Craig Lamson
-
Posts
5,063 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Everything posted by Craig Lamson
-
Continued from the previous post Again you got it wrong. Where and when Jim, again he does not say what you said he did. Where and when Jim, again he did not say what he said he did. You get it wrong again. Posting it again won't change the fact it does not say what you say it does. Your claim is all assumptions and the photographic record shows just that. And to say photos are easily faked is not an argument, its a cop out and a major hand wave, one you use every time you get caught with your fingers in the evidence jar. Sadly for you it does no good unless you can physically prove the photos have been altered and like with the Zapruder film you have yet to prove one single image is altered. -
Chaney got it wrong...not uncommon for an eyewitness, they are notorious for being wrong. WENT FORWARD WHEN AND WHERE? What he does not say...imagine that. As all the images show, he got the timing wrong. Another witness failure...they are notorious for that. Notice again he does not say what you think he said. Where and when Jim? Continued in the next post
-
Too bad there is no button tab visible on Lovelady in Altgens. More photo analysis by Dick Hooke.
-
Thanks for posting all the items in red. Too bad for you they don't say what you think they say. Other than Chaney who said it happened prior to the TUP? Answer...NONE. Game, set and match. Another misdirection by Fetzer.
-
Yep. And we ALL have been over this time and time again.
-
Fair enough John... post a better source file if you have. My point is that it is a "pop version" for the entire frame, not just JFK's head. Anything done to the entire frame should produce the same kinds of effects as we see over JFK's head. I even posted Lammy's png-ginourmous version that shows quite plainly a SQUARE over JFK's head, not just some black on full contrast. Below. Can you explain why the Square is so "square" in this one section of the frame and why he avoids posting any other section of that frame for comparison? All I did was push the brightness and contrast... nothing else. Doesn't HIS black square give you any cause to be skeptical about that frame's original state? If this effect occurs with every instance of that depth of color, SHOW IT... or am I being unfair in my request? DJ David is a clueless about how this stuff works as you are. And of course your photo analysis of 374 is completely wrong as has been pointed out to you time and time again. You are the shining example of unreasonable and clueless.
-
The "all knowing and intelligent" jimmy d once again proves he is neither.
-
You are not as smart and all knowing as you think jimmy, and you just made yourself look foolish once again. I like this one...of many... I have no clue who took me off moderation. Why ask me?
-
What ridiculous crap! The Costella "combined cut" is the best available version. What would you recommend in its stead? The MPI version, which (1) has reversed the order of frames 331 and 332; (2) does not include (what ought to be) frames 341, 350, and 486; (3) does not include frames 155 and 156; and also (4) does not include frames 208, 209, 210 and 211? Costella removes aspect ratio and pincushion distortion. Actually Dolva is correct. The Costella edit is pretty much useless for the type of work asked about here. It is interpolated and has been poorly graded. It is in fact pretty much a mess for detailed study. The MPI frames, even with their problems wold be a much better choice for this work. But you won't even begin to understand why.
-
Do you have some deep seated need to make yourself look foolish every time you post jimmy? You need to buy a clue, maybe they are on sale at Walmart this week. Lets look at the statements that are beyond your reading ability... The technical processes involved in altering a single frame of film be it for still photo are a frame from a motion picture are exactly the same. Is the EQUIPMENT used to do itdifferent? Sometimes. The equipment designed for motion is nothing special or magic, it was designed to MAKE MONEY by doing things FASTER AND CHEAPER. But the fact remains, regardless of the final medium, the technical process of exposing film remains the same. Quite frankly doing special effects on a still frame is far more demanding since the final image is seen continuously and viewed in much greater detail than a single frame of film that flashes on the screen for 1/24 of a second. Movie special effects of often done "just good enough". Facts of life. NOW you want to talk about mechanics...sheesh. Try to stay on topic. That's gonna be really tough for you. But don't worry your little head one bit. I'm quite sure theyere will be a long and detailed discussion about the mechanics of trying tot alter the Z film as the hollyweirds claim. You can't even keep up with the discussion and here you go making up crap from thin air again. I'll make sure to pass this all along to Zavada next time we chat.
-
LOL! Misdirect? You made a claim the head was blacked in. I just showed you one reason you are wrong, using measurements and film science. Your inability to understand the subject matter is showing. Now on to the crap you reposted. First the png file I posted and then you alliterated came DIRECTLY from your original post. It is EXACTLY as you posted it. I did a copy, and then paste into photoshop, zoomed in with the magnify tool and did a screen capture. The image show just how BADLY your file was processed. It has been DESTROYED and no longer even resembles the frame from the Zapruder film. Then you apply a worthless set of adjustments to a garbage image and then proceed to declare it shows a black square painted into the Zpruder film. This is so far beyond silly it not even funny any more. But hey, why don't you tell us what your ENHANCEMENT actually did to the crappy morass of ipxels you posted and what EXACTLY it tell us, aside from the sad fact you have a copy of photoshop and you don't know how to use it.
-
is it possible that Lovelady was just screwing with everyone? Yes or No?
-
Oh please jimmy buy a clue...and learn to read. The techincal processes involved in altering a single frame of film be it for still photo are a frame from a motion picture are exactly the same. Is the EQUIPMENT used to do ti different? Sometimes. The equipment designed for motion is nothing special or magic, it was designed to MAKE MONEY by doing things FASTER AND CHEAPER. But the fact remains, regardless of the final medium, the technical process of exposing film remains the same. Quite frankly doing special effects on a still frame is far more demanding since the final image is seen continuously and viewed in much greater detail than a single frame of film that flashes on the screen for 1/24 of a second. Movie special effects of often done "just good enough". Facts of life. I'm happy to wait for the hollyweirds to run their tv special in November, if they can found a buyer. Then we can discuss what they have in detail. And they won't have much.
-
Oh I'm sure they have Jim. And I'm sure they have some sort of counter. And then there is the counter-counter for which they may not be prepared And quite frankly you don't have a clue what I or others have done. I just gave the you the third grade trip. There is no difference between alterations for motion picture film and still photography film Jim. Zero. Zip. Nada. After all motion is just a string of stills. The only thing that changes is you need to do it to a BUNCH of frames for motion. Still the actual processes involved are identical. I'm not interested in a visit, nothing there that is news to me. I'm even in state next week. But why? I'm happy to wait for them to make a public case. What are they waiting for? Money? LOL! BTW, you failed to answer the question Jim. You have seen the hollyweird frames, did the look like the mash of pixels Davie posted?
-
My oh my you are a whiney little child. So you can take your crap image and make it look even crappier. Nice work, you proved you are still clueless. Lets to the same thing to the high quality image I posted, you can even see the brightness/ contrast sliders...and we can see once again that little davie jo simply uses crap and then makes even more crap, and posits a crap and really incompetent opinion. http://www.craiglamson.com/headadj.png All little davie joe proves is that garbage in gets you garbage out. Now lets consider the tonal values of the entire frame. davie jo among others say the back of the head is painted in black. If it were the area will be opaque, that is no light will pass through the film. It will be in essence as dark as the unexposed film at the edge of the frame. We can measure this very simply in Photoshop. Lets take a 3x3 pixel square average reading of a few areas of the frame and see what we get. If little davie jo is correct, the back of JFK's head will be the darkest area in the frame. Here are some samples... Checking the RGB values we can see that the shadow on the back of JFK's head is not the darkest thing in the frame. It is not as dark as the unexposed film edge. Once again davie jo has it all wrong. He has proven that he can use a mouse and move some sliders in photoshop. He has also proven his work is valueless and incompetent. Nice work davie jo.
-
Now lets look at a LOW REZ version of a better frame..... http://www.craiglamson.com/head.png davie jo once again shows his incompetence. He makes his claims on crap images.
-
Lets start by looking at the crap you started with. You are clueless davie jo, and you proved it once again just like you did when you made yourself look so foolish thinking you understood parallax and how a camera pans. There is no "crush", only false detail created by image processing and jpg compression. Which you don't understand. Notice how the jpg compression in your original creates the square, not the actual content of the image. And I know, I have much better images to work with. http://www.craiglamson.com/daviejo.png I see jimmy d is here. Does the hollyweird frame look like davie joes?
-
LOL! You need better material. Nice JPG artifacts. And lousy interpolation. And a better understanding of how this stuff works. Like that will ever happen.
-
No read again... "HE (Lovelady) STATED he was wearing a red and white ..... Wrong again. Now wonder you do so poorly at all of this, you can't read and comprehend. Again..."LOVELADY STATED..." Sheesh.
-
Robin is correect, you are wrong.
-
Nothing absurd about it at all. They reported exactly what they saw and what they were told. The only thing fake here is your claim they faked it.
-
When confronted with that, the august members of the OIP, claimed...wait for it...the white was retouched in to make it LOOK like the shirt was open. LMAO!
-
He willingly PLACED himself in the midst of the controversy and if he had wanted he could have declined to comment to on the state of the original. Your logic is childish.
-
They have "confirmed" nothing. They have rendered an opinion. And opinion about shadow detail ...on a THIRD GENERATION copy. Unless you and the hollyweirds have forgotten , even with dedicated duplication film stocks, CONTRAST BUILDS and gradation decreases with each generation. And they are working with a 3 generation product.... Really? Wanna try again?
-
Uh jimmy, Ryan recanted that when he view the original film at a microscopic level and not the crappy b/w images Twyman presented to him. Exactly why do your continue this charade? As for the Hollywood restoration experts...really? Care to share a link to their body of work on the subject? And what are they viewing?: A copy of a copy of a copy? Please..... And actually there is nothing CRUDE at all about the back of JFK's head in the frames in question. It is not "black". It is perfectly consistent with a shadow in term of of placement, tonality and as compared to the other shadows in the frame. More over it shows perfect gradation. Best of luck to the hollyweirds trying to sell their claim...
