PIDers love to tout this image as proof that "'Faul' is a tall man, and is taller than Paul was".
However, one has to take into account that McCartney is closer to the camera and stading on an upslope, and that Lennon & Starr are bending their knees.
Perspective and body posture.
To illustrate that the above image has been misperceived and miscalculated, see how in this other shot from the same day, we see that Lennon & McCartney's heights are the same as they have been since the early '60s.
I go over their height ratios in the height comparison thread here;
but briefly, we see barefoot Paul here towering over Ringo.
Which is confirmed on the backside of the vintage Help! album.
The height ratio you see here is the way it was from mid-1963 onward.
Here all four Beatles are wearing slip-on sandals. M. Ali is 6'3"
here we can see that McCartney is appx. 5'11".
This is the other PID favorite.
By using just these two photos, they claim Paul & Ringo are about the same height, and that after 1966 Paul towers over Ringo.
The 1963 image is from the rehearsal for the Royal Variety Show in Nov. 1963.
Ringo seems to be appx. up to Paul's hairline, rather than his eyes, as we normally see.
Either Ringo is wearing higher heels than usual, or it's a taller than usual Ringo or shorter than usual Paul, but Paul is still noticeably taller than Ringo. Now that we can see the shoulders more clearly, we see they are not close in height.
What is also important to note is that Paul seems to be bending his knee & hip a bit while Ringo is standing up very straight.
These images aren't ideal, but it's all we've got to work with. Ultimately, they do show what is going on height-wise - and that the 1963 image in the comp is again being misperceived.
Going by the other photos from this moment, I've highlighted where Paul's shoulder is, which helps in perceiving their actual height ratio.
In the 1968 photo, we see their height ratio is no different than it is in the 1965 photo from Help!
Another image PIDers use to try to "prove 'Faul' was taller than Paul".
From the A Day In The Life promo film.
If that is George, with Pattie standing behind him, then it seems that it's George that 'shrank', not Paul that grew.
Pattie is 170m - 5'7".
George is 5'11".
Which also means, if this photo is to be taken at face value, that Paul would be about 6'4", and the guy in the orange pants is over 7 feet tall, the long-haired person next to him is about 6'4", and the guy in the black suit on our far left is about 8 feet tall.
And is the guy in the middle really 5'6"? And is the guy in the back really 5'0"?
I would wager a special lense or a trick stage is being used here.
This being during the psychedelic era and all.
Now look at the height ratios.
The guy in the orange pants is now the Same height as Paul, but the guy in the black suit is still towering over Paul, though he's only a matter of inches in front of him.
Seems a psychedelic affect was being used and the perceived heights are an optical illusion caused by the distances creating exaggerated distortions in the heights.
As we see, Pattie was wearing the puffy-sleeve white shirt with a black vest. Did she really become 5'11"?
Here is what seems to be the layout of where the figures are standing.
And as we can see, when they switch positions later on, the perceived 'height ratios' change drastically.
The fact that Pattie appears the same height as George, though the two of them are only offset by a few inches, means that for every inch away from the camera, the figure will appear to 'lose' an inch in height, if one is to draw a line across the tops of their comparative heads.
Just by comparing Pattie & George, we can see it is no wonder Paul appears to "tower over George". Which also explains why Orange Pants seems to tower over Paul in the first shot.
Now, let's discuss the sloppily-made Hofner Bass comparisons.
In most instances, the photos used are taken with different cameras, with different film formats and from different distances. All of which will cause a distortion in the perceived 'differences' in the comparative size of the objects.
This is a classic example.
These two photos were taken under different circumstances on every account, and are irreconcilable!
Here I made it so that the pick-ups on the Hofner line up.
But as we can see, the lengths of the guitar vary greatly. Look at how much 'longer' it is in the more recent image. No wonder the older Paul 'seems bigger'.
Now here, I matched up the lengths of the Hofners, but look at how mis-aligned the pick-ups are.
And younger Paul and his Hofner seem bigger than older Paul's.
These two photos Can Not be used together in a size comparison. A court would disqualify this as evidence.
And yet, many people have staked their belief in PID on this comparison.
This is why we Continually say, be thorough and unbiased!
The other important factor in these two photos is the distances in which they were taken from the subject. The photo of older Paul was taken from a considerable distance with the camera zoomed all the way in. While the photo of the younger Paul was taken in close proximity to the subject with the camera zoomed all the way out.
This will create a distortion in the perceived sizes of the two subjects when a comparison is attempted.
I encourage everyone who believes in PID to take an assortment of photos of Paul with his Hofner from 1961 to 1966 and equalize the Hofners. You will see some of them will 'appear' to be bigger men than others, yet they are all relatively the same size.
Do the same with images after 1966. Compare the Pauls from within the same era to each other.
Camera/film format and differences in distance will affect the proportions of the comparative subjects.
Here is another popular Hofner comparison.
First of all, the image of the young Paul was taken across the room with the lens zoomed all the way out. The camera's distance could easily be 15 feet or more from the subject.
The image of the older Paul was taken much closer, most likely 6-10 feet away, with the lens zoomed about halfway in.
You will also notice young Paul has his legs spread and is leaning onto the riser, lowering his perceived 'height'.
If this comparison is to be taken as the untrained eye interprets it, that means either older Paul is about 5'11" as established (or less) and younger Paul is 5'7" or less.
Or young Paul is 5'11" (like usual) and older Paul is 6'4".
If it the latter, than older Paul would be dwarfing Harrison and Lennon - which never happened.
If it is the former, than Harrison and Lennon are 5'5" to 5'7" - which never happened.
Here I tried to reconcile the Hofners, but was unable to. In the first overlay, I matched up the width of the bass and lined up the pick-ups and volume knobs, but the head & tuners are off.
In the second overlay I lined up the head but now the pick-ups are off. The vast difference in distance between these two subjects makes them incompatible, and unusable for a reliable size comparison.
Not to mention the possible differences in camera, lens and film formats used.
PIDers need to realize there is more than one kind of camera and film type in the world, and not all photos are taken from the same distance.
Though here I illustrate how their facial features line up perfectly, and their heads are just about the same size - taking into account how the Hofners are going to be offset.
Really, if young Paul were to stand up straight, and position his shoulders perpendicular to the camera, he would match up with older Paul in height size as well as could be expected considering camera, distance, and other factors.
What's interesting is that we have another Paul with a hooked right eyebrow, as seen in 1961.
Here's another clumsily-made Hofner comp.
First of all, Paul on the left has his knees bent, pretty deeply.
And second, the Paul on the right is only 5'10"? Doesn't that go against everything PIDers say; that 'Faul' is around 6'2"?
5'10" is shorter than George!
I would attribute this miscalculation to Paul again bending his knees and the camera being below him, causing foreshortening. Neither of these measurements are accurate.
^ The Paul on the left is from their first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show.
Paul was not 5'8" at the Ed Sullivan Show (or any show). And even if he was, that would mean Harrison & Lennon were also 5'8", which goes against everything PIDers say.
It would also mean Ringo is 5'4"-5'5" and Ed Sullivan is about 5'6". None of which are true.
These are screengrabs I got where all 5 of them were standing up straight, no bending anywhere.
Not only is it safe to assume, but it's clear that Paul, George & John are all about 5'10" to 5'11", and Ringo is about 5'7"-ish - as is always the case after mid-1963.
Take some photos of yourself with a guitar. One from 20 feet away with the lens zoomed out, an on from 5 feet away with the lens zoomed in, then match up the size of the guitars, you will notice a perceived 'size difference'. Also try different lenses, etc.
Another thing to consider, is if images are taken from the net, they could also have undergone compression of various kinds, which will affect the dimensions and thus any comparisons made with other images.
No comments:
Post a Comment