at SIGGRAPH, in New Orleans.

A computer graphics publication is tentatively agreed to a June issue report of my research, and specifics will be announced as this is finalized.

Another media project is being set up, but requires a NDA from me, so no details will be announced until the media people do their own program announcement.

My final report, with full documentation, is currently projected for a Mid-August release, pending the confirmation of the SIGGRAPH event, since feedback from each of the above events will be factored into the final report.

Confirmations of these events will be posted as I have the information.

Bill Munns

Sounds like you are and will be a busy man, Bill. Thanks for keeping us updated. Best of luck in all the approvals I'm sure you'll receive.

Hi

A talk on my work is currently scheduled for May 16, 2009 in Yakima, Washington, an event focused around BobGimlin.

Way to go Bill

Thank you very much for all the work and for choosing to put it here on this Forum

Peace
Tim

Way to go Bill!, I'll be waiting for updates. BTW, thanks for all the time/effort

Bill, please accept my heartfelt appreciation, thanks, and admiration for the significant work and research you've devoted to the subject. It's really quite remarkable, and fascinating at the same time. And thanks most of all for sharing your work with us on BFF.

Best of luck in the future. You rock!!

I'm certain that this is going to be the finest analysis ever done on the Patterson Gimlin Film.

Can't wait for your final report Bill. Thanks for everything you've done in this regard.

To All above:

Thank you for your interest in my work and report to come.

My goal is to make it something which will endure as a reliable and valuable reference source.

But as you can appreciate, the NDA does limit my comments at this time.

An update will likely be posted in about 3 weeks.

Bill

This is great, Bill! I'm looking forward to learning what you have discovered!

Looking very forward to hearing you speak in Yakima

You rule! I appreciate your great work and also the methodical and clear way in which you communicate.

Cheers,

Rolando

Progress Update:

First, a general note. I hope this thread can stay as a focused and lean thread serving the purpose of an information archive, and I appreciate that so far, it has not been derailed off topic. I started another thread in another forum the same day, on the same topic, and it has ballooned to over 400 posts in the same time (over 40 times the volume of this thread) and so it lost it's research archive value. So I wish to thank you, forum members, in advance, for helping keep this thread focused on the information, and keeping off topic comments for other threads.

Also, I thank you for respecting that I can't answer every question yet about my research, and so if I don't respond to a question you may post, I appreciate your understanding that the question will ultimately be answered when the report comes out. Between the NDA and research protocols, some information has an appropriate time for release, and can't be rushed for premature release, and I thank you for respecting that I have to be the judge of what information can be released and when. In other forums, I've encountered people who seem to think they can demand any information and I must comply to their demand, even though they are mere observers to this research, not participants. I appreciate that in this forum, you have demonstrated a far more mature attitude in respecting the methods and circumstances of what information I can release and on what schedule.

That said, the following information is my first progress update:

A High Resolution (4K) archival scan has been done, using one of John Green's true full frame film versions of the PG Film. There are some misunderstandings about his film archives that probably should be cleared up. Perhaps most important is that he does not possess a true verified First Gen. Master copy, as is widely reported. He does possess multiple copies of the film, full frame, zoomed in (the LMS version), Frame 352 freeze framed, slow motion, etc. all on 16mm film stock. But nothing in his inventory could be verified as the First Gen. master copy, and he has no knowledge of having possessed such.

The scan image size is 4272 x 2848 pixels, but this includes some of the black masking around the image and portions of the sprocket holes. The actual frame images, once they are cropped to true full frame 4:3 aspect and no black border, will be 3248 x 2412. By comparison, the NASI Report scan is described as having an image resolution of 2656 x 1912. This full film scan did not produce images with any greater detail on "Patty" than other versions shown widely in the forums (because it is at least a second generation film copy I had access to), but the scan was excellent for my goal of testing CGI Matchmove software to establish 3D digital site geometry and solve camera positions relative to the site landscape.

A total of 941 frames were scanned from the film. The scans were done of every frame continuously from the first one indicating image content (as opposed to film leader) and each frame was scanned both as a RAW file and a High Quality JPEG file.

From the "McClarin Film" recreating the walk on site, John Green possessed what apparently is the true camera original (still kept in the box Kodak ships a processed film to a customer in), and while it has been digitized for video (and shown in the LMS video), the film has never been copied to another 16mm film, according to John. We scanned 32 selected frames from this film, some showing a man walking through the path, others showing a man standing with his hand up to indicate something taller than he was, and three men standing around the center cluster of trees on site. Of particular value to me was that the beginning of the walk recreation shows the landscape far to the left of the Big Tree far better than anything in the PG Film itself, and that landscape imagery will help in a site identification, as well as help unify the first and middle sequences in the digital site model.

Chris Murphy, who was of immense help in arranging this scan effort and who was present for most of it, requested we scan some of John's footage showing Bob G. and Roger on horseback, riding through the general location. A total of 27 frames of this were scanned. And 6 frames were scanned of a film segment showing Roger standing in front of a tree holding two plaster footprint casts.

Finally, and perhaps most curious, Chris remembered years ago watching one of John Green's reels of film being shown to museum people in Vancouver, and at the end of the reel, there was a short clip of film showing a footprint trackway. This segment was 202 frames long, and spliced on to John Green's footage reel. Chris identified this as part of the second reel footage. This film was single perf, quite brittle (including a tear in 6 frames parallel to the perferations) and had a strong magenta cast to its overall color. Its edge coding reads "Eastman" and then a number "3" (along side a perf, so if there is a second number, it was lost by the perf hole), then an icon set of three symbols, a vertical bar (like a simple lower case "L" or upper case "i"), then a solid circle, and then a plus sign "+" and then the words "Safety Film".

The content of this segment is a camera pointing down at the ground, filming four footprints of the trackway, with the cameraman walking along and filming each individually. The third one of the four footprints has plaster already poured into it. The second and fourth print show very distinct toe impressions, while the first does not. The ground appears to be a sandy substrate, and is uneven. The sunlight angle suggests a filming late in the afternoon.

I scanned all 202 frames of this footage for archival value, at Chris Murphy's request.

In total, 1208 film frames were scanned, for a collective data archive of about 20 GB. Copies of the material were given to John Green and Chris Murphy, and another copy will be forwarded to Mrs. Patterson for her archives as well.

There will probably be another update in a few weeks.

Bill

Very exciting stuff Bill!

Thanks again Bill.

I have a question regarding the film segment that was spliced onto the "patty" film.

Do you believe it is a segment from the original second reel?

Was it known to Mr. Green to be on this copy or was it a surprise to him as well?

I was under the impression
(from this interview http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/john.htm)

that the second reel has not been seen by Mr. Green since it's public showing at the University of BC

Spudsquatch:

"Do you believe it is a segment from the original second reel?

Was it known to Mr. Green to be on this copy or was it a surprise to him as well?"


I've never seen second reel footage, as much as I know, so it was the judgment of Chris Murphy that it was second reel footage.

John did not recall how the footage got spliced on the reel. It was Chris Murphy who remembered seeing it on the end of one of John's reels, and we had to examine all of John's inventory to find it.

I included the note about the single perf, magenta tint, and edgecoding in hopes somebody more knowledgable in film may know if it was a piece of the camera original second reel or a copy.

That's all I know.



Bill

Click to view attachmentDid the 2nd reel frames look like this? There are some frames where the color is normal but I don't know where they come from.
Click to view attachment

Thank you for the update, Bill. Your (and Chris's) hard work is greatly appreciated by many!

Crow:

My main computer's internet connection is on and off, but the footprint photos you posted look like the #2 and #3 prints in the sequence I scanned. Once my main workstation gets back online, I can compare to confirm more precisely. I may not be online much more tonight, but hopefully the tech issues will be fixed soon.

Bill

Following up on the footprints, I found a four step trackway composite image reconstructed by Leclerc, and the frames I scanned are the same trackway footprints, just likely a much higher resolution than I see in that reconstructed path image. I had to reduce my images by 60% to make a composite trackway image 1200 x 7700 in Photoshop.

Anyways, same film, same footprints.



Bill

Just a brief update here.

A trip to Bluff Creek was attempted but the snowfall from Friday's storm left an estimated 2 feet of snow on the creek site, preventing a landing, and then high winds and fog prevented a second flyover simply to scout the area from the air.

Another trip is being considered.

Bill

Bill, you may have explained this already but since I'm not always the brightest bulb on the string will you please explain the goal of your research. Please use small words!

Thanks

Carolina Dog:

"Bill, you may have explained this already but since I'm not always the brightest bulb on the string will you please explain the goal of your research. Please use small words!

Thanks "

CD:

I don't believe we have had any direct contact before. Actually it's the ones who think they are the brightest bulbs who are often pretty dim, and they can't form a simple and direct question as you have.

I started out last year simply looking at the PG Film from my background as a movie "creature guy" and trying to see if I could bring any understanding to the discussion based on my background. That's how all the "Creature Suit Analysis" threads got started.

But over the past year, I've shifted my research goal to a broader concern, which is to simply look at the PG Film as a problem needing to be solved, and so now I am approaching this as a problem-solving task. The task requires that we reject or challenge base assumptions, look at the data inventory and see what data can be useful, and then look for analytical tools to see what can be applied to the useful data.

My research goal is to make a 3D digital model of the filming site, locate the camera in it's various positions in relation to the site layout, and locate the creature's walking path in the site model. Then, if the site model can be scaled to real world dimensions, the exact camera to creature distance can be determined, and that can lead to a final determination of the creature's height.

Other studies are in the anatomical proportions of the creature, whioch are best if the study knows the camera distance, and the camera view angle compared to the walking path angle, and some studies of film resolution to sort out how much detail of the creature is relaibly shown in the film.

But overall, the main goal is to simply answer the question, "what do we see in that film? How much can we determine with some degree of conclusive confidence."

Hope that answers your question.

Bill

Sure does.

Thanks

Hi Bill, I just wanted to let you know that we appreciate all your hard work. I'm looking forward to meeting you and hearing all you have to say at Yakima.

Keep up the good work, WBH

Brief update and a question for anyone:

I've started doing some of the filming with a Kodak K-100 camera and more is planned for coming weeks. Some good comparative footage has been obtained so far that will help shead light on some of the camera issues.

The question now is this: I found a lab in Los Angeles to process the 16mm film, so that was fine, but apparently nobody now makes duplicate copies on a reversal film stock and one lab told me that Kodak had even discontinued the film type for making reversal copies.

I had hoped to test how much detail loss there is between a true camera original, a first gen copy, a second gen copy, a third gen copy, all studied side by side, so we can see what gets lost in copying.

But if there is no longer a service and film stock to replicate the copy process used in the 70's to make the copies of the PG Film, then that particular experiment might have to be set aside. It isn't going to interfer with the other research goals, but it was one issue I had hoped to do more research on.

So, does anybody know if there is a reversal copying film still used, and labs that might provide the service of doing such dupes?

Thanks

Bill

Bill

If copies of any type can be made of the film you shoot it will still shed light on the generational detail losses of copying.

Crow:

Ideally the copying process should replicate the PG copying process closely, which is a direct positive reversal copying (no negatives)

Copying with an internegative, then a print is still available, but the reduction of image quality may be different through that process, and because i can't test the reversal copying process today, i don't know how different the internegative/print copying process would be. So I don't know yet if it's worth a try.

Bill

First, a thank you to several Forum members who provided me with links or info on film labs that might have the reversal positive duplicating stock I'm looking for. I haven't checked them out yet, but will do so in coming days.

Now, on to a new question, on the odd chance anyone among you can help me settle another question.

On the scans I did of John Green's camera origical of McClarin walking the site to recreate the film walk path, John's film is apparently "Ultra 16" as noted below:

"A variation of the Super 16 format is the DIY-crafted "Ultra-16", which is formed by widening the gate of a standard 16 mm camera to expose the area between the perforations. The placement of the perforations on a standard strip of 16 mm film (to the left of the division between frames) allows for use of this normally unexposed area. The Ultra-16 format, with frame dimensions of 11.66 mm by 6.15 mm, allows for a frame size between those of standard 16 mm and Super 16 while avoiding the expense of converting a 16 mm camera to Super 16, the lens requirements of Super 16 cameras, and the image vignetting caused by traditional 16 mm cameras. Thus, standard 16 mm optics may be used to achieve a wider image. The image readily converts to NTSC/PAL (1.33 ratio), HDTV (16:9 ratio) and to 35mm film (1.85 ratio), using either both the full vertical frame or the full width (intersprocket) frame, depending upon application.[1] (Courtesy of Wikipedia, in its entry under "16mm film")

John apparently was using an Ultra 16 camera, based on the way the film image expands well into the sprocket areas on both sides. But he does not recall what that camera was, and I would like to try and identify such cameras and their lenses, to see if that may clear up the discrepancies of the image comparison between McClarin and "Patty" that were done years ago.

Clearly there's some image composition discrepancy, and most likely John had a lens that was different from Pattersons, and a slightly different position, and I'd like to see if I can find out where John actually was, and what lens might have been on his camera.

So if anyone might know about Ultra 16 type cameras, which have a film gate apeture much wider than the standard 4:3 aspect ratio of standard 16mm cameras, I would welcome the information.

Thanks.

Bill

Uhm, seriously Bill: that response on another forum was not intended to have you flee for your life. It was intended to alert you that you have an ally on board. Seldom does PGF escape my mind whenever I use Kodachrome emulsion for still photography or contemplate using it for super-8 projects.

/me looks over at her desk to see three KR64 rolls sitting there: two awaiting processing at Dwayne's and a third awaiting to be shot.

accozzaglia:

"Uhm, seriously Bill: that response on another forum was not intended to have you flee for your life."

Don't know who you are, but "flee for your life" is not what I did. I just plain gave up trying to reach an understanding with people who are so different in their perspective that I saw no hope achiveing the understanding I aspired to build.

There comes a point in each of our lives where we must look at dialogues and if they truly are going nowhere, we just stop talking to that person or people. So I have chosen to stop talking over there, where nothing I say makes headway toward understanding.

Bill

This is entirely fair, and I respect your decision. Over there, I was speaking figuratively about fleeing, but the outsider observation on that forum would correlate with that (that is, without knowing more).

A total of one posting was completed under your profile on that forum, per the thread. I responded, intrigued, because it's the kind of question I might ask were I heading down that arc of research. That was it. Ultimately, it is your place to negotiate the optimal colleagues, peers, and company to keep close around the area of research you're pursuing. I may not be that person, owing to today's earlier conversation.

What I am here to say -- and articulated earlier today by a specific cue which would only make sense to those engaged or wanting to contribute to better sasquatch research and data aggregation -- is that I support your research and endeavour to verify and/or eliminate the extent of technological resolution (e.g., 16mm Kodachrome II ASA25 daylight-balanced cinefilm using the now-obsolete K-12 process) presented by the second-generation, best-available stock for PGF. By the way, the biggest reproduction difference between K-12/Kodachrome II and the same ASA/ISO speed in K-14/Kodachrome 25 is the chemistry for K-12 was particularly toxic even by Kodak standards; in terms of practical (visible) differences, K-12 blue skies tended to edge closer to cyan than K-14 (if poorly processed or was very expired emulsion). K-14, the chemistry process since 1974, edges blue sky more toward magenta in the same situation. You might know this already, but if not, this might help you decide whether working with remaining K-14 16mm stock out there (which turns up on fleaBay once in a while, now that Wittner in Germany sold the last of their 16mm K-14 a few months ago) is worth your while in re-creating the necessary conditions. Otherwise, the basic Kodachrome emulsion layers and responsiveness are very close.

Incidentally, before today, I'd been out of the loop with activity here on BFF due to university. I've only had the capacity to look at film photography as a kind of break from research, since I only have to step out the front door for an hour-long walk to capture images for catharsis. It's been a while since I've had the chance to leave the city to go into northern Ontario for field study. So until today, I wasn't ware of your research project. If you elect against discussing your findings, that's fine. Just do the best you can and be as exhaustively thorough as possible with your data analysis and conclusion. You have my support regardless.

Best to everything. --A

Accozzaglia

"Just do the best you can and be as exhaustively thorough as possible with your data analysis and conclusion. You have my support regardless."

Exactly my intention, and I thank you for your interest.

The film resolution studies are important because they are so frequently debated, and the film deserves some testing to sort fact from fiction, but the fact that the exact methods of 1967 are not available today does pose challenges I had not anticipated, and so I'm re-evaluating this aspect of the project.

The other aspects are going along fine, and they won't be affected by the film technology issue being re-evaluated.

Bill

Bill,

Looking forward to reading your full evaluation of the PG film, when it is complete....and Thanks for all the work you have done with this controversial subject, so far.

Bill R.

Bill R.

"Looking forward to reading your full evaluation of the PG film, when it is complete....and Thanks for all the work you have done with this controversial subject, so far."

Thanks for your comment. Things are going well, the analysis is shaping up nicely, and I'm tying up loose ends.

The next update is likely a few weeks away, and there will be some discussion of the analysis at the Yakima evewnt in May.

Bill

Open question for anyone:

Some of the members seem quite astute at calculating sun angles.

Can a "sundial" image be made showing a true north marker (let's say true vertical on the image) and a marker showing the sun angle every hour from sunup to sundown, Oct. 20, 1967, Bluff Creek location, as seen from an ortho top view?

I'm not sure how to go about it, but it would help me in my sitemap, since I'm looking at shadows in the film.

Thanks.

Bill

Another open question for anyone interested.

In my digital site model, I'm looking to connect the beginning and middle sequences, in terms of any common site structures. There is one "S" shaped branch seen throughout the beginning sequence which I believe is the curved "S" shaped foreground branch in the very earliest frames of the middle sequence. I think it's the same branch, but would welcome any thoughts by others.

Image is as follows:

Click to view attachment

Where did the big tree go that is behind it in the 1st 2 photos?

C-Dog

Between the first and last frames, it looks as if RP has moved forward and to the left so that in the last frame the "s" tree is now directly in front of him and the tree in question is now farther to his left. At least that is how I see it. I believe RP was unable to move directly towards Patty at one point because of an obstacle. The "s" tree may be part of that obstacle. Make sense to anyone else?

Carolina Dog:

The top two views, the early frames, are looking sort of Northwest on about a 30-40 degre angle. The lower photos, going into the second sequence, are looking almost due North, as far as i can determine at this point (refinement needed still on the compass orientation).

Anyways, the earlier views are about 30-40 degrees counter clockwise to the later images, so the big tree behind the S branch in the two top pictures is now off camera to the camera left, in the lower photos.

Bill

Bill, here's an overhead ortho map of Bluff Creek centered at the alleged PGF site. Also included is a couple of Google Earth views of the same area. For the ortho map the top center of the image is north. The sun is due north at 12:00PM every day of the year. Get the time of day by measuring the angle clockwise from North and divide by 360 deg times 24 hours. Add this to 12:00 for the time (1:00 for daylight savings, which was in effect Oct 20.)
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

Wow! I think this sequence solves the question of whether Roger turned off his camera at any point. First, I think this is the same tree branch in all the frames. In which case, in frames 162 and 202 the time difference is approx 2 secs (at 18 fps). I doubt it would be physically possible to cross the creek and pass this tree branch in that time. More likely, Roger turned off the camera and resumed it at approx frame 200.

If this IS the same branch, then IMO this sequence is pretty definitive.

You mean south (for N hemisphere) and only very roughly right?

And during daylight savings or not?

Correct! The sun is always to the south in the U.S. at any time of year, due to the 23.5º tilt of the earth. If you were in Cabo on June 21 (approx. 23º N. latitude) the sun would be nearly straight up. Also, I believe the sun would be roughly pointing south at noon in the U.S. within about a half hour to hour (depending on daylight savings time??). Of course, it's been awhile since I was in any classroom....

Gigantofooticus:

"Wow! I think this sequence solves the question of whether Roger turned off his camera at any point. First, I think this is the same tree branch in all the frames. In which case, in frames 162 and 202 the time difference is approx 2 secs (at 18 fps). I doubt it would be physically possible to cross the creek and pass this tree branch in that time. More likely, Roger turned off the camera and resumed it at approx frame 200.

If this IS the same branch, then IMO this sequence is pretty definitive."

My site map puts the change of camera position from F180 to F192 at about 50-60 feet. So you could estimate how fast he could run that distance. If his camera were running the whole time, you could calculate approximate number of frames from how many seconds you think he could move that distance.

On the true North, i need to orient my site model to it, but my request abone in the thread is a generalized sun direction for various hours, based on a true north in same diagram. I hypothetical "Bluff Creek sundail" so to speak, with the shadows for each hour marked off.

Bill

Assuming the others are correct that it was daylight savings time (this site doesn't show that) and using the data for Eureka from this site, here is what I get but my lines are imperfect and these would need some minor adjustment for the film site.

Click to view attachment

Apeman:

Thank you.

Now I just have to go find the Bluff Creek site, find a way to connect what's there now with what was there 42 years ago, and then find true north in relation to what I find at the Creek.

Shouldn't be too hard, should it?



Bill

ps: To all who might want to tell me it's impossible or a useless trip, I thank you for your concern, and I'll take it under advisement, although I might mention I don't respond well to advice that something is impossible, because I've been told that quite a few times before in other matters, and I went ahead with my plans and succeeded in doing exactly what I had been assured was impossible.

Bill-

I think there is a chance that you might be able to do it using a couple of the huge background trees, which I'll bet will be the only reference points left. But then you'll be partially reliant on the measurements from Dahinden won't you?

Anyone willing to venture a guess on the accuracy of the 'N' mark on Rene's photo on page 58 of Murphy?

Just for shoots and giggles I did a quick and dirty sketch using that as north on Murphy's film site model. If it was exactly 1:30 the sunlight would have been coming from about 189 degrees (just west of south) so from behind Roger and a little left which matches quite nicely with the shadows GF illustrated here in the #1 v #2 reel thread. If true N is slightly more east or it was a little later they match quite well. Either way, this seems to be pretty consistent with the story (again).

It seems like with a little geometry and assumptions that the Dahinden and/or Green site measurements are correct for those trees casting the shadows (and they are straight, etc) we could nail down at least a close approximation of the azimuth and therefore the time and other things? Hopefully that's part of your effort Bill!

Apeman

Apeman:

"It seems like with a little geometry and assumptions that the Dahinden and/or Green site measurements are correct for those trees casting the shadows (and they are straight, etc) we could nail down at least a close approximation of the azimuth and therefore the time and other things? Hopefully that's part of your effort Bill!"

Yes. Not a crutial part, but with a true north bearing and the sun angles, the filming time of day could be finally settled. Just hoping to clear up some of the controversies.



Bill

Oops, I meant the SHADOWS align S to N at 12:00PM (1:00PM DST) and not roughly, exactly.