Craig Lamson

PHOTOGRAMERTY

A wonderful test...problem is it used a film that has over TWICE the resolving power in lp/mm than the polaroid film used by Mary Moorman AND the based on the fact that the camera has only one shutter speed, the len in that test was not stopped down to near the level that was used by Moorman (near f90) which means the test exposure did not suffer from defraction limitations of the moorman image. In other words, a worthless test. I can't believe all of these so called photo experts have fooled around with trying to use roll film in the Moorman camera, or even more laughable trying to attach a ground glass or acetate to the back of the camera and then taking a picture with a second camera. It's just plain stupid. You simply need to take a lens from a polaroid camera of the same make and model as Moormans and mount in on a view camera. I've done it, I've shot with it on 4x5 polaroid film stock (both 100iso and 3000iso) I KNOW exactly what this lens/film distance can resolve, and testing it with tri-x tells you absolutely nothing. BTW, I dont think Crawley still stands by the statements in the link you posted. "...even more laughable..." (?) I've been using a 8x10 Polaroid back on a view camera for 8 years, so what? So believe what you want and, what does *groundglass* tests have to do with resolving power? Why absolutely nothing... what-a-canard. read up -- roflmao! Well good for you David, I'm so happy for you. Perhaps you can show us a nice film composite image you have made with your 8x10 camera. You are right..the groundglass tests have nothing to do with resolution tests and EVERYTHING to do with the skill levels of the "experts" on your side of the coin. Laughable is the perfect word. BTW I placed a nice bowl of table scraps in the your dog house...eat up guard dog. well thank you very much, when you can afford one we'll mach trannies.... so, ah again; what does *groundglass* tests have to do with resolving power? Oop's, that's right you answered that didn't you -- NOTHING! Much ado about nothing -- pretty much were all your arguments end up! But fun to watch none-the-less Sold mine quite a while back since no one wants 8x10s anymore, but I have a nice pile of trans we can share right now if thats what you really have in mind cowboy shooter.....hell I'd love to see if you can actually LIGHT anything other than the crap the normally passes for lighting in the video wold today. However got three really nice 4x5s on the shelf, but nobody wants stuff from them either....new day and all. Wof Wof.

A wonderful test...problem is it used a film that has over TWICE the resolving power in lp/mm than the polaroid film used by Mary Moorman AND the based on the fact that the camera has only one shutter speed, the len in that test was not stopped down to near the level that was used by Moorman (near f90) which means the test exposure did not suffer from defraction limitations of the moorman image. In other words, a worthless test. I can't believe all of these so called photo experts have fooled around with trying to use roll film in the Moorman camera, or even more laughable trying to attach a ground glass or acetate to the back of the camera and then taking a picture with a second camera. It's just plain stupid. You simply need to take a lens from a polaroid camera of the same make and model as Moormans and mount in on a view camera. I've done it, I've shot with it on 4x5 polaroid film stock (both 100iso and 3000iso) I KNOW exactly what this lens/film distance can resolve, and testing it with tri-x tells you absolutely nothing. BTW, I dont think Crawley still stands by the statements in the link you posted. "...even more laughable..." (?) I've been using a 8x10 Polaroid back on a view camera for 8 years, so what? So believe what you want and, what does *groundglass* tests have to do with resolving power? Why absolutely nothing... what-a-canard. read up -- roflmao! Well good for you David, I'm so happy for you. Perhaps you can show us a nice film composite image you have made with your 8x10 camera. You are right..the groundglass tests have nothing to do with resolution tests and EVERYTHING to do with the skill levels of the "experts" on your side of the coin. Laughable is the perfect word. BTW I placed a nice bowl of table scraps in the your dog house...eat up guard dog.

Craig, thank you. I don't suppose you have any results from your test shots you could show us do you? Alan No I don't. I did the test some years ago for my personal interest. I can however do a reshoot in the near future as time permits. In the mean time consider this. All of the tests that have been completed to date have used negative roll film of some sort. Not only are these filmstocks fine grained and have more resolving power than the polaroid film used by Moorman, but being negatives they can be directly enlarged and printed. The Moorman polarid had to first be copied (in the case of a number of moorman versions...many times) before it could be enlarged and printed. That also greatly reduced the resolving power. Another note. I've been an advertising photographer for a good many years. Prior to my switch to digital, shooting polaroid film for use as a proofing medium was standard practice. It was not uncommon to shoot 10-20 sheets of polaroid film of a single setup before shooting real film. I bought the stuff by the case for many many years. While b/w 4x5 polariod film was a great tool to judge exposure and composition of a photo set, it was useless as a tool to check focus. Why? Because of the image structure and lack of resolution. Under even a 4x loupe the resolution was worthless for focus checks. The only way to use a polaroid film for focus checks was to use the polaroid positive/negative film. This film actually produced a b/w negative that could be placed on a lightbox and checked under a loupe. It was messy and a PITA but it was the only way to check focus with polaroid film because the prints were just so bad.

A wonderful test...problem is it used a film that has over TWICE the resolving power in lp/mm than the polaroid film used by Mary Moorman AND the based on the fact that the camera has only one shutter speed, the len in that test was not stopped down to near the level that was used by Moorman (near f90) which means the test exposure did not suffer from defraction limitations of the moorman image. In other words, a worthless test. I can't believe all of these so called photo experts have fooled around with trying to use roll film in the Moorman camera, or even more laughable trying to attach a ground glass or acetate to the back of the camera and then taking a picture with a second camera. It's just plain stupid. You simply need to take a lens from a polaroid camera of the same make and model as Moormans and mount in on a view camera. I've done it, I've shot with it on 4x5 polaroid film stock (both 100iso and 3000iso) I KNOW exactly what this lens/film distance can resolve, and testing it with tri-x tells you absolutely nothing. BTW, I dont think Crawley still stands by the statements in the link you posted.

Craig, with all due respect ... Groden told me that he used no computer software to make his copy negatives and slides. That the print that he deemed the best copy of Moorman's photo was not done by way of a computer. That the Badge Man image Jack shows from the actual film transfer in post #85 is not computer enhanced. Bill Bill, I never said that a computer was used for any of the original badgeman work. However there is a lot of silly stuff being done now on the computer..... My feeling is that White/Mack saw something they thought was a man and worked the image via exposure and contrast ( and in the process throwing away details from the copy image and creating new edge locations) until they got something that fit their original conclusion. In short they created a new image that was not present before the manipulations.

Well, Craig ... in this instance I disgaree with you. The image is visible, it can be separated from the foliage, it has been validated by MIT, and the timing is right to confirm Gordon Arnold's statement concerning the shot coming past his left ear. My experience has been that if something like Badge Man is a mixture of let's say ... the distant tree foliage ... then he and the foliage would all lighten and contrast equally. However, when I checked this ... Badge Man separated from all the tree foliage around him which had washed out. Then I compared Badge Man's size and body proportions to see if they fell within the norms of a human being in the same posture and below is what I came up with. So while I understand your points, I believe there are ways to check the validity of Badge Man's image that at least tips the scale considerably as to his actual existence. Bill Bill, go shoot the moorman lens with polaroid film at the same distance and then get back to me with the results. Then copy it a few times and get back to me again. Lets put this very tiny area of the moorman polaroid in perspective. If you make a new photoshop document at 1/69 of an inch or .36mm which is as small as photoshop will allow you to create, at 600dpi you end up with NINE PIXELS! The opticals limits of the film/lens/distance make something like the badgeman image impossible. I'll repete myself again. All of this "enhancement" either via a computer or film is silly. Its a fools errand.

Bill, let me put it bluntly. It is impossible for "badgeman" to exist in the Moorman polariod. Period. The resolution of the lens/film/distance makes it impossible. Period. Any imabge that portends to show badgeman is simply a creation from thin air. Period. Its a creation via photographic manipulation. Period. A simply JFK "ink blot test". Period.

Wof Wof...guard dogs back. Outta dog food? Mack is wrong. White is wrong. Don't know about Healy because he's a chicken s__t who wont't commit himself. The z film CONTENT alteration crowd has no work.... You mean Whites tourist snaps of Fort Worth? The institution in which my works are shown is the institution of COMMERCE. Now slink on back to the smelly old dog house....guard dog.

Exacty who do you think you can fool with this bullxxxx Jack? I'm sure there are some folks ignorant of the photographic process who might find your crap amusing or even possible but those with actual experience will find it for what it is. Bullxxxx. For the record. Increases in exposure is manipulation. Contrast chages with copy and development of film. Contrast changes based on the paper/developer/processing time chosen by the printmaker. This is manipulation. The grain added by the copy process is manipulation. Bottom line is that "bagdeman" is an alteration and no amount of bullxxxx by White will ever change that fact. BTW, exactly where is that step wedge in this set of copies Jack? So...according to "Mr. Light"...ANY copying process is MANIPULATION. I have to agree that EVERYTHING is manipulation. The original exposure itself is manipulation, since every photographer MANIPULATES his camera by choosing shutter speeds, f-stops, focus, etc. How does this general definition advance our understanding. NONE. So this is totallly meaningless. By the way, Lamson insinuates that I should have had a 20-step tone strip in my badgeman bracketed exposures. As a photographer, he should know that a SLIDE COPIER like a Repronar or Chromapro is incapable of including a step-strip. The copies from Groden's slide (which Groden made from a Thompson print) were made on a Repronar slide copier, which uses a backlighted strobe exposure of constant intensity, therefore the main control ("manipulation") is varying the f-stop to optimize exposure. The other variable is magnification, a function of the bellows extension. The greater the magnification, the more exposure is required. In this case I used 4X magnification, making exact calculation of exposure even more difficult. Using the Repronar, it is always wise to bracket, since otherwise the exact exposure cannot be determined without use of a densitometer and magnification calculations. It is easier just to bracket, since film is cheap. Quit blowing smoke, Lamson. You may fool the uneducated, but not the rest of us. Jack Nice try White too bad its such a poor attempt to save your ignorant butt. Lets cut right through Whites bs and cut to the chase. He manipulated this image. His contact sheet offers the proof. By increasing EXPOSURE he threw away details until he had a NEW IMAGE that fit his needs. And thanks for pointing out that this contact sheet is a copy of a slide which is a copy of a print which is a copy of (another print or) the Moorman original. It totally destroys your silly claim that this is "badgeman"! In other words, the details of the original Moorman in this 1/69 of an inch area has been changed beyond repair. IN other words....its notihng near what the orignal Moorman might have shown. Its simply a FABRICATION . White, its been perfectly clear for many years that you are among the ignorant when it comes to photography. Its a real shame your mis and disinformation has spoiled the minds of so many uninformed folks for so long. You should be ashamed of yourself. BTW, calculating the proper exposure based on the length of a bellows is a very simply math calculation. Its not difficult at all...FOR AN EXPERIENCED PHOTOGRAPHER. I'm not suprised you found it difficult.

Exacty who do you think you can fool with this bullxxxx Jack? I'm sure there are some folks ignorant of the photographic process who might find your crap amusing or even possible but those with actual experience will find it for what it is. Bullxxxx. For the record. Increases in exposure is manipulation. Contrast chages with copy and development of film. Contrast changes based on the paper/developer/processing time chosen by the printmaker. This is manipulation. The grain added by the copy process is manipulation. Bottom line is that "bagdeman" is an alteration and no amount of bullxxxx by White will ever change that fact. BTW, exactly where is that step wedge in this set of copies Jack?

Another point of record. Gary Mack is concerned that I am somehow giving the impression that he and White used the print that was made from the drumscan negative as the source material for the badgeman alteration. As my post clearly states Mack/White did examine that print as part of their work. The print they actually worked from to make the badgeman alteration was a copy of the UPI moorman. Craig, please forgive me for attempting to break this down but I need too, for my own sake. So the Thompson Drumscan, in theory, should be the best but, when we look at it to study details in the background it is severly lacking. Here is another example of the difference in quality, a small gif made my Bill sometime back. Tinkminushishatgif Even what Thompson used in "SSID"(P128) shows a clear outline of the "hat", the drumscan does not, why? To me, as a layman, this is telling me that something went wrong with the drumscan. Why would I use this Dscan to study whats behind that wall up there(if anything), when it missing details seen in the forty year old print in his book? "During the copy and printing process Jack has increased the exposure and contrast until tones from the original have been blown away or compressed to give the appearence of sharpness and detail." Craig, that statement of yours, how could you know that, unless you have seen a high quality blow-up of the area above the wall from "the original"? What is the source of what you are using as a comparison to Jacks results? "To understand exactly how much detail has been lost simply look at the detail of the wall below the supposed figure of badgeman. It's gone." I have often tried to bring out details from a dark section of an image, during which time, the details of a sunlit portion of the photo, may become devoid of details. I don't think the details going AWOL on the front of the wall has any baring on the quality of what has been brought out from the darkness above it. Please correct me if I'm wrong. "A full frame print of the Moorman exposed and printed like the badgeman crop would look horrible." Once again, this is irrelevant IMO. Bringing out details from a dark portion of a print has negative effects on the well lit areas. This is not a sign of bad workmanship. Alan Alan, let me try and break this down. First, IMHO all of this "enhancement" folks are trying to do on these images is nothing more than a fools errand. In a word it's just crap. Just a silly game. The bottom line is that you cant create details where none exists. Most of the "enhancements" you see involve increasing contrast and exposure either with film and paper or using a computer. When you do it by either method you are simply throwing things away and creating new stuff. Now this will not appy to say taking an original negative and making different prints at different times or contrasts to open up shadows. The limiting factor in this case is the original exposure of the film and how the dark tones fall on the threshold of exposure for that film. The same applies to original sildes. However doing this to copy negs made from prints or slides made from prints of other slides ia hopeless. Why? Because the original detail has been tossed out or changed. The Moorman drumscan is the closest thing to the original that is in existance in digital form to my knowlege. It has made only one pass through a len/film system, and then on to digital form. The scan was created without any curves, sharpening or tonal adjustment being applied and as such it is linear in nature. Why is this important? Because any of those adjustments make changes to edge detail. Increase the contrast and the actual edge detail of a point in the image changes...in other words it moves from its original position to a new position. How can you make judgements on some detail in an image when what you are looking at has been changed? Next lets consider the problem with the photographic copy and printing process. When you take a picture of a picture the resulting negative is different than the original photograph. This happens due to exposure, film curves, development, film type, grain buildup and sharpness losses cause by the copy camera lens. So right off the bat your copy is flawed. Details from the original get lost due to contrast build or loss, grain and lens softness. Now when we take that negative to the printing stage even more chages happen that take it even further away from the original. The person making the print has to make paper exposure and contrast choices both of which can throw away details that can never be recovered. You further add changes in the print processing stage when the the print maker makes even more choices on development time and processing chemicals. And finally we have additional image changes due to an additional lens in the system (the enlarger, unless the image is a contact print), possible focus errors by the print maker, possible plane of focus errors due to improper equipment setup and finally what type of light source was used to make he print. So in the case of the Badgeman lets says that White/Mack used the UPI copy of the moorman. I'm not usre of the actual image they used...was it a first print from the original UPI negative? Or was it a print made from a copy negative of the UPI print which was made from a copy negative of the original Moorman polaroid? Or was the copy chain even longer? In a best case the it was the print from the original copy negative the UPI made from the Moorman original. Even if this is the case, the image is different that the original. Details have changed due to all or some of the reasons stated above. In this best case they want us to believe that an area in the original moorman image that was about 1/69 of an inch or .368 mm contains enough detail to show "badgeman" and that this minute detail will survive the copy and print process multipule times. Never gonna happen. And that assumes that the moorman lens/film/distance combo could even record the detail in the first place. I await some proof from the badgeman supporters that it was possible, but I'm not holding my breath that they can provide it. All the of efforts to do so to this date have failed. So, is the image of hatman you posted really sharper and more detailed than the drumscan. NO! It actually shows less detail and what sharpness it does show is simply made up out of thin air by altering the print. In other words it is useless. All of this is simply foolishness.

I actually use the term Depth of Field, but used the term Depth of Focus to make it more understandable for those who don't understand photography jargon....

I congratulate Miller on the complete accuracy** of what he says above. One print from Thompson and one print from Weisberg were very good quality, and were used for badgeman studies. Gary Mack and I labeled prints that Gary had collected by quality. Thus Thompson 1 was the best Thompson print and Weisberg 1 was the best print from Harold (which unfortunately was marred by some purple rubberstamp ink). Gary gathered about 10 prints. The first in the timeline we called the Zippo print, because it includes a zippo lighter next to the Polaroid. It is unique, because it was taken before the thumbprint was applied; it is also very grainy because of small negative size. I am attaching a copy of the Zippo print. At some point Thompson selected his "best print" and had a professional "drum scan" made of it. The quality of the drum scan is miserable. Jack **to be completely accurate, Robert furnished not a print, but a slide, and not to me...but to Gary Mack. Gary was looking at the slide on a large screen monitor, and saw the badgeman image, or as he would say the Badge Man image. Gary passed the slide on to me, and I copied it and made a print of optimal exposure. Just a point of record here. Thompson did not have his "best print" "drum scanned". Jack is blowing smoke. Thompson had the copy NEGATIVE of the Moorman original print that was made for him in 1967 scanned on a drum scanner at 2400dpi. Its pretty clear that White has little or no knowelege of the drum scan process nor experience using materials created on the drum scanner. The drum scan of the Thompson Moorman negative is an excellent digital representation of the negative scanned to film grain level. It was scanned without any post production applied to the resulting file and as such needs contrast and density modification to produce the best possible image. It should be noted that this is exactly what happens in a darkroom when a print is made from a negative. It should also be noted that the negative Thompson had drum scanned was the negative used to make the print that White and Mack examined and as such has the same information and details as the resulting print. Another point of record. Gary Mack is concerned that I am somehow giving the impression that he and White used the print that was made from the drumscan negative as the source material for the badgeman alteration. As my post clearly states Mack/White did examine that print as part of their work. The print they actually worked from to make the badgeman alteration was a copy of the UPI moorman.

Peole don't need to go "great lengths" to discredit Fetzer.He largely does it himself with his sloppy reseach and swollen ego. That...and that he is a "target rich environment".

Alan if you are refering to the crop of the "badgeman" alteration you posted, you are very confused. Your crop is not a clear and sharp Moorman print, but rather a darkroom manipulation that APPEARS to be sharp and clear. It is neither. During the copy and printing process Jack has increased the exposure and contrast until tones from the original have been blown away or compressed to give the appearence of sharpness and detail. To understand exactly how much detail has been lost simply look at the detail of the wall below the supposed figure of badgeman. It's gone. A full frame print of the Moorman exposed and printed like the badgeman crop would look horrible. Now here is the most imortant point. The polaroid film combined with a so-so lens that was stopped down to near f90 (and thus diffraction liimited...do a google on that) cannot produce the level of sharpness and detail that Jack shows in his Moorman alteration. Now if the camera/film combo can't resolve that level of detail, where did it come from in Jacks badgeman alteration?

deleted

I congratulate Miller on the complete accuracy** of what he says above. One print from Thompson and one print from Weisberg were very good quality, and were used for badgeman studies. Gary Mack and I labeled prints that Gary had collected by quality. Thus Thompson 1 was the best Thompson print and Weisberg 1 was the best print from Harold (which unfortunately was marred by some purple rubberstamp ink). Gary gathered about 10 prints. The first in the timeline we called the Zippo print, because it includes a zippo lighter next to the Polaroid. It is unique, because it was taken before the thumbprint was applied; it is also very grainy because of small negative size. I am attaching a copy of the Zippo print. At some point Thompson selected his "best print" and had a professional "drum scan" made of it. The quality of the drum scan is miserable. Jack **to be completely accurate, Robert furnished not a print, but a slide, and not to me...but to Gary Mack. Gary was looking at the slide on a large screen monitor, and saw the badgeman image, or as he would say the Badge Man image. Gary passed the slide on to me, and I copied it and made a print of optimal exposure. Just a point of record here. Thompson did not have his "best print" "drum scanned". Jack is blowing smoke. Thompson had the copy NEGATIVE of the Moorman original print that was made for him in 1967 scanned on a drum scanner at 2400dpi. Its pretty clear that White has little or no knowelege of the drum scan process nor experience using materials created on the drum scanner. The drum scan of the Thompson Moorman negative is an excellent digital representation of the negative scanned to film grain level. It was scanned without any post production applied to the resulting file and as such needs contrast and density modification to produce the best possible image. It should be noted that this is exactly what happens in a darkroom when a print is made from a negative. It should also be noted that the negative Thompson had drum scanned was the negative used to make the print that White and Mack examined and as such has the same information and details as the resulting print.

The short answer...NO!

Thats really funny stuff Jack! To dicredit you is simple...just ask you a question about perspective or light and shadow...or really most any question about photography...and your answer will discredit you. And BTW..his "photogrammetry ploy" worked perfectly. It made you look the fool. And more importantly showed you to be ignorant of the very subject in which you were attempting to profess expertise. Pretty powerful stuff really. You got toasted. envy doesn't become you, rofl..... you notice something, Jack? This guy posts nada, zippo, zilch when it comes to JFK related imagery.... just makes noise.... Wof wof...slink back to your dog house...guard dog. <flush> you're outt'a here too, not worth the bandwidth 2 down --plonk-- David, you have never been worth the bandwidth...your only redeeming social value is the humor your b/s replies provide...

Thats really funny stuff Jack! To dicredit you is simple...just ask you a question about perspective or light and shadow...or really most any question about photography...and your answer will discredit you. And BTW..his "photogrammetry ploy" worked perfectly. It made you look the fool. And more importantly showed you to be ignorant of the very subject in which you were attempting to profess expertise. Pretty powerful stuff really. You got toasted. envy doesn't become you, rofl..... you notice something, Jack? This guy posts nada, zippo, zilch when it comes to JFK related imagery.... just makes noise.... Wof wof...slink back to your dog house...guard dog.

Thats really funny stuff Jack! To dicredit you is simple...just ask you a question about perspective or light and shadow...or really most any question about photography...and your answer will discredit you. And BTW..his "photogrammetry ploy" worked perfectly. It made you look the fool. And more importantly showed you to be ignorant of the very subject in which you were attempting to profess expertise. Pretty powerful stuff really. You got toasted.

LOL! Whenever Jack White and his "boys" find their tit in a wringer they drag out the ...must be cia... routine. Its pretty sad really that a grown man like White has to run around like this with a tinfoil hat on his head! Grow up Jack!

Dave if you had been paying attention you would know that I am in touch with Zavada. He OKed the text of the post in which I cited his and Feilding's position concerning alteration of the Z-film. Zavada's position that the Z-film sould not have been faked is online I posted the link several times already. As for Fielding's opinion, I reported what Rollie Zavada told me, do think I'm making it up or he is? If you think I'm making it up e-mail Rollie and ask him to confirm it. If he says I made it up you have scored quite the coup. On ther other hand if he confirms what I said you have to admit Fielding disagrees with you or assert that Rollie is being deceptive. So go ahead e-mail Rollie today and ask him if my post reflected his views, if he says otherwise post his reply here. What do you say, is a week enough for you to hear back from him? If you remain silent on the subject we can all assume he confirmed what I said. He doesn't really want to get involved in this absurb debate, can't say that I blame him. Speaking of being deceptive Rollie was not happy about your insinuation that be backed away from his position that the Z-film is a camera original. He told me he was going to e-mail you about that, did you get the message yet? Your double standard is amusing, you ask me for cites but keep insisting that Fielding's book backs you position without providing any quotes. I quoted Sobel as an after though along with Zavada, Fielding and Stone, his resume is quite impresive and imagine far more so than yours, his IMDb listing has 30+ movies/TV series on it I imagine many of those use optical printing, have you seen everything his made? As for bonafides we're still waiting for us to tell you about your experience. Can you explain to us how the "forgers" were able to composite the "altered" z-film without any errors when Disney was unable to? Jack and Costella cited Mary Poppins and other Disney classics as evidence that such fakery was possible - until your mention Citizen Kane IIRC all the films you side cited were Disney productions. How were they able to do so without any matte lines when George Lucas was unable to do so almnost 20 years later. Let's not forget that would have had only a few hours to do the initial alterations. PS - Any luck on explaining how they secretly developed a roll a Kodachrome at 3 AM? I'll need a cite for that, Every film made since 1926? Are you sure? Earlier you said every film made from the 20 - 70 used them. So if we are to believe you every film made 1920 -present has optical special effects In that case Sobel should be quite the authority he directed about 13 and editted 3 of those. they're figments of their wild imaginations, Jack Zavada teamed up with a guy from Brazil? Next we'll hear this guy is a charter member of SMPTE roflmfao I'll email Rollie the post.... Gary's busy again.... David, David David...you look so f--king stupid when you try and cover up your defeat. Bad art is bad art is bad art. Its really quite simple. Lots of example of bad art in this thread alone. Your original piece of crap composite. Whites crap composite, Duncans crap composite, the crap from Mary Poppins...the jumping cow....crap art all over the place. Forget your optical printer because it has nothing to do with the theory that the z film was faked.....its the art Daviid...not the optial printer. Its time burn up your optical printer strawman...ROFLMAO! Go back to the drawing board David, you are out of your depth when it comes to high resolution compositing...film or digital. Back to the bench for you second stringer. Or better yet, why not go back to shooting video of cowboys and horsies, and doing more of your crappy digital composites. When you tire of that might I suggest you read another book! LOL! well Craigster -- you really mean its THE art? That same art utilized by optical film printer technicians, that art? Can't quite get around to discussing the issue, can you? By the way, what do you know about art? --the whiners moan and moan and MOAN -- tell me all about 8 and 10 bit color Craigster -- I need a lesson? Why not post a swimming motorhome or a flying boat -- got any stock footage your selling along those lines.... ROFLMFAO! Lets define the ART shall we David. It seems you do need a lesson. A matte is art, a glass painting is art, an animation cell is art, a masked continous tone image is art...and all of it must be perfect to create a composite that is undetectable as a composite. It matters not a witt if said composite is created on an optical printer, an animation stand, under an enlarger or even a lightbox and a brownie camera. Humans create this art and as such its prone to errors. Hell even your two attempts at composites have been riddled with error and you produced them on a computer. Have you ever assembled the art reguired to create a composite ON FILM and actually put them together ON FILM and had them stand up at high magnification? I did'nt think so. 8 bit color? 10 bit color? My are you backwards....my camera raws convert to 16 bit color...can work in 32 bit color if I want too....8 bit color? LOL! you vidoe guys living in a cave? My website is filled with computer comps, my pbase page as well...have at it David...I'm an open book on my work. You on the other hand...well lets just say we've been waiting a long time to see some of your film composites, but after seeing how poor you are WITH A COMPUTER I can understand why you have yet to post any....you don't have any! LOL! Pretty weak here as well: www.netstarproductions.com I can see why you would want to keep that a secret! ROTFLMAO! Back to the bench David, you wiffed again.

David, David David...you look so f--king stupid when you try and cover up your defeat. Bad art is bad art is bad art. Its really quite simple. Lots of example of bad art in this thread alone. Your original piece of crap composite. Whites crap composite, Duncans crap composite, the crap from Mary Poppins...the jumping cow....crap art all over the place. Forget your optical printer because it has nothing to do with the theory that the z film was faked.....its the art Daviid...not the optial printer. Its time burn up your optical printer strawman...ROFLMAO! Go back to the drawing board David, you are out of your depth when it comes to high resolution compositing...film or digital. Back to the bench for you second stringer. Or better yet, why not go back to shooting video of cowboys and horsies, and doing more of your crappy digital composites. When you tire of that might I suggest you read another book! LOL!