Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate?

[Dean Hagerman]

Why do you think that?

Who knows. Its just baseless speuclation like your original claim. And just like yours its meanningless.

Craig is speculating?!

The sky must be falling!

Dean, I used the ABSURD the illustrate the ABSURD. Clearly, like most things, the point was LOST on you.

Thats ABSURD!

[Chris Davidson]

Hi Jerry,

Yes, the clip I provided was unaltered, I just slowed it down a bit for others.

I still tend to believe, it is predominately a matter of frame extraction.

I would use these two gifs as an example.

Can you tell which one has a frame extracted, comparing them to each other. First without looking at the frame numbers and then looking.

thanks,

chris

Chris,

Nice demonstration!

Couldn't see it in real time. Frame by frame (without looking at the numbers)I was able to spot it but only because (for my own, strange reasons) I've studied the white paper on the DP infield so I picked up the extra long hop.

But even with that knowledge it took me a while.

I think it's generally impossible to pick up a missing frame in real time because the duration falls beneath the perception threshold. However, we're studying the film frame by frame where the motion of background objects becomes more apparent if you look closely. It seems to me it would be very difficult to just snip out frames and hope no one noticed the background accelerating. I think you'd have to change the background in the remaining frames in order to avoid the appearance of sudden bursts of speed - but maybe that's where you going with this :>)?

Best to you Chris. As always, well done.

Jerry

Thanks Jerry,

Did you ever get a chance to look at this thread?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16361&view=findpost&p=200540

Instead of extracting frames from a film shot at 18 FPS, would the "increase in speed" aspect be more difficult to decipher, if it was originally shot at 48FPS, with frames extracted from that?

chris

[Jerry Logan]

Thanks Jerry,

Did you ever get a chance to look at this thread?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16361&view=findpost&p=200540

Instead of extracting frames from a film shot at 18 FPS, would the "increase in speed" aspect be more difficult to decipher, if it was originally shot at 48FPS, with frames extracted from that?

chris

Chris,

That's a very interesting idea and I'm going to have to think about it for a while.

My immediate reaction (and it's definitely open to revision) is that is that a 48 fps film from Zapruder's camera would have been shot at a 1/100 sec shutter speed as opposed to a 1/36 sec shutter speed at 18 fps. It seems to me that there's too much motion blur in the Zapruder frames for the relatively short 1/100 shutter speed.

As I said, it's a very interesting thought - and an idea that can actually be tested! Since you're not really concerned about emulsion characteristics or ghost images it would be easy to run some film through a 414PD at 48 fps and see if you can make a plausible 18 fps movie by selectively and periodically deleting frames. Obviously you'd have to set it up right with a moving subject and objects/people moving in the background. (Please - no sleeping cats:>). I suspect it might be impossible to make it look right but it's an easy test and would make a powerful demonstration if you could pull it off.

More later.

Best to you,

Jerry

[Bernie Laverick]

Hello Chris,

Using your definition of alteration it would appear that the film clip you posted is unaltered.

It seems to be a simple stop frame animation where the camera stopped, the physical content of the scene is changed and the film is started to record the new physical reality.

When the film is played back it appears as though a mysterious transformation has occurred in a moment but what the film doesn't show is the time interval where an assistant stepped into the scene and removed the the fake nose.

It's not the film that has been altered in this instance, it's the scene that's changed. The film maker plays on your assumption that filming was uninterrupted and in real time.

But no frame was altered, moved or added - that's exactly what the camera saw while it was recording.

Assuming that the motorcade wasn't stopped along Elm to add or remove elements from the scene it's hard to see how stop frame animation could have played a role in the Zapruder film.

Best to you,

Jerry

Jerry if a single frame was removed from that 1928 film then that means that its altered

Im positive that the 1928 film has had many frames removed

Just like the limo turn being taken out of the Z-film

If a frame(s) have been removed that means the film was altered

Hello Dean,

I was referring to the clip Chris posted. It's obvious that clip was a stop frame animation so no part of the film was added or subtracted or changed - it was the scene which was changed between frames.

I haven't commented on the entire 1928 film because I'm no expert in 1928 movie technology - although most of it looks to me like simple stop frame animation, not alteration in the sense of using composites or mattes to create images of things that didn't physically exist or happen or retouching frame content to change the images in the frame.

Frankly, I find the entire thread kind of bizarre. Everyone (I think) knows that images have been retouched and composited since the very start of photography. The fact that someone in 1928 could use black and white professional negative film in a controlled studio environment to produce some limited special effects which look pretty good on youtube - that doesn't tell me anything about what's required to create a color positive 8mm film strip of a changing outdoor scene that's good enough to fool the guy who invented the film when he's examining the original with a 20x microscope.

It's sort of like saying having the technology to produce a gatling gun means you can automatically produce an M16.

Best to you,

Jerry

It's sort of like saying having the technology to produce a gatling gun means you can automatically produce an M16.

Precisely! Er, which came first again?

Bernie,

It was a late night analogy so I'm not married to it. Plus, firearms history doesn't seem to be your forte.

How about this instead?

It's like saying that since Walt Disney animated Mickey Mouse in 1928 it was possible to produce Avatar in 1963.

Whatever analogy you prefer, the point is that concepts are around for a long time - a lot earlier that 1928. The real question is what specific techniques and tools are required to realize a specific instance of a general idea. Nothing in the 1928 film speaks to what's technically required to generate a highly plausible Z film.

Best to you,

Jerry

Hi Jerry,

I confess, that IS a better example. But still no where near conclusive. No one is saying that the Zapruder film is as complex as Avatar. You're stretching the goal posts and setting up straw men.

Take your analogy...it is indubitably correct that Mickey mouse was a forerunner for such films as Avatar in 2009. From simple grainy black and white animation right through to the ultra sophisticated Avatar.

Was there no midway point in all this technological development?

Edited August 14, 2010 by Bernie Laverick

[John Dolva]

It's the current modelling and texturing with sophisticated lighting and shadow (CG) that gives it an almost real look, however, the main scenes, as all these movies, have an unreality that's unmistakable.

[Martin Hinrichs]

It's the current modelling and texturing with sophisticated lighting and shadow (CG) that gives it an almost real look, however, the main scenes, as all these movies, have an unreality that's unmistakable.

John, in parts Avatar is setting a benchmark what body rigging, lighting and texturing regards.

This gives us a little teaser how close CG will come to reality in the upcoming future.

A time will come were we are unable to disinguish reality from CG.

That time is not far away.

And i'am not talking about Still pictures. I mean movies.

We have to make used on it.

best

Martin

Edited August 14, 2010 by Martin Hinrichs

[John Dolva]

I think you're right Martin but still the possibility of the fine grain detail yet evades this promise. There necessarily must be a smoothing of the models exterior components that begs a resolution as yet unattained. There is a difference, but the gap is cetainly closing. I think there will come a time when actors will become redundant., but a lot of issues to do with processing power are not yet solved, though doom 1 the game to the latest versions of such has come a long long way. I think Ultra Violet which is a mix of Shanghai reality and CG that blends remarkably well, I Robot could be an other example., but not the z film imo.

I ripped the JFK z section and apparently Oliver left out every third frame. Has anyone else noted this, or could it be a flaw in the rip?

[Greg Burnham]

Hello Chris,

Using your definition of alteration it would appear that the film clip you posted is unaltered.

It seems to be a simple stop frame animation where the camera stopped, the physical content of the scene is changed and the film is started to record the new physical reality.

When the film is played back it appears as though a mysterious transformation has occurred in a moment but what the film doesn't show is the time interval where an assistant stepped into the scene and removed the the fake nose.

It's not the film that has been altered in this instance, it's the scene that's changed. The film maker plays on your assumption that filming was uninterrupted and in real time.

But no frame was altered, moved or added - that's exactly what the camera saw while it was recording.

Assuming that the motorcade wasn't stopped along Elm to add or remove elements from the scene it's hard to see how stop frame animation could have played a role in the Zapruder film.

Best to you,

Jerry

Jerry if a single frame was removed from that 1928 film then that means that its altered

Im positive that the 1928 film has had many frames removed

Just like the limo turn being taken out of the Z-film

If a frame(s) have been removed that means the film was altered

Hello Dean,

I was referring to the clip Chris posted. It's obvious that clip was a stop frame animation so no part of the film was added or subtracted or changed - it was the scene which was changed between frames.

I haven't commented on the entire 1928 film because I'm no expert in 1928 movie technology - although most of it looks to me like simple stop frame animation, not alteration in the sense of using composites or mattes to create images of things that didn't physically exist or happen or retouching frame content to change the images in the frame.

Frankly, I find the entire thread kind of bizarre. Everyone (I think) knows that images have been retouched and composited since the very start of photography. The fact that someone in 1928 could use black and white professional negative film in a controlled studio environment to produce some limited special effects which look pretty good on youtube - that doesn't tell me anything about what's required to create a color positive 8mm film strip of a changing outdoor scene that's good enough to fool the guy who invented the film when he's examining the original with a 20x microscope.

It's sort of like saying having the technology to produce a gatling gun means you can automatically produce an M16.

Best to you,

Jerry

It's sort of like saying having the technology to produce a gatling gun means you can automatically produce an M16.

Precisely! Er, which came first again?

Bernie,

It was a late night analogy so I'm not married to it. Plus, firearms history doesn't seem to be your forte.

How about this instead?

It's like saying that since Walt Disney animated Mickey Mouse in 1928 it was possible to produce Avatar in 1963.

Whatever analogy you prefer, the point is that concepts are around for a long time - a lot earlier that 1928. The real question is what specific techniques and tools are required to realize a specific instance of a general idea. Nothing in the 1928 film speaks to what's technically required to generate a highly plausible Z film.

Best to you,

Jerry

Hi Jerry,

I confess, that IS a better example. But still no where near conclusive. No one is saying that the Zapruder film is as complex as Avatar. You're stretching the goal posts and setting up straw men.

Take your analogy...it is indubitably correct that Mickey mouse was a forerunner for such films as Avatar in 2009. From simple grainy black and white animation right through to the ultra sophisticated Avatar.

Was there no midway point in all this technological development?

Thanks for all of your well thought out posts in this thread, Bernie.

[Jerry Logan]

Hi Jerry,

I confess, that IS a better example. But still no where near conclusive. No one is saying that the Zapruder film is as complex as Avatar. You're stretching the goal posts and setting up straw men.

Take your analogy...it is indubitably correct that Mickey mouse was a forerunner for such films as Avatar in 2009. From simple grainy black and white animation right through to the ultra sophisticated Avatar.

Was there no midway point in all this technological development?

Bernie,

You're absolutely right! I think Avatar is a lot further from Mickey Mouse than Zapruder is from the 1928 film. There are way points in technological development and the serious question is if technology had advanced sufficiently in 1963-64 to permit a realistically faked Zapruder film. No analogy can be conclusive because we want the answer to an empirical question that can only be answered with actual facts, not analogies. So what tools and techniques would have been required to produce a plausibly faked Zapruder film and what tools and techniques were available in 1963? That's the real issue. And offering the 1928 film doesn't provide one bit of useful information on that issue. Just like viewing Mickey Mouse doesn't tell us anything about when Avatar became possible.

The analogy wasn't made to conclude the argument - no one (including me)is saying that the Zapruder film is as complex as Avatar and I'm not trying to move the goal posts with the analogy by implying a Zupruder fake would require Avatar like tools. Instead, I was pointing out that the title of the thread "Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate? No problem--not even in 1928!" is absurd on its face. It's the sort of thing that's going to make it very hard for even someone as talented as Chris Davidson to be taken seriously if he does find a problem. We're not advancing the argument or knowledge with the pointless posturing implied in the title.

OK, third try :>) It's like saying "Was 2009 film technology adequate to produce Avatar? No problem -- not even in 1928." ...because that's when Mickey Mouse demonstrated the concept of a fully animated reality.

I'm betting we'll get it right eventually :>)

Best to you,

Jerry

[Jack White]

This discussion has descended into absurdity. The level of sophistication needed was what was available in 1963, not

what was available in 1928 or 2010. 1963 was NOT the dark ages.

Jack

[Jack White]

The technology question is a false issue. Content is what matters. If the content is false, then the technology was available to create it.

The content is false.

(Zavada said the film was indeed Kodachrome. Indeed it was. He looked only at technology, not at content.)

Jack

[Bernie Laverick]

Hi Jerry,

I confess, that IS a better example. But still no where near conclusive. No one is saying that the Zapruder film is as complex as Avatar. You're stretching the goal posts and setting up straw men.

Take your analogy...it is indubitably correct that Mickey mouse was a forerunner for such films as Avatar in 2009. From simple grainy black and white animation right through to the ultra sophisticated Avatar.

Was there no midway point in all this technological development?

Bernie,

You're absolutely right! I think Avatar is a lot further from Mickey Mouse than Zapruder is from the 1928 film. There are way points in technological development and the serious question is if technology had advanced sufficiently in 1963-64 to permit a realistically faked Zapruder film. No analogy can be conclusive because we want the answer to an empirical question that can only be answered with actual facts, not analogies. So what tools and techniques would have been required to produce a plausibly faked Zapruder film and what tools and techniques were available in 1963? That's the real issue. And offering the 1928 film doesn't provide one bit of useful information on that issue. Just like viewing Mickey Mouse doesn't tell us anything about when Avatar became possible.

The analogy wasn't made to conclude the argument - no one (including me)is saying that the Zapruder film is as complex as Avatar and I'm not trying to move the goal posts with the analogy by implying a Zupruder fake would require Avatar like tools. Instead, I was pointing out that the title of the thread "Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate? No problem--not even in 1928!" is absurd on its face. It's the sort of thing that's going to make it very hard for even someone as talented as Chris Davidson to be taken seriously if he does find a problem. We're not advancing the argument or knowledge with the pointless posturing implied in the title.

OK, third try :>) It's like saying "Was 2009 film technology adequate to produce Avatar? No problem -- not even in 1928." ...because that's when Mickey Mouse demonstrated the concept of a fully animated reality.

I'm betting we'll get it right eventually :>)

Best to you,

Jerry

Hi Jerry,

Firstly a big thank you for conducting this debate with some decorum and some manners. Much appreciated: and much needed on here. But your analogy still flounders...

Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate? No problem--not even in 1928!"

And...

"Was 2009 film technology adequate to produce Avatar? No problem -- not even in 1928."

Jerry that is two completely different questions. You missed the "alteration" word out. And that is the nub of it isn't it?

The fact remains that in 1928 it was possible to alter 'reality' by manipulating film. Never mind how simple the techniques were: it is a straightforward fact that it could be done! No one is saying that this video has anything whatsoever to do with what happened to the Z film. You are making that leap.

This thread illustrates that, it was possible through the medium of film to create a seperate reality back in 1928 and probably even before that.

Taken in isolation, how can anyone argue that fact?

[Craig Lamson]

The content is false.

Please prove it with some new work. None of the old stuff has withstood close inspection.

[Robert Harris]

"Cutting out an image of the limousine and its occupants and replacing it somewhere else in the film is beyond difficult. It is virtually impossible to do without the result looking ridiculously obvious. Haven't you noticed how enthusiastic Fetzer and White have been to answer my request that they explain how this was done."

Robert:

This is the question I posed above.

See, although things like matte photography and traveling mattes did exist at the time, if you watch The Birds, they are easy to detect.

The leap forward did not happen until 2001. But that cost millions, took five years to produce, and they developed new techniques, plus they had guys like Trumbull working on it.

From my understanding, matte photography is when you paint in a background, and then through blue screen, rear projection, or front projection, place the actors in front of it to simulate a location where they are not at, neither in the studio or on a set.

A traveling matte is when you can actually move that background to make it seem like its in motion. Say for example, when the first spaceships arrive at Devil's Tower in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Very difficult to do. Although they did do it well. But recall, this is 1976. With a budget of 18 million dollars. And Trumbull and several other talented people, are working in front projection. Which was rarely used at the time and is a difficult process.

We are talking a decade previous with Zapruder. And if there are matte shots, they were done exquisitely well. Because they are pretty much not detectable.

I'm not saying it cannot be done. Or it was not done. I am just saying that if so, it was one hell of a job.

But even that is different from what the alterationists are claiming because the alleged perps didn't have a clean, matte background to work with. They either had to make their own with actors and film crew or they had to try to replace what was there before, which would have been extremely difficult and complicated, especially when the limo was passing in front of people in the background.

And the orientation of the limo changed throughout the film, so it would look ridiculous to try to from move the limo from say, 193 to 225. I really wish some of these guys would actually try do do something like that using Photoshop or whatever software they preferred, and then thought a little bit about how they could do it without a computer.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Robert Harris

[Dean Hagerman]

The content is false.

Please prove it with some new work. None of the old stuff has withstood close inspection.

According to who? You?