A QUESTION ABOUT THE IMPERIAL REFLEX CAMERA

[Chris Bristow]

There are some specs available on this camera but I can't find how many degrees the field of view is. I have also heard photogrammetry was done on the backyard photos but can't find any of it. Anyone have any info on this?

[James DiEugenio]

The latter was done in the HSCA volumes.

I don't know if the raw data was included.

 

Jeff Carter should know.

 

[Chris Bristow]

Thanks, I saw it mentioned in the HSCA report but did not find any data. The field of view would help to pin down the camera position and distance from Oswald.

[James DiEugenio]

Chris, go to the volumes.

They are at History Matters and MFF.  GO through the contents and you will find a more thorough discussion.

[Jeff Carter]

I can't say much more. Volume Six of the HSCA Report has the BYP report. Item 457 speaks of the camera's "curvature of field". The data produced from the panel's work may exist somewhere, but not in the body of the report. 

As you've probably discovered, there are any number of technical camera sites, which lay out specs of individual makes and models. The ones I've seen don't have the info you seek. Perhaps there's a good discussion group on these topics and you can find someone who would know there. But the Imperial Reflex was such a cheap camera that it is hard to imagine too much interest would ever be applied to it.

This is interesting: "The shutter is fairly slow, probably on the order of 1/50-1/25 of a second, though oiling it may raise the speed slightly. The slow shutter speed means that it is important to use slow film for daylight photography and to always hold the camera very steadily to avoid camera shake. The optimal technique for firing the shutter is to depress the trigger slowly until it is about to fire, then to fire it with the shortest, gentlest motion possible."  Marina claimed the BYP were the first photos she had ever personally taken, looking into an upside-down image, and operating a tricky shutter. It is surprising then that the photos aren't blurry... (I don't believe Marina took the photos).

[Chris Bristow]

14 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

I can't say much more. Volume Six of the HSCA Report has the BYP report. Item 457 speaks of the camera's "curvature of field". The data produced from the panel's work may exist somewhere, but not in the body of the report. 

As you've probably discovered, there are any number of technical camera sites, which lay out specs of individual makes and models. The ones I've seen don't have the info you seek. Perhaps there's a good discussion group on these topics and you can find someone who would know there. But the Imperial Reflex was such a cheap camera that it is hard to imagine too much interest would ever be applied to it.

This is interesting: "The shutter is fairly slow, probably on the order of 1/50-1/25 of a second, though oiling it may raise the speed slightly. The slow shutter speed means that it is important to use slow film for daylight photography and to always hold the camera very steadily to avoid camera shake. The optimal technique for firing the shutter is to depress the trigger slowly until it is about to fire, then to fire it with the shortest, gentlest motion possible."  Marina claimed the BYP were the first photos she had ever personally taken, looking into an upside-down image, and operating a tricky shutter. It is surprising then that the photos aren't blurry... (I don't believe Marina took the photos).

Jeff, yes I have discovered the same things as you. It is interesting that she held it so steady. She also rotated the camera in 133a &c as if she was taking Oswald's lean into account. And since the image was upside down she would have  to rotate the camera in the opposite direction. I have tried to understand his lean in 133a but I can't replicate it without one hand on the wall. I have measured the angle of his right foot and of his hips many times and find that when people 'duplicate' his pose they never get the hips and right foot correct. The only way for them to match Oswald's lean is to turn the foot and hip way out. But if you match his foot at 45 degrees and the hip at no more than 30 degrees( it is actually around 15 degrees, I round up to be extra fair) it becomes impossible if not absurdly awkward and painful on the right knee. His foot will measure 63 degrees of angle in the photo  but from 12 feet away and 4 feet high,  40 degrees turns into 60+ degrees due to perspective. I have tested that. 
 I am putting together a video on this lean in 133a that also demonstrates the perspective change from 40 to 60 degrees and how to find the angle of the hip. 
 If my measurements of foot and hip stand up to scrutiny then Oswlad's pose in which he is able to line up  his right shin, knee and the button on his jeans (not visible but located by the zipper flap) is ridiculous. Anyone who matches the stance correctly will find it so painful and awkward that they will have to come away with a nagging question. Even if he could maintain such a posture why would he? Anyone who tries to stand with the foot at 40 degrees, the hip at 30 degrees and then lean over and tweak your knee inward to line up the shin, knee and button or belt buckle will really grok just how unbelievable that posture is.

[Jeff Carter]

I don't know what to make of the lean, but if the BYPs feature, for example, Oswald's face pasted over another man's body, the problematic body posture is still there. 

It should be considered that the photo is a moment in time "on the order of 1/50 - 1/25 of a second", so it is not necessarily the case that the posing figure was holding a pose at that moment, and not shifting position in the lower body when the shutter was fired.

[Chris Bristow]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

I don't know what to make of the lean, but if the BYPs feature, for example, Oswald's face pasted over another man's body, the problematic body posture is still there. 

It should be considered that the photo is a moment in time "on the order of 1/50 - 1/25 of a second", so it is not necessarily the case that the posing figure was holding a pose at that moment, and not shifting position in the lower body when the shutter was fired.

Shifting stance is a legit consideration. I would expect some blur especially at the end of the gun barrel which should reflect very slight movements. What I find in the stance is if I just duplicate the belt buckle over the shin I am so close to tipping over that I would have to put one hand on the wall to shift at all. But that is before I add my knee to the alignment. The knee will naturally fall  farther out and you have to tweak it inward to make it align. At that point it matches 133a perfectly. But I am well past the tipping point and my knee is under too much strain to use it to support my weight. But I am old so I will pester my nephew to try it. I think if you try it, even being loose about the parameters, you will  end up scratching your head too.