It seems MK Davis has done as much as any of the others mentioned to explain, dissect and reveal the veracity of the PGF - and has done it for a couple of decades. Todd, I first heard of your work from Mr. Davis and I believe he deserves kudos for his work. That said, your expertise and technical skills are literally groundbreaking and truly remarkable.
Much of Mr.Munns work is largely unappreciated and some forgotten. Once you look at his book, you will agree his analysis of the film is far beyond what anyone else has attempted. Mk has made some fantastic revelations and discoveries I agree. Mr. Munns has a life in the film industry and is a professional at film and analysis.
@ I should have mentioned that I’ve read Bill Munn’s book and it is incredibly detailed and his perspective as a special effects master and filmmaker really brings the PGF to life. He’s amazing! Thanks for your work Todd - really looking forward to your future releases!
Looking forward to seeing your documentary, Todd. It's quite honorable of you to dedicate your project primarily to Roger Patterson. He would be pleased by your efforts and acknowledgements. We are.
Thank you so much for putting your expertise to use on this Iconic Film. Without doubt the world is ready to view Patty in all her High Def Glory. I, like many cannot wait.
Can't wait till it comes out.Been looking forward to seeing this for a long time.But I am very surprised you did not mention MK Davis and promoted him since he helped you but mentioned others that you call experts.
Really looking forward to the release of your work, Todd. It's such good news that you're doing what you're doing. It's so important this film is restored and kept for future generations.
Hey now Todd, thank you very much for all your work, and the effort you have put into it. I have tried to see and hear as many opinions and knowledgeable folks, like Bob Gimlin and Dr. Jeff Meldrum and Robert Maxwell as I can find. The technology you are using is, at this time, the best available, who knows what will become available in the future. And this preservation of the Patterson-Gimlin film will be a boon to future generations. I did see a story where some folks went back to Bluff Creek and measured the area with a laser, and with some advanced math and info about the camera, and the film used and the measurements, figured that Patty was 7'9" tall. Not that many folks of that size walking around, and none that are that agile and smooth. Good luck with all your future work and I can't wait until you release the full film, when you are happy with it.
It blows my mind that people say they’ll believe Sasquatch are real when they see evidence of their existence, and we’ve had evidence for decades! The footage of Patty is brain breaking to watch, your mind wants to tell you it can’t be real, but it ABSOLUTELY IS REAL
There's actually quite a few, Thinker Thunker, Dr.Jeff Meldrum, ME. I'm not famously sought after since I'd rather people NOT believe. Trust me, people really don't want to know, they just don't have the mentality to handle things like this. No worries though, I hear ET's are supposed to make a grand entrance hear soon. Try to keep an open mind.
I applaud you for being a member of the sasquatch myth belief society. Thankfully, we keep it alive. Because naysayers want this to go away, and yet it does not because the myth stays alive through we the believers/knowers.
Hello Todd - first off thank you for undertaking this work as we all agree that the film should not be lost and must be preserved. I do have many questions about the film in terms of quality, storage, development, copying, grading and more. I am sure you will try and address these ins your documentary. One ask from me is that you create as faithful a copy of the original (without any interpolation of digital enhancement or even noise reduction) as a baseline for anyone else coming to this. In fact this could be your base digital captures in RAW format as this would allow others to return to the most unchanged copy they can. I will give an example to illustrate my point. I have two frames and they are virtually identical, indeed it appears the camera move hardly at all between frames. On frame 1 I have a clear development scratch on developed film and the other I dont. it would seem reasonable to remove this as I have the following and previous frames to re-create the film that’s under this scratch. This most people would argue is fine as we ar not introducing anything new and we know the before and after. The issue I have with this is it starts to be the thin end of that famous wedge and we start enhancing using our logic a number of things, this over many examples does alter the footage for sure. That’s why for me a base sample of your frames, raw and unedited is a great start for an archive, this allows you to then treat the images in all sorts of exciting ways. My final thought is I have seen an image reporting to show the hair on face of patty in incredible detail which I found hard to believe came from such a small image on 16mm. It would be great to see a comparison image from any 16mm film with a subject of this size to demonstrate that the detail is there and in which case I would then also agree it’s there on the Pg film you have. If the data is there its there - where I struggle is when the data is being “added” but some logic interpreting what “might” be there. I will a wait your reveal before commenting more, but am skeptical of the amount of data still available in the film in existence, which a quick demonstration in the documentary could answer simply.
It was captured in .RAW. The image you refer to is from the in camera original and from that it was photographed with a 4x5 by Rene Dahendin and Bruce Bonney.
But yes, my next video on my channel with explain most of this in detail and full depth as well as the film restoration and how multiple copies or even single frames even can be used. There will be all versions. Meaning, what you described, yes, and many more. So a very much original version, and every variation and speed imaginable.
Ok great. I can imagine you are getting so many people doubting and mentioning AI a lot and how that’s “cheating” and so forth. Having watched your other video now I assume you have the RAW data captured via the setup you showed and with that the base data. Then I am sure you will undertake a number of enhancements and so forth - as long as its clear what the treatment undertaken is its fine. My largest concern is around where the actual Bill Mullins base copy starts and where the images can now be taken digitally - I’m assuming the copies you made were from Bill as well. Sorry to go on as I can see you would end up answering a number of times for people who are keen to understand more. So I will watch this Channel and im sure you will post the details. If you can as you are developing the information show what data is actually from the original and then clearly the additions and enhancements - even for one frame, this would I think help beginners and people who know a little more about images, film and digital techniques to understand better and close down some of the debates I can see starting already. I was ready to launch into a whole piece around what or where real data start and ends and where enhancing things happens - but decided that I would wait as I’m sure you being a skilled and intelligent person regarding film and images will address. It is hard as I have been involved in a lot of debates with less well intentioned people before (flat earth) and so it tends to bring out the pedant. I look forward to what you will show and thanks again for at least persevering the data as it’s much needed.
Im gonna stop mentioning anyone if all the fan boi's don't pipe down. Literally man, it's not a fest to worship any researcher. I love MK. He has done a ton of FANTASTIC research as has others.
Looking forward to the finished product. I think the PGF is an incredible artifact of human psychology and the phenomenon of belief because it begs the question: Do you believe your eyes or do you believe what other people say?
The politics of the Big Fella is outrageous sometimes. The guys that get out there and take it seriously are few and far between. So as a knower, thank you for your work and the handful of men and women who take it seriously.
Crediting those who walked the Bluff Creek path can hit a landmine of omission. MK Davis has spent years analyzing, dissecting and discovering the unseen aspects of the film. Any reason not to include him? I mean, who hasn't been influenced by MK? That said, I'm looking forward to what you discover.
Sorry. You will have to free your thoughts of premisconceptions. Nobody has proven him wrong and stay tuned. If I lost you I will tell you what you missed. There is engineering software that can analyze his footage. I will let him tell the rest, but stay tuned. The world may have to learn to like the taste of crow feathers.
Todd Standing is one of the top Sasquatch researchers on Earth... its undeniable even if YOU reading this don't like him (cry me a river). Takes a special person to go overnight alone in remote grizzly country in the pitch black.
I could make a documentary on every researcher I admire. There are a ton of researchers and it's impossible to cover everyone's contribution in a limited amount of time but I will try.
I think with all the thousands and thousands of sightings videos I think this video is somewhat about getting a good visual study look... extremely interesting...
Collaborating after I am done, in the future. That is a great thing! Sorry. You will have to free your thoughts of premisconceptions. Nobody has proven him wrong and stay tuned. If I lost you I will tell you what you missed. There is engineering software that can analyze his footage. I will let him tell the rest, but stay tuned. The world may have to learn to like the taste of crow feathers.
I wonder if Patti is sill living in that area? Good work very very good. Just a minute tho what is going on with the nostril and the lip area. Does she have a problem with the skin. Also would she be elderly according to that still frame. I still think it's a real "being".
Thank you. I guess we could ask her dermatologist? Rene Dahendin last tracked her about 80 miles from there in around 82 I heard. He was basing that on her tracks and from the casts at Bluff Creek. He was with witness's and I don't believe he was a hoaxer.
@@ToddGatewood1967 Thanks Todd, I will look for that. If we know they had offsping then they will still be around. Some of the sightings were many years ago. I was wondering what there lifespan would be.
Very cool! I love how you dedicated your work to Roger, Bob, and Bill. And thank you for the shout out! 😊
thank you
In time this will be recognized as the historic work it is. And Patterson's reputation largely restored.
Thank you Todd.
That is fantastic, thank you. Much needed and ground breaking.
thank you
Thank You Todd!
It seems MK Davis has done as much as any of the others mentioned to explain, dissect and reveal the veracity of the PGF - and has done it for a couple of decades. Todd, I first heard of your work from Mr. Davis and I believe he deserves kudos for his work. That said, your expertise and technical skills are literally groundbreaking and truly remarkable.
Much of Mr.Munns work is largely unappreciated and some forgotten. Once you look at his book, you will agree his analysis of the film is far beyond what anyone else has attempted. Mk has made some fantastic revelations and discoveries I agree. Mr. Munns has a life in the film industry and is a professional at film and analysis.
@ I should have mentioned that I’ve read Bill Munn’s book and it is incredibly detailed and his perspective as a special effects master and filmmaker really brings the PGF to life. He’s amazing! Thanks for your work Todd - really looking forward to your future releases!
Looking forward to seeing your documentary, Todd. It's quite honorable of you to dedicate your project primarily to Roger Patterson. He would be pleased by your efforts and acknowledgements. We are.
Fantastic work, Todd! Your work is very much appreciated. I can't wait to see your finished work! Thank you!
Looking forward to it! Thank you!👍
So excited for your film!
Really this is grueling work, monk work! You deserve our respect for giving this much time on this piece of history
Thank you! I am glad someone truly gets it!
@ToddGatewood1967 I'm a web programmer and I have also worked on image editing in my past, so yeah I can imagine how much work it is
Thank you for your hard work this is very exciting can't wait...
Thank you so much for putting your expertise to use on this Iconic Film. Without doubt the world is ready to view Patty in all her High Def Glory. I, like many cannot wait.
Great work. The picture of patty's face is eerie. The detail is just amazing. Probably the most profound picture of the century so far!
I think the film is real but his work on it is fake.
Looking forward to it!!!
Thanks for your efforts and dedication!
Looking forward to the full doc
Thank you for explaining that process, you made it easy to understand. Can't wait.
M.K and you and any other GENUINE researchers out there.
Gracias Senor!
You are the MAN ! Fascinating. This old world has a bit of magic in it yet. Sasquatch magic!
Thank you!!!
Thank you! Paul Freeman’s next 🙌
Awesome!! Thank you
Can't wait till it comes out.Been looking forward to seeing this for a long time.But I am very surprised you did not mention MK Davis and promoted him since he helped you but mentioned others that you call experts.
Very excited about this, can’t wait until it’s finished, thanks for all your doing for this film.
Really looking forward to the release of your work, Todd. It's such good news that you're doing what you're doing. It's so important this film is restored and kept for future generations.
Thank you!
This is an amazing project.
Hey now Todd, thank you very much for all your work, and the effort you have put into it. I have tried to see and hear as many opinions and knowledgeable folks, like Bob Gimlin and Dr. Jeff Meldrum and Robert Maxwell as I can find. The technology you are using is, at this time, the best available, who knows what will become available in the future. And this preservation of the Patterson-Gimlin film will be a boon to future generations. I did see a story where some folks went back to Bluff Creek and measured the area with a laser, and with some advanced math and info about the camera, and the film used and the measurements, figured that Patty was 7'9" tall. Not that many folks of that size walking around, and none that are that agile and smooth. Good luck with all your future work and I can't wait until you release the full film, when you are happy with it.
Thank you!!!
It blows my mind that people say they’ll believe Sasquatch are real when they see evidence of their existence, and we’ve had evidence for decades! The footage of Patty is brain breaking to watch, your mind wants to tell you it can’t be real, but it ABSOLUTELY IS REAL
Great work.
Thank you!
Cant wait
I'd say MK Davis is the foremost authority on the Patterson film.
There's actually quite a few, Thinker Thunker, Dr.Jeff Meldrum, ME. I'm not famously sought after since I'd rather people NOT believe. Trust me, people really don't want to know, they just don't have the mentality to handle things like this. No worries though, I hear ET's are supposed to make a grand entrance hear soon. Try to keep an open mind.
Better to never see one. It can turn your life inside out.
@@BrianDalen Opinions are differing.
@Skidderoperator Facts are facts and not open to choosing to believe.
Looking forward to see this..
Thank you!
Yay
I'm the biggest mk Davis fan and I appreciate your work and enhancement of the pattty pictures
Thank you! I love his research also!
@ToddGatewood1967 subscribed 👌
I applaud you for being a member of the sasquatch myth belief society. Thankfully, we keep it alive. Because naysayers want this to go away, and yet it does not because the myth stays alive through we the believers/knowers.
Hello Todd - first off thank you for undertaking this work as we all agree that the film should not be lost and must be preserved.
I do have many questions about the film in terms of quality, storage, development, copying, grading and more. I am sure you will try and address these ins your documentary.
One ask from me is that you create as faithful a copy of the original (without any interpolation of digital enhancement or even noise reduction) as a baseline for anyone else coming to this. In fact this could be your base digital captures in RAW format as this would allow others to return to the most unchanged copy they can.
I will give an example to illustrate my point. I have two frames and they are virtually identical, indeed it appears the camera move hardly at all between frames. On frame 1 I have a clear development scratch on developed film and the other I dont. it would seem reasonable to remove this as I have the following and previous frames to re-create the film that’s under this scratch. This most people would argue is fine as we ar not introducing anything new and we know the before and after.
The issue I have with this is it starts to be the thin end of that famous wedge and we start enhancing using our logic a number of things, this over many examples does alter the footage for sure. That’s why for me a base sample of your frames, raw and unedited is a great start for an archive, this allows you to then treat the images in all sorts of exciting ways.
My final thought is I have seen an image reporting to show the hair on face of patty in incredible detail which I found hard to believe came from such a small image on 16mm. It would be great to see a comparison image from any 16mm film with a subject of this size to demonstrate that the detail is there and in which case I would then also agree it’s there on the Pg film you have. If the data is there its there - where I struggle is when the data is being “added” but some logic interpreting what “might” be there.
I will a wait your reveal before commenting more, but am skeptical of the amount of data still available in the film in existence, which a quick demonstration in the documentary could answer simply.
I found this in interesting read of course I'm trying to look up the very basics? Im sure the answers are coming..
It was captured in .RAW. The image you refer to is from the in camera original and from that it was photographed with a 4x5 by Rene Dahendin and Bruce Bonney.
But yes, my next video on my channel with explain most of this in detail and full depth as well as the film restoration and how multiple copies or even single frames even can be used. There will be all versions. Meaning, what you described, yes, and many more. So a very much original version, and every variation and speed imaginable.
It's so technical honestly, it's a drag talking about it, but I am going to put it all here and then just refer people to it.
Ok great. I can imagine you are getting so many people doubting and mentioning AI a lot and how that’s “cheating” and so forth.
Having watched your other video now I assume you have the RAW data captured via the setup you showed and with that the base data.
Then I am sure you will undertake a number of enhancements and so forth - as long as its clear what the treatment undertaken is its fine.
My largest concern is around where the actual Bill Mullins base copy starts and where the images can now be taken digitally - I’m assuming the copies you made were from Bill as well.
Sorry to go on as I can see you would end up answering a number of times for people who are keen to understand more. So I will watch this Channel and im sure you will post the details.
If you can as you are developing the information show what data is actually from the original and then clearly the additions and enhancements - even for one frame, this would I think help beginners and people who know a little more about images, film and digital techniques to understand better and close down some of the debates I can see starting already.
I was ready to launch into a whole piece around what or where real data start and ends and where enhancing things happens - but decided that I would wait as I’m sure you being a skilled and intelligent person regarding film and images will address. It is hard as I have been involved in a lot of debates with less well intentioned people before (flat earth) and so it tends to bring out the pedant. I look forward to what you will show and thanks again for at least persevering the data as it’s much needed.
What about MK Davies he’s also done tons of work on the Patty film
Im gonna stop mentioning anyone if all the fan boi's don't pipe down. Literally man, it's not a fest to worship any researcher. I love MK. He has done a ton of FANTASTIC research as has others.
When used properly AI will simply enhance what you do and won’t “hallucinate” and add details which aren’t there.
This is all great and I look forward to seeing your hard work but I was very disappointed not seeing you mention MK Davis in all of this. Why?
Looking forward to the finished product. I think the PGF is an incredible artifact of human psychology and the phenomenon of belief because it begs the question: Do you believe your eyes or do you believe what other people say?
See this Search for : 'I know what I saw': Man behind iconic '60s 'Bigfoot' Film makes a stop in Fresno
This should lay an end to any controversy surrounding this film. Another expert in the field is primatologist Jimmy Chilicut from Texas.
The politics of the Big Fella is outrageous sometimes. The guys that get out there and take it seriously are few and far between. So as a knower, thank you for your work and the handful of men and women who take it seriously.
Thank you!
Great Job! Do you know what happened to the real film, or the first generation?
Yup. Mum is the word. Lol,,, It isn't needed any longer.
@@ToddGatewood1967
What does that mean?
@@ToddGatewood1967 OMG…. Just like mine
Cliff barrackman is not an expert he only gives a one sided opponion because he beleves!!!! Again hes no expert!!!!!😂😂😂
Crediting those who walked the Bluff Creek path can hit a landmine of omission. MK Davis has spent years analyzing, dissecting and discovering the unseen aspects of the film. Any reason not to include him? I mean, who hasn't been influenced by MK? That said, I'm looking forward to what you discover.
Thank you Jimmer! The list of great researchers like MK, is long. I could make a documentary just thanking him and them!
As a 45 year follower of all things Sasquatch I am here to say
Rene was a hack. Say what you will he was out to make $$ and that is all.
He was an unpleasant person,
You lost me at Todd Standing.
Sorry. You will have to free your thoughts of premisconceptions. Nobody has proven him wrong and stay tuned. If I lost you I will tell you what you missed. There is engineering software that can analyze his footage. I will let him tell the rest, but stay tuned. The world may have to learn to like the taste of crow feathers.
Todd Standing is one of the top Sasquatch researchers on Earth... its undeniable even if YOU reading this don't like him (cry me a river). Takes a special person to go overnight alone in remote grizzly country in the pitch black.
No mention of MK? Interesting.
I could make a documentary on every researcher I admire. There are a ton of researchers and it's impossible to cover everyone's contribution in a limited amount of time but I will try.
I promise, I am *not* looking for evidence of some absurd massacre...
I think with all the thousands and thousands of sightings videos I think this video is somewhat about getting a good visual study look... extremely interesting...
Love it but dude seriously start selling " buckets of chicken".
Is there a 2nd Bigfoot in the background?
no
@@ToddGatewood1967 ty
I was interested until you said you were partnering with Todd Standing.
Collaborating after I am done, in the future. That is a great thing! Sorry. You will have to free your thoughts of premisconceptions. Nobody has proven him wrong and stay tuned. If I lost you I will tell you what you missed. There is engineering software that can analyze his footage. I will let him tell the rest, but stay tuned. The world may have to learn to like the taste of crow feathers.
@ Thank’s for the information. Let me be clear, I am interested in what you are doing. I will keep watching. Thanks again.
Looking forward to seeing your film…will you be putting your full original edited version out there for scrutiny by others…???
Yup. In all speeds.
Very exciting!👍🏻
The detail you found doesn’t seem believable.
th-cam.com/video/f4Y-xyZ_ISE/w-d-xo.html
Thank you
Y'all are missing the baby sitting on Patty's left hip.
I heard about that Patty was carrying something? The ear is now noticeable? supposed to be a 100 more details hopefully...
Because of the latest tech, shouldn't we be able to notice something like a baby clinging to Patty's hip ?
I have often thought that as well....
I wonder if Patti is sill living in that area? Good work very very good. Just a minute tho what is going on with the nostril and the lip area. Does she have a problem with the skin. Also would she be elderly according to that still frame. I still think it's a real "being".
Thank you. I guess we could ask her dermatologist? Rene Dahendin last tracked her about 80 miles from there in around 82 I heard. He was basing that on her tracks and from the casts at Bluff Creek. He was with witness's and I don't believe he was a hoaxer.
@@ToddGatewood1967 Thanks Todd, I will look for that. If we know they had offsping then they will still be around. Some of the sightings were many years ago. I was wondering what there lifespan would be.
Sorry, stopped watching when Todd Standing was mentioned.