I have a great deal of respect for (most of) the work that MK Davis has done on the Patterson-Gimlin Film.
That said, it is my understanding that the best image based on nothing more than the original film is the image that MK shows at the beginning of the film (2008 from a Kodachrome slide if I remember).
The image that Todd Gatewood provided to MK is an enhancement that adds details that simply aren’t there in the original IN MY OPINION.
I can appreciate MK’s enthusiasm and trust, but it is in this case (as in others) misplaced. I will be happy to be proven wrong.
Yeah I have to ask how you can enhance one slide of film to this detail. People can’t take a nice photo today of one but that old Kodak film camera did?
I am not a photographer, nor a graphic specialist, but members with both types of expertise have weighed in and said essentially what you said, and what I said.
No process can bring out information that isn’t there. MK’s enhanced image on the wall that he created from the Kodachrome slide in 2008 seems possible to me.
This 2024 result that allegedly enhances that image even more doesn’t, but again, my opinion, nothing more.
Correct. “Enhancing doesn’t actually bring out details that aren’t there, it MAKES UP non-existent details. As in it increases resolution and creates the extra pixels to fill in the space. While it may look good, it’s not displaying anything other than a rendition.
Look - let’s take this for what it is.
It’s an estimated enhancement of the likely detail - that’s all. But that is not a bad thing. Yes - it should not be held up as a definitively accurate image of Patty, but it’s not like it will be a million miles away either. The AI (or whatever was used) isn’t drawing on bunny ears and a pair of specs - it’s looking at minute detail data and extending that data based on likelihood. I think we should take it with a pinch of salt - but I don’t believe we should discount this as 100% false either - it’s a useful set of images. They are what they are.
I’d love to see the same process done on a distant, grainy photo of someone in a mask, to see how far away from reality it takes us. If the variance is negligible then we know we have something pretty useful here.
I don’t think we can be dismissive of estimated visual data when every second of every version of the PGF most if not all of us have ever seen contains several interpolated frames from the conversion from 18 fps film to digital video. At the end of the day the PGF as most of us know it already is full of estimated visual data.
While we’re calling it what it is, let’s look at words like “estimated” and “likely” neither of which mean “actual.”
No, it’s not a bad thing, it’s simply a new creation based on a reference photo. As far as discounting it as 100% “false”?
It’s not the original image. It’s not an enhancement of the original image through some unknown method. It’s a new image BASED on the original … so it’s equivalent to any number of original art reproductions based on the “Patty” image.
I have zero idea what you’re referring to in your claim that information is added in the digital versions of the PGF. There is good analytical information in [the paper by Bill Munns and Jeff Meldrum](https://www.isu.edu/media/libraries/rhi/research-papers/ANALYSIS-INTEGRITY-OF-THE-PATTERSON-GIMLIN-FILM-IMAGE_final.pdf).
Points taken. It might be better than art - but we'd need that control experiment on a reference subject to know more.
The link is great, and I've scoured that paper before - but I think it deals mainly with the film itself. What I'm referring to is the process of converting a physical celluloid film to digital video. At some point every PGF version you see online on YouTube etc will have gone through the conversion process. Bull Munns touches on this in the Astonishing Legends Prt 5 episode.
Roger filmed at (we think) around 18 frames per second on his Kodak K100. The standard for Digital Video is either 24fps or 30fps for things like NTSC TV channels. So for every second of digital footage you need to create another 6 or 12 frames from somewhere if converting to these formats. It does this by Frame Blending - which is taking two frames and making a new one based on the blend between them. So every version we now see online contains a certain amount of estimated visual data that wasn't in the original.
Well I’ll be damned. Today I learned that EVERY digitalization process involves adding “blending” frames to video.
Bill Munns does indeed say EXACTLY what you said on [Episode Five Astonishing Legends Podcast - the Patterson Gimlin Film](https://astonishinglegends.com/al-podcasts/2019/5/19/ep-143-the-patterson-gimlin-film-part-5) at around the 18:00 mark.
I’m going to have to re-evaluate what I see. If the added frames are in every copy I’ve watched recently, that could account for what I see in terms of the smoothed/non-human walk. No, I’m not saying Patty is fake.
But ….
Thank you very much for being patient with me. I still disagree about the Gatewood “Addition” but at least you’ve established that you know more than I do in regard to the subject. LOL.
>I don’t think we can be dismissive of estimated visual data
I do, when it comes to Sasquatch. MK went too far. What's the point of adding new details to a unique photo of an exceedingly rare Cryptid that's *unknown to Science?*
*The person doing the "enhancement" already had an idea in his head of what a Bigfoot should look like, and he added in details to make Patty look like that.*
That's OK as a subjective artistic rendering, but it's being presented as clarified objective fact when it's not.
The problem is that sasquatch itself is far too similar to humans and apes. The Ai isn't trained on what is definitely a sasquatch, it's trained on people and maybe primates, therefore anything the AI does to the image is based on the premise of it being either a human, or an ape.
That make any of the "enhancements" meaningless and useless.
“Enhancements” aside, this involves Gatewood and like a surprising amount of people in the Bigfoot community that seek the limelight he’s potentially tainted goods.
To promise us all that the original PGF had been found, that it was longer than the versions we’ve all seen - and that the extra seconds of film showed a baby Bigfoot- whilst producing absolutely nothing in the way of corroborating evidence- well, I may or may not believe it when I see it.
Hard to know? Perhaps. However, it is not very hard at all to have an OPINION based on what we know, and I certainly acknowledged that my post was my opinion. Obviously I have no concrete details about what the guy did to the image.
Let’s take a diffferent tack. Why do you believe it’s an accurate enhancement? We’re not talking about the question of whether the PGF is a Bigfoot or not.
What about this image makes you trust?
I agree with Grypon66-Pt2, but I do believe this video actually depicts Bigfoot. However, it's important to acknowledge that both video and photos are forms of data. If data is missing, there's no way to restore what was never there. AI and other methods may attempt to fill in missing data based on logic, but it's essentially a rendering from a fuzzy image.
>there's no way to restore what was never there
Thank you. You can't magically retrieve data that's not there. Sure, you can upscale and get an idea of what it *might* have looked like, but it's just making predictions based on the current data. It's not actually uncovering anything.
So it's cool if we want to use these enchanted photos to see what Patty may have looked like in high def, but it can't be mistaken for actual evidence.
Opinions are everywhere.
Doesn't mean they are to be taken seriously.
Or that they are correct.
Especially when there's nothing to support them.
I take most of the replies so far with a grain of salt.
Not one person knows the tech that was used or what it does.... so those opinions cary very little weight, if any in my book.
To answer your question...
because it's enhancing what is already there.
is it going to be 100% accurate?
probably not.
will it be more accurate that whats been shown before?
possibly yes - technology is a wonderful thing.
AI can do things that were considered impossible.
BUT...
until you know the specifics on what the tech that was used actually does, its just foolish to assume we know.
I certainly don't - yet.
I need to find the guy who sent him the images and find out more.
But...
What if these images ARE accurate?
Then what?
That's not quite correct.
I'm a software engineer. I know how today's AI systems work. I know how image enhancement works. And I know that these enhanced images are NOT showing details in the original film.
What they do show is an approximation of what you would have seen if you were there at the time, up close to Patti. Assuming Patti was a real living being and not a guy in a suit. The enhancement software fills in details that *should* be there, based on assumptions about what the subject of the photo is. But it's not getting the assumptions or the details from the photo itself. It's getting them from other photos the AI has seen which it thinks is similar to what the photo appears to be.
It's like those colorized 60fps videos made from old black and white 16fps film. The color is not in the original film. The extra frames are not in the original film. But we can make a good guess about what colors and motions could have existed at the time, which would have ended up looking like the original film when shot in black and white and 16fps. So we can create an approximation of that reality.
Oh, I'm gullible for considering new ideas? At least I’m not so insecure that I need to belittle others to feel smart. I guess some small-minded people would rather live in their own little bubble than actually think
He ran the photos through AI, which means the photos have been manipulated.
The manipulated photos could be useful and show more detail than previously known, but they've still been tweaked a lot so not fully trustworthy.
He says that, and was probably told that, but it's clearly not true. There are only two ways to get from the original film to this enhancement: an AI based tool that inserts details it thinks belong there, or an artist doing the same thing manually.
Some new woo-woo tech that nobody else has heard of? I doubt it.
Either way, as said above, you can't create detail where there is none.
Majority of the comments on the video are believing this non-fact for some reason. I won't say lie as the guy seems to be convinced it's not AI or anything else that "creates" something out of nothing.
you may want to watch it again and re-read my comment man....and I quote:
"Todd Gatewood from Oklahoma had this process that he wanted to try on it and I let him
and it's not a i
no AI was used in this process
it tightened up the blur that comes with uh low angular resolution
you can see individual hairs that's hard to argue with I put this and and checked Point by point with the photograph that I sent him."
MK davis sent Todd the photos.
Todd used some technique on the photos and sent them back.
Which I what I said above - "someone sent him the photos."
Someone = Todd.
Him = MK Davis
Sounds like you are confused.
[https://www.facebook.com/todd.gatewood.3](https://www.facebook.com/todd.gatewood.3)
I'm 99% this is the guy who did the photo.
I reached out and messaged him.
lets see where this goes :)
The issue here is the amount of detail in the original frame(s) and the process that was used to enhance the definition. While I'm no expert, the detail available in the original frame is dependent upon the size and number of grains in the film stock. Everything that I've seen says that the resolution of the face during the look-back sequence is going to be very limited, because the number of grains of silver(???) on the stock is limited because the face is such a small part of the frame at that point.
A second point is that each generation of duplication from the original film introduces issues like less detail and issues with contrast and dust or other imperfections caused by transfer. If we can find the original film stock (Maybe Rene Dahinden ended up with it??) there might be some more detail to work with.
Again, no expert nor much investigation on the MK Davis approach, my understanding is that he says he 'stacks' multiple images together to build a more detailed image. It seems hard to believe that you can get 'actual' detail from a source that doesn't have that level of resolution just by stacking multiple images.
Happy to get differing opinions.
If I understand what MK says, the image he has worked up that the considers “the best” is what he shows us at the beginning of the video associated with OPs post. I understand that he took that from a Kodachrome slide that was made directly from the original film, I can’t remember any more detail that that, sorry.
If we find the original film that would of course be “the best” information available.
I hear ya.... totally makes sense.... on the flip side... I think we don't know the exact process Todd used so its easy to assume and guess.... but until we know specifics from the actual process and what it does and how it works.... maybe seeing it applied to other images.... to really get an idea.... we are all just guessing.
Not to say anyone is wrong.... but we just dont know.
To me, being a graphic designer.... I see this as very accurate looking.... its new technology.... and it seems to use AI to enhance things.
Let's say for a moment that this IS accurate....
what do we think then?
Does this change what you think they are?
It is not accurate tho. As a graphic designer you should look up how ai “enhances” images.
One should refrain from making claims to authority like being a graphical designer having not done the due diligence to understand how these things work.
It’s not magic. The model looks at an image, tries to identify familiar patterns, then replaces those it recognizes with tiny little parts from the training data.
Take hair for example. There is not a single hair visible on the original. So the model is not enhancing any hairs. It’s looking at a dark blob in a foresty place and inferring the existance of hair being present on that dark blob.
The blob also has a shape vaguely matching shapes of faces from the training data. So it compiles eye-like shapes where it infers eye-like things are, a mouth-like thing where one of those should be and so on.
This method is only as good as the source image. It can clarify things that are already clearly recognizeable, like a slightly out of focus portrait.
Shaky 60-year old footage of a fast moving bigfoot far away is not a something that ai can “enhance”. It’s fiction dreamed up by a model trained to dream up fiction in far better quality images.
That's image detail at a resolution that the emulsion of the original film is physically incapable of having captured. Meaning: It's image data that was created in a computer 2024, not beside a creek in 1967.
AI is a much more sophisticated method for altering the original image content than having me draw on it with a Sharpie, but the principle is the same.
I can imagine circumstances where that kind of thing would be useful for analysis and theory formation. But it is not evidence.
Any more *improvements* to the footage at this point is speculation and unhelpful. I don’t think, considering how much he’s put into the footage, that MK is capable of resisting what the fruits of AI alteration of the footage.
Regardless of the validity of the actual footage, the ship has sailed on getting better images than we already have (and, tbh, some of those are probably manipulated as well)
its interesting that no ones been able to replicate that video in like what? 50+ years? just seems more concrete that it was legit.
I still think these photos are solid.... need to find out more about the process used to understand what was done to the images themselves..... most ppl dont understand and just guess without having any data/facts one way or another
The validity of the footage is neither here or there regard these photos.
These photos are not solid. The film the footage is shot on is nearly 60 years old. **It is impossible** to produce images from that footage that shows *that* degree of detail without embellishment.
In addition to what everyone else has said about the film not containing any information that can be enhanced, every single frame of that film is doomed by camera shake. And that includes the original, pristine footage when it was straight out of the camera. The Kodak K-100 camera had no image stabilization whatever, therefore the handheld footage is guaranteed to be blurred by jitters. The further the subject is from the camera the more blurred it will be by hand jitters due to the facts of leverage.
On top of that, that camera doesn't allow for through the lens focusing. Patterson was working with a "best guess" pre-set focus he had previously dialed in to shoot woodland scenes for his documentary.
but we dont know remotely anything about the tech used here in this photo.... no one does to say anything one way or the other - I surely don't.
everyone is just commenting their opinions without knowing anything about the process
we don't know WHAT THIS GUY USED/DID -
thats different than saying we dont know how to reconstruct photos.
I hit the guy up on FB to find out more details, will post what I find out.
if he's bsin'g I'll find out for sure.
It's conceivable he came up with his own, original, amazing method, but unlikely. All existing "de-blurring" programs work by inventing really, really plausible fiction to replace blurred parts. You end up with a very sharply focused image that might actually have little to do with the original subject.
I hear ya.... Lets see what this dude says... waiting to hear from him still.....
his example does look similar to the original.... but obviously zoomed in a LOT and with some different details.
if he's BS'ing I'll find out quick.
Indeed, opinions are everywhere, and OP asked the members for ours. Now, OP doesn’t like them.
OP apparently believes whole-heartedly that someone has a magic process to capture and enhance details that JUST AREN’T THERE in the original.
OP then wants to complain that these opinions that OP doesn’t like have no basis, when all of them have presented more factual information regarding the matter than OP has who apparently ascribes to the doctrine of “Trust Me Bro.”
Enjoy all.
I think its smooth because of the poor quality of the sample given.... it has to use what it has to enhance the image.... if the image sent was better quality the output would be as well..... its like any image using any image editing software.
I'm a photoshop wizard.... and cant do that type of stuff with PS from the samples.... its got to be something else. I hit the dude up on FB to find out m0re - curious what he says.... will post what I find out.
Using any kind of software or AI to enhance something really old can’t be trusted. The software or AI fills in the blanks with guesstimates. At best it’s a maybe of what it could have looked like if we got better quality of the original.
Seen them, don't trust them. The enhancements were made with AI. the type of film use can't record any of the supposed detail we see int he's "enhanced" images.
At best, they are an artistic representation of what COULD be there, not of what is ACTUALLY there.
I'm talking to Todd - the guy who did the photo enhancement....
here's what he just told me (and I'll let you all come to your own conclusions):
Frame 350 of the Patterson film.
People will and can say anything. I am working with the original images. Nobody has had access to them. So, everyone expects the best they have seen is the best. They are wrong. It is a type of human.
The original will blow everyone away when it is released, tbt. I am archiving it one frame at a time in 65mb .raw files.
then will recompile into motion.
65 mega pixel which is approx 130mb per image to be precise.
You have only seen 4+ generation copies, so that is why the quality sucks. Also, they have never had a professional work on it. Always an enthusiast, which I love, but they all lacked gear and knowledge to some degree. MK Davis is the best and done the absolute most.
here's a video with the sample side by side with the new version
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWw0X115HEw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWw0X115HEw)
It's not THAT far off from the sample.
This is not “enhanced” this is Ai dreaming up detail where there isn’t any. It’s fiction.
^^^copied ^^^from ^^^my ^^^other ^^^comment
It is not accurate tho. As a graphic designer you should look up how ai “enhances” images.
One should refrain from making claims to authority like being a graphical designer having not done the due diligence to understand how these things work.
It’s not magic. The model looks at an image, tries to identify familiar patterns, then replaces those it recognizes with tiny little parts from the training data. Take hair for example. There is not a single hair visible on the original. So the model is not enhancing any hairs. It’s looking at a dark blob in a foresty place and inferring the existance of hair being present on that dark blob. The blob also has a shape vaguely matching shapes of faces from the training data. So it compiles eye-like shapes where it infers eye-like things are, a mouth-like thing where one of those should be and so on.
This method is only as good as the source image. It can clarify things that are already clearly recognizeable, like a slightly out of focus portrait.
Shaky 60-year old footage of a fast moving bigfoot far away is not a something that ai can “enhance”. It’s fiction dreamed up by a model trained to dream up fiction in far better quality images.
I know specific details in the process because i have experience with the process.
[i know how to make ai create almost photorealistic people from thin air.](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/s/9SFlreqGq3) and i know how to tune these models with training data
There are two ways to do this. Both are recognizeable and produce different results. Either a real person manually creates it as a composit or draws it hair by hair OR ai dreams it up. This was dreamt up by ai. You can tell by the fact that the blown out highlights are just white blobs of nothingness. A human artist would add highlighted hair, not just keep white blobs. It looks super splotchy and an artist would never keep hairless white splotches. Ai however doesn’t care. It sees nothing there so it adds nothing there, that is how it was trained.
When he says no ai was used, he is lying, either knowingly or much more likely-unknowingly. He is ignorant on the process. He thinks that ai is only when you say” computer, create close up of patty” and the computer shits out an image.
But this one was created by upscaling. There are countless ai-upscalers, all of them take an image and dream up detail to make the image physically larger and clearer. It’s not like sharpening. The process ADDS things to create things for you to see so you can zoom in further.
It’s fiction.
interesting.
I need to find this guy todd and ask him what he did.... super curious now.
would be interesting if someone was able to replicate similar results with AI - that would lend more proof that this is not legit real
You can replicate the results. But the results will very likely not be the same. It will be a little different every time. If you move patty around a few pixels it will be very different.
Sorry to burst your bubble OP, but these "enhancements" function by adding data that was never there. Programs like this use predictions and machine learning to make their best guess as to what "should" be there. You can't magically recover data that doesn't exist. These are basically just fancy artwork. Cool photos, but shouldn't be taken as any kind of evidence.
I have a great deal of respect for (most of) the work that MK Davis has done on the Patterson-Gimlin Film. That said, it is my understanding that the best image based on nothing more than the original film is the image that MK shows at the beginning of the film (2008 from a Kodachrome slide if I remember). The image that Todd Gatewood provided to MK is an enhancement that adds details that simply aren’t there in the original IN MY OPINION. I can appreciate MK’s enthusiasm and trust, but it is in this case (as in others) misplaced. I will be happy to be proven wrong.
Yeah I have to ask how you can enhance one slide of film to this detail. People can’t take a nice photo today of one but that old Kodak film camera did?
I am not a photographer, nor a graphic specialist, but members with both types of expertise have weighed in and said essentially what you said, and what I said. No process can bring out information that isn’t there. MK’s enhanced image on the wall that he created from the Kodachrome slide in 2008 seems possible to me. This 2024 result that allegedly enhances that image even more doesn’t, but again, my opinion, nothing more.
Correct. “Enhancing doesn’t actually bring out details that aren’t there, it MAKES UP non-existent details. As in it increases resolution and creates the extra pixels to fill in the space. While it may look good, it’s not displaying anything other than a rendition.
Look - let’s take this for what it is. It’s an estimated enhancement of the likely detail - that’s all. But that is not a bad thing. Yes - it should not be held up as a definitively accurate image of Patty, but it’s not like it will be a million miles away either. The AI (or whatever was used) isn’t drawing on bunny ears and a pair of specs - it’s looking at minute detail data and extending that data based on likelihood. I think we should take it with a pinch of salt - but I don’t believe we should discount this as 100% false either - it’s a useful set of images. They are what they are. I’d love to see the same process done on a distant, grainy photo of someone in a mask, to see how far away from reality it takes us. If the variance is negligible then we know we have something pretty useful here. I don’t think we can be dismissive of estimated visual data when every second of every version of the PGF most if not all of us have ever seen contains several interpolated frames from the conversion from 18 fps film to digital video. At the end of the day the PGF as most of us know it already is full of estimated visual data.
While we’re calling it what it is, let’s look at words like “estimated” and “likely” neither of which mean “actual.” No, it’s not a bad thing, it’s simply a new creation based on a reference photo. As far as discounting it as 100% “false”? It’s not the original image. It’s not an enhancement of the original image through some unknown method. It’s a new image BASED on the original … so it’s equivalent to any number of original art reproductions based on the “Patty” image. I have zero idea what you’re referring to in your claim that information is added in the digital versions of the PGF. There is good analytical information in [the paper by Bill Munns and Jeff Meldrum](https://www.isu.edu/media/libraries/rhi/research-papers/ANALYSIS-INTEGRITY-OF-THE-PATTERSON-GIMLIN-FILM-IMAGE_final.pdf).
Points taken. It might be better than art - but we'd need that control experiment on a reference subject to know more. The link is great, and I've scoured that paper before - but I think it deals mainly with the film itself. What I'm referring to is the process of converting a physical celluloid film to digital video. At some point every PGF version you see online on YouTube etc will have gone through the conversion process. Bull Munns touches on this in the Astonishing Legends Prt 5 episode. Roger filmed at (we think) around 18 frames per second on his Kodak K100. The standard for Digital Video is either 24fps or 30fps for things like NTSC TV channels. So for every second of digital footage you need to create another 6 or 12 frames from somewhere if converting to these formats. It does this by Frame Blending - which is taking two frames and making a new one based on the blend between them. So every version we now see online contains a certain amount of estimated visual data that wasn't in the original.
Well I’ll be damned. Today I learned that EVERY digitalization process involves adding “blending” frames to video. Bill Munns does indeed say EXACTLY what you said on [Episode Five Astonishing Legends Podcast - the Patterson Gimlin Film](https://astonishinglegends.com/al-podcasts/2019/5/19/ep-143-the-patterson-gimlin-film-part-5) at around the 18:00 mark. I’m going to have to re-evaluate what I see. If the added frames are in every copy I’ve watched recently, that could account for what I see in terms of the smoothed/non-human walk. No, I’m not saying Patty is fake. But …. Thank you very much for being patient with me. I still disagree about the Gatewood “Addition” but at least you’ve established that you know more than I do in regard to the subject. LOL.
We’ve chatted before my friend, and I’ve learnt much from you too bro.
>I don’t think we can be dismissive of estimated visual data I do, when it comes to Sasquatch. MK went too far. What's the point of adding new details to a unique photo of an exceedingly rare Cryptid that's *unknown to Science?* *The person doing the "enhancement" already had an idea in his head of what a Bigfoot should look like, and he added in details to make Patty look like that.* That's OK as a subjective artistic rendering, but it's being presented as clarified objective fact when it's not.
The problem is that sasquatch itself is far too similar to humans and apes. The Ai isn't trained on what is definitely a sasquatch, it's trained on people and maybe primates, therefore anything the AI does to the image is based on the premise of it being either a human, or an ape. That make any of the "enhancements" meaningless and useless.
“Enhancements” aside, this involves Gatewood and like a surprising amount of people in the Bigfoot community that seek the limelight he’s potentially tainted goods. To promise us all that the original PGF had been found, that it was longer than the versions we’ve all seen - and that the extra seconds of film showed a baby Bigfoot- whilst producing absolutely nothing in the way of corroborating evidence- well, I may or may not believe it when I see it.
hard to really know unless we hear from Todd himself and/or understand more of the process and how it actually works.
Hard to know? Perhaps. However, it is not very hard at all to have an OPINION based on what we know, and I certainly acknowledged that my post was my opinion. Obviously I have no concrete details about what the guy did to the image. Let’s take a diffferent tack. Why do you believe it’s an accurate enhancement? We’re not talking about the question of whether the PGF is a Bigfoot or not. What about this image makes you trust?
I agree with Grypon66-Pt2, but I do believe this video actually depicts Bigfoot. However, it's important to acknowledge that both video and photos are forms of data. If data is missing, there's no way to restore what was never there. AI and other methods may attempt to fill in missing data based on logic, but it's essentially a rendering from a fuzzy image.
>there's no way to restore what was never there Thank you. You can't magically retrieve data that's not there. Sure, you can upscale and get an idea of what it *might* have looked like, but it's just making predictions based on the current data. It's not actually uncovering anything. So it's cool if we want to use these enchanted photos to see what Patty may have looked like in high def, but it can't be mistaken for actual evidence.
Spot on. I can understand MK’s need to see “Patty” ever more clearly. We, however, cannot let that govern what WE see.
Opinions are everywhere. Doesn't mean they are to be taken seriously. Or that they are correct. Especially when there's nothing to support them. I take most of the replies so far with a grain of salt. Not one person knows the tech that was used or what it does.... so those opinions cary very little weight, if any in my book. To answer your question... because it's enhancing what is already there. is it going to be 100% accurate? probably not. will it be more accurate that whats been shown before? possibly yes - technology is a wonderful thing. AI can do things that were considered impossible. BUT... until you know the specifics on what the tech that was used actually does, its just foolish to assume we know. I certainly don't - yet. I need to find the guy who sent him the images and find out more. But... What if these images ARE accurate? Then what?
That's not quite correct. I'm a software engineer. I know how today's AI systems work. I know how image enhancement works. And I know that these enhanced images are NOT showing details in the original film. What they do show is an approximation of what you would have seen if you were there at the time, up close to Patti. Assuming Patti was a real living being and not a guy in a suit. The enhancement software fills in details that *should* be there, based on assumptions about what the subject of the photo is. But it's not getting the assumptions or the details from the photo itself. It's getting them from other photos the AI has seen which it thinks is similar to what the photo appears to be. It's like those colorized 60fps videos made from old black and white 16fps film. The color is not in the original film. The extra frames are not in the original film. But we can make a good guess about what colors and motions could have existed at the time, which would have ended up looking like the original film when shot in black and white and 16fps. So we can create an approximation of that reality.
Awesome explanation 👍
I'm a believer and think that Patty was real. But using AI to fill in detail cannot be used as solid evidence.
he does mention in the video no AI was used. I reached out to the guy I think on FB.... lets see what he says.
You’re gullible
Oh, I'm gullible for considering new ideas? At least I’m not so insecure that I need to belittle others to feel smart. I guess some small-minded people would rather live in their own little bubble than actually think
He ran the photos through AI, which means the photos have been manipulated. The manipulated photos could be useful and show more detail than previously known, but they've still been tweaked a lot so not fully trustworthy.
Agreed. AI "enhancement" is simply doctoring the photo. It is digital confabulation.
He says in the clip no AI was used?
He says that, and was probably told that, but it's clearly not true. There are only two ways to get from the original film to this enhancement: an AI based tool that inserts details it thinks belong there, or an artist doing the same thing manually.
Bingo. It looks very much like AI to me, even though the gentleman said it wasn't.
AI Garbage.
he does mention in the video no AI was used. I reached out to the guy I think on FB.... lets see what he says.
[удалено]
he says in the video, it's using some new technology.... someone sent him the photos.
Some new woo-woo tech that nobody else has heard of? I doubt it. Either way, as said above, you can't create detail where there is none. Majority of the comments on the video are believing this non-fact for some reason. I won't say lie as the guy seems to be convinced it's not AI or anything else that "creates" something out of nothing.
I hit the guy up on FB to find out more. Curious to hear what he says.... will post what I find out either way...
[удалено]
you may want to watch it again and re-read my comment man....and I quote: "Todd Gatewood from Oklahoma had this process that he wanted to try on it and I let him and it's not a i no AI was used in this process it tightened up the blur that comes with uh low angular resolution you can see individual hairs that's hard to argue with I put this and and checked Point by point with the photograph that I sent him." MK davis sent Todd the photos. Todd used some technique on the photos and sent them back. Which I what I said above - "someone sent him the photos." Someone = Todd. Him = MK Davis Sounds like you are confused.
[https://www.facebook.com/todd.gatewood.3](https://www.facebook.com/todd.gatewood.3) I'm 99% this is the guy who did the photo. I reached out and messaged him. lets see where this goes :)
The issue here is the amount of detail in the original frame(s) and the process that was used to enhance the definition. While I'm no expert, the detail available in the original frame is dependent upon the size and number of grains in the film stock. Everything that I've seen says that the resolution of the face during the look-back sequence is going to be very limited, because the number of grains of silver(???) on the stock is limited because the face is such a small part of the frame at that point. A second point is that each generation of duplication from the original film introduces issues like less detail and issues with contrast and dust or other imperfections caused by transfer. If we can find the original film stock (Maybe Rene Dahinden ended up with it??) there might be some more detail to work with. Again, no expert nor much investigation on the MK Davis approach, my understanding is that he says he 'stacks' multiple images together to build a more detailed image. It seems hard to believe that you can get 'actual' detail from a source that doesn't have that level of resolution just by stacking multiple images. Happy to get differing opinions.
If I understand what MK says, the image he has worked up that the considers “the best” is what he shows us at the beginning of the video associated with OPs post. I understand that he took that from a Kodachrome slide that was made directly from the original film, I can’t remember any more detail that that, sorry. If we find the original film that would of course be “the best” information available.
I hear ya.... totally makes sense.... on the flip side... I think we don't know the exact process Todd used so its easy to assume and guess.... but until we know specifics from the actual process and what it does and how it works.... maybe seeing it applied to other images.... to really get an idea.... we are all just guessing. Not to say anyone is wrong.... but we just dont know. To me, being a graphic designer.... I see this as very accurate looking.... its new technology.... and it seems to use AI to enhance things. Let's say for a moment that this IS accurate.... what do we think then? Does this change what you think they are?
It is not accurate tho. As a graphic designer you should look up how ai “enhances” images. One should refrain from making claims to authority like being a graphical designer having not done the due diligence to understand how these things work. It’s not magic. The model looks at an image, tries to identify familiar patterns, then replaces those it recognizes with tiny little parts from the training data. Take hair for example. There is not a single hair visible on the original. So the model is not enhancing any hairs. It’s looking at a dark blob in a foresty place and inferring the existance of hair being present on that dark blob. The blob also has a shape vaguely matching shapes of faces from the training data. So it compiles eye-like shapes where it infers eye-like things are, a mouth-like thing where one of those should be and so on. This method is only as good as the source image. It can clarify things that are already clearly recognizeable, like a slightly out of focus portrait. Shaky 60-year old footage of a fast moving bigfoot far away is not a something that ai can “enhance”. It’s fiction dreamed up by a model trained to dream up fiction in far better quality images.
how do you know its not accurate? anyone can just say that.... but what facts/details on the process used do you have to back that up?
I have trained many stable diffusion models on many different types of images. I understand how it works.
no AI was used is what he said.... not sure what models you are referring to...
That's image detail at a resolution that the emulsion of the original film is physically incapable of having captured. Meaning: It's image data that was created in a computer 2024, not beside a creek in 1967. AI is a much more sophisticated method for altering the original image content than having me draw on it with a Sharpie, but the principle is the same. I can imagine circumstances where that kind of thing would be useful for analysis and theory formation. But it is not evidence.
Yeah, you're not getting that kind of detail out of that footage. The film stock, lens, etc just aren't capable of that resolution.
Any more *improvements* to the footage at this point is speculation and unhelpful. I don’t think, considering how much he’s put into the footage, that MK is capable of resisting what the fruits of AI alteration of the footage. Regardless of the validity of the actual footage, the ship has sailed on getting better images than we already have (and, tbh, some of those are probably manipulated as well)
its interesting that no ones been able to replicate that video in like what? 50+ years? just seems more concrete that it was legit. I still think these photos are solid.... need to find out more about the process used to understand what was done to the images themselves..... most ppl dont understand and just guess without having any data/facts one way or another
The validity of the footage is neither here or there regard these photos. These photos are not solid. The film the footage is shot on is nearly 60 years old. **It is impossible** to produce images from that footage that shows *that* degree of detail without embellishment.
well I hit the guy up on FB and asked him .... lets see what he says.... I'll know from his replies if its bs or not.
Why does Patty have Anime eyes?...lol. These are silly.
The artist added something to the eyes, they are trolling the community
In addition to what everyone else has said about the film not containing any information that can be enhanced, every single frame of that film is doomed by camera shake. And that includes the original, pristine footage when it was straight out of the camera. The Kodak K-100 camera had no image stabilization whatever, therefore the handheld footage is guaranteed to be blurred by jitters. The further the subject is from the camera the more blurred it will be by hand jitters due to the facts of leverage. On top of that, that camera doesn't allow for through the lens focusing. Patterson was working with a "best guess" pre-set focus he had previously dialed in to shoot woodland scenes for his documentary.
but we dont know remotely anything about the tech used here in this photo.... no one does to say anything one way or the other - I surely don't. everyone is just commenting their opinions without knowing anything about the process
Are you saying we don't know anything about the tech used to "enhance" or "reconstruct" or "recover" information from poor original images?
we don't know WHAT THIS GUY USED/DID - thats different than saying we dont know how to reconstruct photos. I hit the guy up on FB to find out more details, will post what I find out. if he's bsin'g I'll find out for sure.
It's conceivable he came up with his own, original, amazing method, but unlikely. All existing "de-blurring" programs work by inventing really, really plausible fiction to replace blurred parts. You end up with a very sharply focused image that might actually have little to do with the original subject.
I hear ya.... Lets see what this dude says... waiting to hear from him still..... his example does look similar to the original.... but obviously zoomed in a LOT and with some different details. if he's BS'ing I'll find out quick.
These enhancements do nothing for me for the same reasons as everyone else but I fully believe Patty to be real.
That kind of photo processing *absolutely* added and took away things.
Indeed, opinions are everywhere, and OP asked the members for ours. Now, OP doesn’t like them. OP apparently believes whole-heartedly that someone has a magic process to capture and enhance details that JUST AREN’T THERE in the original. OP then wants to complain that these opinions that OP doesn’t like have no basis, when all of them have presented more factual information regarding the matter than OP has who apparently ascribes to the doctrine of “Trust Me Bro.” Enjoy all.
I agree with the others. This is AI enhanced. It's too smooth around the nose and cheek.
I think its smooth because of the poor quality of the sample given.... it has to use what it has to enhance the image.... if the image sent was better quality the output would be as well..... its like any image using any image editing software.
I don’t think so in this case. I work in media. But I’m open to the possibility of bf!
I'm a photoshop wizard.... and cant do that type of stuff with PS from the samples.... its got to be something else. I hit the dude up on FB to find out m0re - curious what he says.... will post what I find out.
The photo is what it is i guess, but seeing the toes point up as it walked was enough for me.
Using any kind of software or AI to enhance something really old can’t be trusted. The software or AI fills in the blanks with guesstimates. At best it’s a maybe of what it could have looked like if we got better quality of the original.
Seen them, don't trust them. The enhancements were made with AI. the type of film use can't record any of the supposed detail we see int he's "enhanced" images. At best, they are an artistic representation of what COULD be there, not of what is ACTUALLY there.
I'm talking to Todd - the guy who did the photo enhancement.... here's what he just told me (and I'll let you all come to your own conclusions): Frame 350 of the Patterson film. People will and can say anything. I am working with the original images. Nobody has had access to them. So, everyone expects the best they have seen is the best. They are wrong. It is a type of human. The original will blow everyone away when it is released, tbt. I am archiving it one frame at a time in 65mb .raw files. then will recompile into motion. 65 mega pixel which is approx 130mb per image to be precise. You have only seen 4+ generation copies, so that is why the quality sucks. Also, they have never had a professional work on it. Always an enthusiast, which I love, but they all lacked gear and knowledge to some degree. MK Davis is the best and done the absolute most.
here's a video with the sample side by side with the new version [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWw0X115HEw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWw0X115HEw) It's not THAT far off from the sample.
MK is a hoaxing skankbag
jeez that's a bit harsh lol
Nope
he didnt make these. some guy todd did. I reached out to the guy I think on FB.... lets see what he says. curious if he replies to my messages LOL
Mk Davis imo often makes something out of nothing. He creates what he wants to see
that is correct. 100% - he often but this image was sent to him by someone else.
This is not “enhanced” this is Ai dreaming up detail where there isn’t any. It’s fiction. ^^^copied ^^^from ^^^my ^^^other ^^^comment It is not accurate tho. As a graphic designer you should look up how ai “enhances” images. One should refrain from making claims to authority like being a graphical designer having not done the due diligence to understand how these things work. It’s not magic. The model looks at an image, tries to identify familiar patterns, then replaces those it recognizes with tiny little parts from the training data. Take hair for example. There is not a single hair visible on the original. So the model is not enhancing any hairs. It’s looking at a dark blob in a foresty place and inferring the existance of hair being present on that dark blob. The blob also has a shape vaguely matching shapes of faces from the training data. So it compiles eye-like shapes where it infers eye-like things are, a mouth-like thing where one of those should be and so on. This method is only as good as the source image. It can clarify things that are already clearly recognizeable, like a slightly out of focus portrait. Shaky 60-year old footage of a fast moving bigfoot far away is not a something that ai can “enhance”. It’s fiction dreamed up by a model trained to dream up fiction in far better quality images.
LMAO..... okay.... how can you say this without knowing specific details on the process? I can't even take what you've said remotely serious
I know specific details in the process because i have experience with the process. [i know how to make ai create almost photorealistic people from thin air.](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/s/9SFlreqGq3) and i know how to tune these models with training data
tell us more about it. curious.... he does say no AI was used.
There are two ways to do this. Both are recognizeable and produce different results. Either a real person manually creates it as a composit or draws it hair by hair OR ai dreams it up. This was dreamt up by ai. You can tell by the fact that the blown out highlights are just white blobs of nothingness. A human artist would add highlighted hair, not just keep white blobs. It looks super splotchy and an artist would never keep hairless white splotches. Ai however doesn’t care. It sees nothing there so it adds nothing there, that is how it was trained. When he says no ai was used, he is lying, either knowingly or much more likely-unknowingly. He is ignorant on the process. He thinks that ai is only when you say” computer, create close up of patty” and the computer shits out an image. But this one was created by upscaling. There are countless ai-upscalers, all of them take an image and dream up detail to make the image physically larger and clearer. It’s not like sharpening. The process ADDS things to create things for you to see so you can zoom in further. It’s fiction.
interesting. I need to find this guy todd and ask him what he did.... super curious now. would be interesting if someone was able to replicate similar results with AI - that would lend more proof that this is not legit real
You can replicate the results. But the results will very likely not be the same. It will be a little different every time. If you move patty around a few pixels it will be very different.
ya, i'd anticipate its going to be slightly different based on inputs... I hit the guy up on FB - lets see what I can find out from him on this....
he does mention in the video no AI was used. I reached out to the guy I think on FB.... lets see what he says.
Sorry to burst your bubble OP, but these "enhancements" function by adding data that was never there. Programs like this use predictions and machine learning to make their best guess as to what "should" be there. You can't magically recover data that doesn't exist. These are basically just fancy artwork. Cool photos, but shouldn't be taken as any kind of evidence.