• Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Chris Davidson

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Chris Davidson

Recent Profile Visitors

11,078 profile views
  1. This is why I suggested setting it aside for now. Both notes start with z188. One uses 16fps the other 18fps. In your previous post one example provided: PANEL 4.... 8 second mark at the start of z331 z331-z188 = 143 frames /18fps = 7.94 seconds That just reconfirms the notion of an altered film. "I guess I just yet see it that way." Was "just" supposed to be the word "don't"? "I also believe that by the time these boards were made the film had been completely altered down to those 486 frames." Agreed. As the boards match the extant zfilm. Moving forward, I think you'll realize why I choose not to delve into this too deeply, right now.
  2. Think of the 29 missing frames as the shortcoming of a film that would initially have 1/3 of the frames removed. It goes like this: 1/3 x 486 = 162 486 - 162 = 324 324 + (29 shortcoming frames) = 353 frames = z133-z486 (3/8).375 - (1/3) .333... = .041666... x 48 = 2.000... frames = difference between frames kept 18 (z188-z206) and frames removed 16 (9+7) within the same 48 frame (1 second) span.
  3. David, The briefing board confirms the 1/2 then 1/4 step-down. They provided us a huge clue when they listed the 1 second increment. Converting that 1 second increment to 48fps is the key: 48/2 = 24 frames 24 x .25 (1/4) = 6 frames 24frames -6 frames = 18 frames between the span. 18 frames is the span that is shown on the briefing board which matches the extant film. 18/48 = .375 = what's left when removing .625= 1/2 + 1/8(1/2 x 1/4)
  4. You can apply the frame removal ratio to the existing framework. .375 x 353frames(z133-z486) = 132.375 frames 353 + 132.375 = 485.375 = 486 whole frames Using the ratio dictates the starting and ending points for the extant zfilm.
  5. Extant z188-z222 = 34 frames NPIC labeling of missing frames for this same span = 29 total frames 188-198 = 9 missing frames 198-206 = 7 missing frames 206-213 = 6 missing frames 213-216 = 3 missing frames 216-222 = 4 missing frames
  6. NPIC indication of the initial 1/2 step-down? Added on edit: Since there was no frame numbering system via NPIC during this time period, that I know of, the labeling of missing frames just further cements the conclusion that some type of step-down process was in action.
  7. David, Putting the above frame reduction into a speed difference: From this previous post: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/9975-splice-in-tina-towner-film/&do=findComment&comment=354510 3.734mph/14.94mph = 1/4. Myers difference confirms it and so does CE884 (final plat version) entries for z168-z186. Keep thinking in terms of ratios. 1/2 = .5 1/2 x 1/4 = 1/8 = .125 .5 + .125 = .625 Closest ratio to 1 / (48/18.3) = .38138 is: .375 + .625 = 1 whole frame
  8. 48fps stepped down to 18.3: Starting at Z133 through the end, the percentage missing is approx 61.87 % A sample of this 61.87% overall frame removal process below: If you want to include the frames missing from Z1 - Z133 also, the percentage of total frames missing would be approx 72.3%.
  9. The WC being the smart entity that they were and in keeping with the correct ratios, quite properly assigned 25 frames (officially published CE884) to the same distance traveled for 18 frames - z168-186. Since 1 second of time equaled 18.3fps not 18fps, and part of the 48 to 18.3fps conversion included an approx 24fps step down, then the equivalent would have been the next whole frame or 25 frames. This might be the easiest way to recognize what conversions were occurring if you are not interested in the math equations.
  10. And, according to CE884 entered on the final WC plat of May1964, you can find these common speeds in the first entries provided (z168-z186) Overall entry of 21.6ft traveled in 18 frames = 21.96ft traveled in 18.3 frames = 1 second = 14.94mph And, the first entries from z168-z171: 3 frames = .9ft traveled = 18.3frames (1 sec) / 3 frames = 6.1 x .9ft = 5.49ft per sec = 3.734mph Now, to arrive at Shaneyfelt’s magic 11.2 mph , just take 14.94mph - 3.74 mph =11.2mph. In frame removal format, 3.734/14.94 = 1/4. Or, just apply it to the previous gif provided.
  11. Once you realize that part of the reduction from 48-18.3 included reducing the frame count via one pass = close equivalent to 24 fps, you can then put the SS recreation in its proper context. Yes, the recreation was shot at 24fps for this specific reason. Or, a car traveling at 14.94 mph / (24/18.3fps) / (18.3/18 whole frames) = 11.2mph = Shaneyfelt slip-up BS. Equals the importance of a 3.74mph difference: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/9975-splice-in-tina-towner-film/&do=findComment&comment=354306