Jack White Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 John Costella has a doctorate in physics and mathematics, and is an expert in optics. I suggest that you contact him for any answers about physics or optics. He teaches at the University of Melbourne. He put together the Z-panorama which you have been using. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 (edited) Frank Agbat wrote: [...] You've got an interesting idea here... I read your post a couple of days ago, and have been pondering it. Although I have no firm answers yet, there are a couple of things that come to mind. 1) The panning motion of the camera is non-linear. It is in the form of an arc. Technically, one must consider both angular velocity and linear velocity. 2) There is also the issue of angles involved. In this case, we have several known things -- linear distances between landmarks, frame-rate of the camera. dgh01: the Zapruder B&H 414 camera had 2 speed options: 16fps (corrected 07-03-05) and 48fps (slo-mo) -- without viewing one of the 3 "unsplit' optical prints done at the Jamiseon Film Lab/Kodak in Dallas 11/22/63 created from the Zapruder camera original, we'll never be able to determine of the actual frame rate --- best guess the FBI/SS could do was 18.3 fps, which became the default "normal" speed of the camera. In your estimation would horizontal/vertical frame blurring be the same at slo-mo (48fps) and regular film speed (16fps)? However, angle of viewpoint and parallax needs to be considered when attempting to landmark a moving object with a moving camera against fixed points. dgh01: evidently Kodak sold this camera with two types of lens [glass and plastic], not sure of the times. Marcel Dehaeseleer whom posts to this forum has a great site regarding the camera - well sourced too... http://users.skynet.be/copweb/jfk/ I'm assuming your aware of Physicist John Costella/Jack White work regarding the film? However, I don't think any of these are show-stoppers. Don Roberdeau's plot of DP is incredibly useful for such things, among other things. Additionally, you have hit on another thing that I find interesting -- the use of the pixel as a unit of relative measurement. Of course there is the issue of projecting a 3D image onto a 2D surface. That is unavoidable. However, for relative measurements, the pixel might be useful. We know much about the optical characteristics of the Z-film camera -- including critical factors of focal-length, depth of field, etc. Using this information, any object in the Z-film could be placed within a sphere (or cone) 3-dimensionally based upon its 2-d X-Y and relative focus. This might lead to some additional insight to the placement of various objects. Regards, Frank <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Edited July 3, 2005 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Hi David, Yes -- I'm familiar with, and hold great respect for, the work of both John Costella and Jack White in this arena. I've got some things in common with both gentlemen -- I hold a degree in physics and have experience in photography -- but I don't pretend to hold a candle to either of them in terms of overall expertise and experience! I'm merely presenting postulates and ideas at this point. You make a good point on the frame-rate. Mr. Zapruder's camera apparently managed 18.3 frames per second according to most reports I've seen. How precise this is, though, I do not know. It is what we have all been using to establish timelines/timebase for the event. Considering blur... Blur is normally considered a function related to the shutter speed of the camera. The longer the shutter of a camera is open, the more light gets to the film. However, if the exposed area contains motion, the greater the chance for blur. In general, more frames per second dictates shorter exposure time (faster shutter) per frame. Faster shutter in general reduces blur. My understanding of the B&H-414PD camera is that its shutter operated at 1/40th second, meaning the shutter was open for 0.025 seconds. The shutter would then close and the film would be advanced to the next frame prior to the next opening of the shutter. Other things that I'm not sure are known is the f-stop that was used. While I've read that there is virtual certainty that the "telephoto" setting and the "fixed focus" settings were used, the f-stop may not be so certain. (please correct me if my reading has lead me to an erroneous conclusion) The f-stop is important because it plays a role in "depth of field" -- that is -- what range of distances are objects "in focus". More musings later -- Regards, Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 2, 2005 Author Share Posted July 2, 2005 (edited) Jack what you are accusing me of is at worst plagiarism, at best, copying or some such deceit. What can I say? I suppose the truth might be appropriate. The way I have been putting this and the Z frame panorama IS NOT FROM ANY ONE ELSES PANORAMA It is based TOTALLY on my own ideas. If Costello happens to have been doing something similar then that would not be so unusual. I have not seen any evidence of that.A lot of things happen like that. What came first? I think that from your description that Costello has already done something similar (of which I have not seen anything, I have read some parts of his descriptions of the film and some critiques and some alternative unconnected views. I agree with some things that Costello says, and not with others.My efforts are to see for myself what I can find out about Kennedy's murder. I don't want to be influenced by other peoples opinions where they may have made some mistakes in their basic premises. My reading unfortunately raises questions with some of his descriptions/conclusions. If he ( as opposed to having his kin here to do it for him )would like to come here and discuss his opinions I'm happy to do so. I have already said so. For you to accuse me of dishonesty is deplorable. I think you should be ashamed of yourself. Like I said before, and Costello having someone here to do it for him reaffirms it, I have now even less respect for names swimming in alphabet soup. John if the purpose of this is to divert attention away from the real issue of Kennedy's murder or to highjack my ideas or to engage in a spat of who thought of it first, it will prove interesting for any student of the research world. Is it possible that someone who doesn't have squiggles before and after a moniker to be capable of similar thought to someone who does? Or, shock horror, the other way around? anyway in the meantime, I apperecate any input that will go towards answering the questions I have been posing, I had no idea Frank was a trained physicist, but I did sense that he knows what he is talking about. I hope this sort of stuff will not hamper input. The furthest I have thought on this is that some relationship between the DIFFERENCES quite apart from the indeterminable variables might provide some universal constant, even in terms of methodology. All along I have thought that there is something in the difference in the angle of the two blurs may be uniquely shaped by just the speed when comparing the two blurs on a stationary and a moving object. btw. I dont know Jack, Frank or Costello or anyone else contributing here from a bar of soap. I tend to take people as they come. Edited July 2, 2005 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Mr. Dolva, I have accused you of NOTHING. Dr. Costella (CostellA, not CostellO) created his panorama specifically for the use of researchers like you and me. It is free. It is for your use. You said that you used it. That is NOT plagarism, but putting it to its intended use. Why do you seem to have a chip on your shoulder? We are here to discuss ideas. Ideas do not belong to anyone. Ideas and truth exist independently of their adherents. Truth is our only client. Calm down. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 2, 2005 Author Share Posted July 2, 2005 Mr. Dolva,I have accused you of NOTHING. Dr. Costella (CostellA, not CostellO) created his panorama specifically for the use of researchers like you and me. It is free. It is for your use. You said that you used it. That is NOT plagarism, but putting it to its intended use. Why do you seem to have a chip on your shoulder? We are here to discuss ideas. Ideas do not belong to anyone. Ideas and truth exist independently of their adherents. Truth is our only client. Calm down. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I HAVE NOT USEDS HIS PANORAMA, THE PANORAMA I HAVE CREATED IS ENTIRELY MY OWN WORK WITHOUT INPUT FROM ANY OTHER PERSON. IT IS BASED ON EXPERIENCES I HAD AND TECHIQUES I DEVELOPED ALONE WHILE USING SOFTWARE IN TOTALLY DIFFERENT CONTEXT. yeah right Jack, it is wlel kownn taht if one palsces at least the firsta and last letter in a word in the correct place it is possible to understand what is written. to use a miuspelling, as is frequently pointed out, as part of the argument is disgusting. Unless the mispelling changes the meaning it's a non argument. The bits about ideas I agree with. If Costello or any one else wants to use what i put up here they're free to do so. If in the process they use it as a means to draw attention to their own work? grubby. no chip, just trying to get rid of any misconceptions. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 (edited) John Dolva wrote: [...] The way I have been putting this and the Z frame panorama IS NOT FROM ANY ONE ELSES PANORAMA It is based TOTALLY on my own ideas. dgh01: wonderful... If Costello happens to have been doing something similar then that would not be so unusual. I have not seen any evidence of that.A lot of things happen like that. What came first? I think that from your description that Costello has already done something similar (of which I have not seen anything, I have read some parts of his descriptions of the film and some critiques and some alternative unconnected views. I agree with some things that Costello says, and not with others.My efforts are to see for myself what I can find out about Kennedy's murder. I don't want to be influenced by other peoples opinions where they may have made some mistakes in their basic premises. My reading unfortunately raises questions with some of his descriptions/conclusions. If he ( as opposed to having his kin here to do it for him) would like to come here and discuss his opinions I'm happy to do so. I have already said so. dgh01: giving your self away here, perhaps? As to who/which came first, I doubt John Costella [thats with a 'A'] could give two xxxxs less about -- for the record he made his panorama around 3 years ago, and formally presented it at the 2003 Univ. of Minn symposium on the Zapruder Film, which has been memorialized on videotape and DVD -- it's also in the 2003 book: The Great Zapruider Film Hoax, of which John Costella was a part -- so, if you come up with anything to advance the case, he'd be proud a fellow countrymen added to the mix -- Perth is part of Australia isn't it? The photographer for the DP imagery used in the base panorama was Jack White If there's one thing those here know, those that are familiar with photography and motion picture film taken in DP on 22 Nov '63, is abuse from newbies in the DPlaza photo/film research area, [actually some call them 'provocateurs'] -- ... For you to accuse me of dishonesty is deplorable. I think you should be ashamed of yourself. Like I said before, and Costello having someone here to do it for him reaffirms it, I have now even less respect for names swimming in alphabet soup. dgh01: Unless your a Roland Zavada clone -OR- Roland Zavada himself -- don't expect JCostella here anytime soon - you've nothing to add re the Zapruder film controversy except bandwidth for the moment. Now if you want to show us some compositing techniques using 1st generation Z-frames -- with optical film printing equipment circa. 1963 -- you might get some interest. You want analysis of your work, post the work, along with your thesis and/or what your trying to achieve/prove... John if the purpose of this is to divert attention away from the real issue of Kennedy's murder or to highjack my ideas or to engage in a spat of who thought of it first, it will prove interesting for any student of the research world. dgh01: Hijack your ideas -- for WHAT? roflmfao! Is it possible that someone who doesn't have squiggles before and after a moniker to be capable of similar thought to someone who does? Or, shock horror, the other way around? dgh01: I sure as hell don't anyway in the meantime, I apperecate any input that will go towards answering the questions I have been posing, I had no idea Frank was a trained physicist, but I did sense that he knows what he is talking about. I hope this sort of stuff will not hamper input. dgh01: when Frank wants to get DP mapped onto a sphere, let me know, it was done a few years back using the appropriate topo elevations/documents -- JCostella needed it for the DP panorama.... he also wrote a deblurring software package... The furthest I have thought on this is that some relationship between the DIFFERENCES quite apart from the indeterminable variables might provide some universal constant, even in terms of methodology. All along I have thought that there is something in the difference in the angle of the two blurs may be uniquely shaped by just the speed when comparing the two blurs on a stationary and a moving object. btw. I dont know Jack, Frank or Costello or anyone else contributing here from a bar of soap. I tend to take people as they come. dgh01: maybe we know you better than you know us? I too take folks as they come, to a point... you know anything about image de-blurring software? David Healy Edited July 2, 2005 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 3, 2005 Author Share Posted July 3, 2005 this is a wonderful way to stifle debate and divert attention. As i stated a few days ago, school holidays are here and my children are going to get my attention, these points deserve a considered response, on first read some are relevent others derogatory and irrelevant, still, apart from those so energetically promoting Costella's work.(yes i did finally spot it, does that make me more or less credible? in pseudo research , perhaps) i wonder if the difference in movement shown in the blurs and comparing the attributes of blurs on a stationary object and a moving one (as opposed to looking for deblurring) would be useful in formulating a constant or a methodological constant that can be used to determine for example the speed of the limousine in the Z film. I hope that this controversy will go some way to encouraging the public release of the Z film, in its original form. Sinilarly all the xray and autopsy photos. I, in my way is trying to be part of the solution. Where reasoned argument can show I need to shift my position, my ego is less important than identifying the murderer of John F. Kennedy. I will try to be on every morning and night perth time) over the next three weeks of school holidays to continue this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Mr. Dolva,I have accused you of NOTHING. Dr. Costella (CostellA, not CostellO) created his panorama specifically for the use of researchers like you and me. It is free. It is for your use. You said that you used it. That is NOT plagarism, but putting it to its intended use. Why do you seem to have a chip on your shoulder? We are here to discuss ideas. Ideas do not belong to anyone. Ideas and truth exist independently of their adherents. Truth is our only client. Calm down. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I HAVE NOT USEDS HIS PANORAMA, THE PANORAMA I HAVE CREATED IS ENTIRELY MY OWN WORK WITHOUT INPUT FROM ANY OTHER PERSON. IT IS BASED ON EXPERIENCES I HAD AND TECHIQUES I DEVELOPED ALONE WHILE USING SOFTWARE IN TOTALLY DIFFERENT CONTEXT. yeah right Jack, it is wlel kownn taht if one palsces at least the firsta and last letter in a word in the correct place it is possible to understand what is written. to use a miuspelling, as is frequently pointed out, as part of the argument is disgusting. Unless the mispelling changes the meaning it's a non argument. The bits about ideas I agree with. If Costello or any one else wants to use what i put up here they're free to do so. If in the process they use it as a means to draw attention to their own work? grubby. no chip, just trying to get rid of any misconceptions. John <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mr. Dolva...you need to keep track of what you have previously written. In an exchange with Mr. Healy, you wrote: QUOTE One further question, the Z-film frame images, are they from the MPI dvd or those from Jim Fetzer's site; the John Costella cut? David they are from costello site, its the best I could find, I'd prefer to be working with an uncorrected unenhanced set though. any idea of where to get one short of taking a sledgehammer to the sixth floor museum? UNQUOTE You said they are "from costello site", yet you accuse me of calling you a plagarist. You NOW say: QUOTE I HAVE NOT USEDS HIS PANORAMA, THE PANORAMA I HAVE CREATED IS ENTIRELY MY OWN WORK WITHOUT INPUT FROM ANY OTHER PERSON. UNQUOTE Which is it Mr. Dolva? Cordially, Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 jack, we'll be hearing from other quarters real quick now -- you know who! David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 3, 2005 Author Share Posted July 3, 2005 I see your point Jack, you are assuming that because I followed a link to costellas site to down load Zframes I read everything on that site, as well at the time of downloading them and applying my own ideas to it i was ignorant of anything he may have done with them, I don't in hindsight now remember if he was the person who corrected for distortion or if it was someone else. what I've said is as I've said, no more. Personally I'd prefer to work with an un altered version, someone make that available please. I've used public domain images in (what I thought) a unique way, I object to you saying that I am using his or anyone elses use without acknowledgement. This attempt to create an issue where none exists is deplorable. Stop it meanwhile please, I am trying to understand the physics in the comparative blur observation described above. It takes some time to align the frames in the zfilm in order to produce the segments of panoramas (see various zfilm posts in the past for reference) Once I am satisfied with a series I'll post fairly rapidly a series of panoramas isolating various individuals and objects to help understand movements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 I see your point Jack, you are assuming that because I followed a link to costellas site to down load Zframes I read everything on that site, as well at the time of downloading them and applying my own ideas to it i was ignorant of anything he may have done with them, I don't in hindsight now remember if he was the person who corrected for distortion or if it was someone else. what I've said is as I've said, no more.Personally I'd prefer to work with an un altered version, someone make that available please. I've used public domain images in (what I thought) a unique way, I object to you saying that I am using his or anyone elses use without acknowledgement. This attempt to create an issue where none exists is deplorable. Stop it meanwhile please, I am trying to understand the physics in the comparative blur observation described above. It takes some time to align the frames in the zfilm in order to produce the segments of panoramas (see various zfilm posts in the past for reference) Once I am satisfied with a series I'll post fairly rapidly a series of panoramas isolating various individuals and objects to help understand movements. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> YOU are the one "creating an issue". I never said ANYWHERE that you were using the Costella panorama "without acknowledgement. " Those are your words. You said you used it. Then later said you had created it yourself. You are fast losing credibility with researchers by your harsh attitude. I will no longer respond to your postings. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 3, 2005 Author Share Posted July 3, 2005 Incredible. Jack, I have never claimed in any way to be using panoramas from costellos site. I was asked which version of the film I was using and then I checked and replied that they came from costellas site. How that becomes a statement to the contrary, well, If you have a barrow to push I suppose you can choose to read whatever you wish into what people say. Thats what people do and often I think in a brainstorming environment has its uses, but to use these falsehoods to denigrate someone needs to be answered. I am going to spend the rest of the day with my children, so please don't interpret my not attending to this for approximately 12 hours as an attempt to ignore it John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 3, 2005 Author Share Posted July 3, 2005 (edited) John Costella has a doctorate in physics and mathematics, and isan expert in optics. I suggest that you contact him for any answers about physics or optics. He teaches at the University of Melbourne. He put together the Z-panorama which you have been using. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have been re-reading this series of posts and they are ridiculous, Jack (and I know you said you won't respond) You state "He put together the Z-panorama which you have been using". NO, I have never used any panorama put together by anyone else, I have never said so. If I had been doing so I would have mentioned where it came from. I didn't mention any such thing. Therefore an unsupported statement that I was using that is the same as an accusation at worst of plagiarism, at best an accusation of dishonesty or deceit. Furthermore, while putting together that panorama series I was unaware of any other such work. The follow on statements and actions based on this false premise and my response to it, I feel is beneath contempt. edit: The furthest I have thought on this is that some relationship between the DIFFERENCES quite apart from the indeterminable variables might provide some universal constant, even in terms of methodology. All along I have thought that there is something in the difference in the angle of the two blurs may be uniquely shaped by just the speed when comparing the two blurs on a stationary and a moving object. Input welcome. Edited July 3, 2005 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 (edited) John Dolva wrote: I have been re-reading this series of posts and they are ridiculous, Jack (and I know you said you won't respond) You state "He put together the Z-panorama which you have been using". NO, I have never used any panorama put together by anyone else, I have never said so. If I had been doing so I would have mentioned where it came from. I didn't mention any such thing. Therefore an unsupported statement that I was using that is the same as an accusation at worst of plagiarism, at best an accusation of dishonesty or deceit. Furthermore, while putting together that panorama series I was unaware of any other such work. dgh01: entirely possible -- there's room for disagreement in this thread -- appears you stated you USED Costella's frames of the MPI frames as opposed to the panorama of Elm Street -- if so, some will stand corrected. I might add; if your using those frames for your analysis - I believe they've been deblurred, pin cushioning and barrel distortion corrected The follow on statements and actions based on this false premise and my response to it, I feel is beneath contempt. dgh01: you want to sell ANYTHING to the Research community, then the world at large, you'd better get use to it! Even if you SOLVE it! And you won't via photo analysis/interpretation without access to camera originals or 1st generation dupes edit: The furthest I have thought on this is that some relationship between the DIFFERENCES quite apart from the indeterminable variables might provide some universal constant, even in terms of methodology. All along I have thought that there is something in the difference in the angle of the two blurs may be uniquely shaped by just the speed when comparing the two blurs on a stationary and a moving object. Input welcome. dgh01: and IF the current imagery you're using is "deblurred", what then? Your inital assumption, the use of unfettered Z-frames is the best route, where you'll find them well, that's another question Edited July 3, 2005 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now