Craig Lamson
-
Posts
5,063 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Craig Lamson
-
-
More examples concerning 1963/64 optical printing in film ... can you detect the flaws?
Thanks Bill. Your examples support the point I have been making for some time. Its not the equipment...screw all of this crap about "Its an optical printer". Thats just a piece of kit. No what you have shown is the downfall of all film composites...the artwork.
-
So what do we have, HERE?
Simple, we have a composite COMP frame 347/357 posted last, Z-347 and Z-357 are the first two images posted here. Effectively, what took place in the limo (Z-347] has been moved ahead by 1/2+ of a second, 10 frames to [Z-357]....what took place place in the limo is moved further down Elm Street.
Z-fram Images came from Fetzer's site, see:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/?
Z347 and Z-357 have been included in the upload for reference purposes....
the object of this task is to SHOW foreground imagery (this case, BELOW Elm Street curb *plus* occupants/limo parts) the lower matte can be slid up OR down Elm Street) through the use of optical film printing, matte and or glass painting circa. 1963-64 vintage....
Using Painter IX on a Apple G5 dual 2.0Ghz computer with 2.5 gig of RAM this simple exercise took 15 minutes for processing (cutting matte lines - preparing counter matte) no tweaking was done to the layers i.e., feathered edges. Touch up matte painting would of been required in '63 -- but then that's what studio artists were for, after all, to quote someone hereabouts -- "...photography IS a art form..."... [emphasis mine]
Contrary to what newbies to film post-production, for that matter ANY type of motion media post-production understand -- matte painting and glass painting was perfected and used for FIXING a multitude of problems within the confines of film frames. Individual frames, or thousands of frames
The combined image (Comp frame 347/357 shows the result - a composite of foreground Z-347 background Z-357 -- now, nay-sayers will say: "hey, anyone can do that today, what about 1963-64?" Well of course anyone can do it today, if they know how -- so....
I'll claim right here, in black and white: it was possible in 1963 to accomplish same through optical film printing, traveling matte and glass painting exactly what has been digitally recreated here --
I invite Roland Zavada -- Raymond Fielding and/or ANYONE else in or out of the commercial film industry to **CITE**, for the record, "1963-64 optical film printing crafts people, including the matte painters and glass artists could NOT accomplish this simple feat - then explain WHY..."
Hey Mr. Colby,
EVERY movie during the 20's - 30's - 40's - 50's - 60's - 70's and most of the 80's used optical film printing techniques -- all YOU gott'a do man, is open up Fielding's 1st edition 1964-65 book. Cover to cover, it show circa '63 and earlier examples -- not to mention the index lists SMPE/SMPTE examples, quotes, studio debates, lawsuits regarding industry optical film printing secrets concerning the same.....
To recap: comp frame 347/357 image: top half (grass area above curb) comes from Z-357 -- bottom half (Elm Street curb and below) comes from Z-347 note: body and limo parts extending into the grass area comes from Z-347....
note: obviously this comp needs a bit of work, there's 4 places that need a brush -- and yes in 1963 you can feather a image lines -- just gotta read Fielding -- but hey today, it's the internet-- all the three included files were downloaded in .jpg format, saved and reworked in .pict format then re-saved in .jpeg format at 85% -- The Warren Commission isn't seated so I no longer have the intended audience --
And this brings what to the table David? Other than to show that your computer comp skills are crap?
And of course the BIG question is when are you actually going to do this ON FILM?
What you posted is meaningless and very poorly done I might add. I'm glad this was not for a paying customer.....
I expected as much from you, evidently artisty is a misconception for you -- I await Roland Zavada -- and Raymond Fielding's comments -- those that may have a modicum of knowledge regarding the film printing craft.
I'll also say with utmost of respect -- I think both these gentleman will have to consult others they know in the optical film printing craft.
I'll also hasten to remind you, in particular -- because Roland Zavada is/was Kodak's go to guy regarding 8mm film properties, doesn't mean he knew how to thread a 35 mm projector....
As for my computer skills --- done me pretty good for the last 20 years -- I doubt you even know what Painter IX, not to mention After Effects nor MOTION nor 3D Studio nor POV-Ray and YES, Lightwave GOD bless those toaster folks
truck on Photog - truck on
So lets recap..you show as a very poorly done comp created on a computer and tell us this indicates its possible to alter the zapruder film on film in a manner that will not be detectable when studied as still frames.
Good grief David you really are grasping for straws. Your silly claim is like me taking a drink of orange juice and proclaiming diet coke is sweet. What a stupid argument. No wonder you are precieved as a tinfoil hat kind of guy.
As for your computer skills, all I can say, based on the only examples you have posted in regards to the zapruder film, is that you suck. This last piece is horrid. I've seen better work by my 15 year old neice. So go ahead and toss around all the big sounding terms you think makes you look like an authority...your actual work as posted makes you look like a hack.
You sure did your dads company proud on this one LOL!
Maybe you should stick to cowboys and horsies....
-
So what do we have, HERE?
Simple, we have a composite COMP frame 347/357 posted last, Z-347 and Z-357 are the first two images posted here. Effectively, what took place in the limo (Z-347] has been moved ahead by 1/2+ of a second, 10 frames to [Z-357]....what took place place in the limo is moved further down Elm Street.
Z-fram Images came from Fetzer's site, see:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/?
Z347 and Z-357 have been included in the upload for reference purposes....
the object of this task is to SHOW foreground imagery (this case, BELOW Elm Street curb *plus* occupants/limo parts) the lower matte can be slid up OR down Elm Street) through the use of optical film printing, matte and or glass painting circa. 1963-64 vintage....
Using Painter IX on a Apple G5 dual 2.0Ghz computer with 2.5 gig of RAM this simple exercise took 15 minutes for processing (cutting matte lines - preparing counter matte) no tweaking was done to the layers i.e., feathered edges. Touch up matte painting would of been required in '63 -- but then that's what studio artists were for, after all, to quote someone hereabouts -- "...photography IS a art form..."... [emphasis mine]
Contrary to what newbies to film post-production, for that matter ANY type of motion media post-production understand -- matte painting and glass painting was perfected and used for FIXING a multitude of problems within the confines of film frames. Individual frames, or thousands of frames
The combined image (Comp frame 347/357 shows the result - a composite of foreground Z-347 background Z-357 -- now, nay-sayers will say: "hey, anyone can do that today, what about 1963-64?" Well of course anyone can do it today, if they know how -- so....
I'll claim right here, in black and white: it was possible in 1963 to accomplish same through optical film printing, traveling matte and glass painting exactly what has been digitally recreated here --
I invite Roland Zavada -- Raymond Fielding and/or ANYONE else in or out of the commercial film industry to **CITE**, for the record, "1963-64 optical film printing crafts people, including the matte painters and glass artists could NOT accomplish this simple feat - then explain WHY..."
Hey Mr. Colby,
EVERY movie during the 20's - 30's - 40's - 50's - 60's - 70's and most of the 80's used optical film printing techniques -- all YOU gott'a do man, is open up Fielding's 1st edition 1964-65 book. Cover to cover, it show circa '63 and earlier examples -- not to mention the index lists SMPE/SMPTE examples, quotes, studio debates, lawsuits regarding industry optical film printing secrets concerning the same.....
To recap: comp frame 347/357 image: top half (grass area above curb) comes from Z-357 -- bottom half (Elm Street curb and below) comes from Z-347 note: body and limo parts extending into the grass area comes from Z-347....
note: obviously this comp needs a bit of work, there's 4 places that need a brush -- and yes in 1963 you can feather a image lines -- just gotta read Fielding -- but hey today, it's the internet-- all the three included files were downloaded in .jpg format, saved and reworked in .pict format then re-saved in .jpeg format at 85% -- The Warren Commission isn't seated so I no longer have the intended audience --
And this brings what to the table David? Other than to show that your computer comp skills are crap?
And of course the BIG question is when are you actually going to do this ON FILM?
What you posted is meaningless and very poorly done I might add. I'm glad this was not for a paying customer.....
-
Mark, I think this actually may be the answer: give these two a thread where they can "duke it out," as it were, and maybe add their other buddy to the mix...and let the rest of us actually discuss the Kennedy assassination, instead of their grade school playground fight over credentials/lack of same, namecalling, et cetera, ad infinitum.
It's way PAST the stage where it got old. Now it's becoming tedious to wade through.
Then dont read the threads. No one is pointing a rifle to your head.
And perhaps I might suggest you take a look at your own backyard and re-read some of your posts to Gratz.
You've no room to talk.
-
You have doing the backstroke down pat David....
when you know your gig -- you don't have to flail around....
I know, thats why you are flailing around...
-
game, set, match --
your previous arguments were film alteration was impossible - NOW it's the art? I do want to see your film - post production resume with credits. A URL to a few of your film composites will do nicely, too!
Right here, thanks...
Excuse me? Thats never been my argument. If you think you can somehow prove that it was be my guest. Otherwise quite making up lies Healy.
Back to the drawing board bucko.....
BTW, I've posted a link on this forum to a film based composite created by me, where is yours? Missed it? Tough. Do some research.
-
You have doing the backstroke down pat David....
-
Craig wrote:
Of course I'll be happy to post my resume here David, right after you post that composite film clip you have created USING FILM and an optical printer. After you David. You like to throw around the term optical printer like it actually means something and it makes you feel ilke you actual know what you are talking about.
dgh: mines in the front of my GZFH chapter.... well in relationship to 1963-64 its your, what's that guys name again? Damocles- damolcles sword - you know the one hanging over every lone neuter's head
Irrelevent David. I could care LESS about your resume. Learn to read and stay on topic.
Truth is an optical print is just a piece of kit, and its not the only way to produce composites, nor is it the method that would make the most sense in the theory you posit.
dgh: maybe you'll be so kind to explain why the US governemnt commissioned the 1st serious one in this country during the early stages of WW2 -- would you like the URL? Watch the dance lurkers -- Tell me Craigster all about the truth re Optical Film Printing - technology
An animation stand would be a far better piece of kit to do the alterations your side suggests. An optical printer was developed FOR ONE REASON...to make reasonable composites IN A TIMELY AND COST EFFECTIVE MANNER. In other words to do the job good enouth and CHEAP!
In fact it makes the LEAST sense given the original film stock AND the level of changes your side suggests. You David are a blowhard who like to throw around terms that you think make it seem you know what you are talking about. Its pretty clear you don't...hell you don't even understand WHY the argument you try and defend is so wrong.
dgh: well by all means -- please give it your best shot -- fill the lurkers in, what the secret? If its the ridiculous theory regarding contrast levels -- you really need a life. But first maybe you can tell us what the contrast level of the optical fi;lm prints are in relationship to the alledged Zapruder camera original -- we can start there...
I can see you have had no real experience duping Kodachrome to other film stocks. Even to Kodachrome dupe stock its a bad experience. Dupe to interneg stock or reversal stock and you have color crossovers that you can't fix. THAT David is a FACT OF LIFE you cannot get past. But please try, lay out the stock chain and then show us actual examples of the results. Should be no problem for you, being an EXPERT and all. But you miss my point. All of this crap you guys base on Costellas "science" is flawed by the very simple fact that even Costella has admitted on this very forum that the can't normalize the Z frames to do his sign study...and yet he still says he can...Sheesh. He is a world class huckster...
But back on point, my experience includes making MANY film based composites,
dgh: now that lurkers is peanut gallery NOISE -- the lone neuters hereabouts have NEVER pointed to anything resembling a film motion composite using travelling mattes. We've asked, many times, no examples, no experts -- just Craig and of course we know what he's doing here -- I doubt Craig knows the term travelling matte...
EARTH TO DAVID! a motion picture composite is a still frame composite, and thats not going to change no matter how many "motion picture terms" you throw around to they and make yourself feel like and "expert" A composite is a composite is a composite. Movie composites move past the viewer with motion and sound masking all tiny mistakes. A still sits there and allows the viewer to study it in depth, or even with magnification. So please give us a few of those wonderful movie composite frames, made on an optical printer...BY YOU..so we can study them in depth. What ya afraid of David?
and like it or not David, doing this stuff for stills AND print is far more exacting than the stuff in a movie. Of course thats exactly WHY you have yet to post any examples of your film compositing work ( Its my guess its really because you have NOT produced any) and why you have not brought forth any examples of film compositing using ANY method that can stand up to detailed examination.
dgh: well why yes, that's why most entertainment industry optical printers circa 1963-64 had tolerance levels within 0.001 of an inch [includes aerial optical blocks], you realize that don't you? So as I sit here watching a 25 layer composite (one of 230 :23 second HD animations) renderin
g, please, tell me all about it .... oh, final digital product goes to 35mm. Back to the peanut gallery
The accuracy of the printer really means nothing. Its a smoke screen. Its the art that matters. We started down this path many months ago and you ran away and hid. I understand why you hid, because this is where you lose. Its the art David...and thats where the accuracy matters. You gonna tell me that the artists can paint masks to .001 accuracy? LOL! Who cares what the printer can do DAVID...ITS THE ART!
There was a reason we still photographers found every trick we could to NOT do composites David....thats because composites SUCK when you look at them up close and personal.
well hell, why didn't you say that a few years back -- NOW I know your problem -- you've got to deal with reality, read: bow to the client -- on my end -- I create new reality thats why they call it showbiz. With that understanding, no wonder you haven't a clue as to what motion film compositing is, or its history...
Actually we extend reality ... up close and personal...not to some lousy resolution like you video flakes. We actually have to understand light and shadow...and we have to make images that stand all on their own. You video pukes could use some real lessons from REAL PHOTOGRAPHERS. Of course when you are shooting cowboys how much skill does it really take anyway?
BTW I stop by here for entertainment....period.
dgh: we've noticed
And you think you are doing this to solve the case? LOL!
That and I love seeing guys like you make an _ss of yourselfs.
dgh: how silly
Yes you and your horde are silly.
-
Jim, as someone with a background in the scientific method why do you say this: 'case closed'
It is a hypthesis. Albeit one that you are convinced by. However that is not enough.
Could you please provide the relevant directions to abstracts of responses within the scientific community (not amateur theorist responses) that are necessary in order to follow this discussion? There are vary few 'laws' in science, very few 'cases closed'.
Judgement by peers in reputable independent scientific publications are what is necessary here it seems. Costellos theories are presumably published for the perusal of scientists. What are the headings/abstracts of relevance there? I'm not a scientist so I cannot judge a paper put forward by a scientist, (I'm only aware, through what you say, of the existence of a book and website that promotes this hypothesis) and I must depend on peer responses to guide. So a complete list of classification/field/publications abstracts that will pinpoint the relevant papers particularly those of scientists who have raised critical objections seem necessary here in order for an amateur to make any sort of responses.
I have access to local universities and will follow up with any directions provided.
(similarly the background papers would be helpful)
John...everything you ask for is in TGZFH. I take it you have not read the book.
Jack
Thats just not true Jack. What John is asking for IS NOT in the book.
-
Craig wrote:
Exactly David who really cares? Its always amusing though to watch the tinfoil hats go nuts in situations like this. I'm guessig yours is a bit too tight.
Love it when you non-creative types resort to Lone Neuter comedy...I love it when tinfoils like you with no real experience in any of this attempt to degrade anyone who rains on your parade. You are a loser David.
It's okay Craig, only hurts for a little while - we know you're one of those great perservers of Dealey Plaza 'Lone Neuter' photo history.... -- now thats over, maybe you can tell us what version of the Z-film D.Rather saw that day so long ago. Split or unsplit film? Was it the alledged Zapruder camera original or one of the three optical prints?Back-on-point, still photog - back on point
So lurkers stay tuned!
...
Whats to hurt David? I have the background and experience, unlike you so if theres pain involved its from your end. As for the rest of your post, back on point, what point? I could care less if the "history of the Dealy Plaza photo record is preserved" Truth is truth, simple as that. Now if you and the rest of your tin foil buddies have some truth post it. So far you and yours have been shown to be miserable failures. Now thats gotta hurt AND leave a mark.
"background and experience..." ROFL -- maybe you'll be so kind as posting your resume here, huh? So what praytell, does photographing mobile homes, washers and dryers have to do with optical film printing -- possible Zapruder film alteration? Come to think of it, your team ever find someone with credentials, ANY credentials to refute the SMPE/SMPTE articles of Ray Feildings book? You find anyone, anywhere of that stature bring 'em in here Craigster -- then we'll discuss the Zapruder film
why would you assume anything new regarding the Z-film studies would be run past the Lone Neuter's, you included?
"Truth is truth..." LOL, save it for the uninitiated, Craigster, that one goes way back to comp-u-serve days - you or your supposed knowledge impresses no ONE that I know, facts being what they are, you're not even on the radar screen
As for Rather and his viewing of the Z film...I really dont care.
of course you don't, thats why you can't stay away from here, or is this a paying job?
Chow
Of course I'll be happy to post my resume here David, right after you post that composite film clip you have created USING FILM and an optical printer. After you David. You like to throw around the term optical printer like it actually means something and it makes you feel ilke you actual know what you are talking about. Truth is an optical print is just a piece of kit, and its not the only way to produce composites, nor is it the method that would make the most sense in the theory you posit. In fact it makes the LEAST sense given the original film stock AND the level of changes your side suggests. You David are a blowhard who like to throw around terms that you think make it seem you know what you are talking about. Its pretty clear you don't...hell you don't even understand WHY the argument you try and defend is so wrong.
But back on point, my experience includes making MANY film based composites, and like it or not David, doing this stuff for stills AND print is far more exacting than the stuff in a movie. Of course thats exactly WHY you have yet to post any examples of your film compositing work ( Its my guess its really because you have NOT produced any) and why you have not brought forth any examples of film compositing using ANY method that can stand up to detailed examination.
There was a reason we still photographers found every trick we could to NOT do composites David....thats because composites SUCK when you look at them up close and personal.
BTW I stop by here for entertainment....period. That and I love seeing guys like you make an _ss of yourselfs.
-
Exactly David who really cares? Its always amusing though to watch the tinfoil hats go nuts in situations like this. I'm guessig yours is a bit too tight.
Love it when you non-creative types resort to Lone Neuter comedy...
I love it when tinfoils like you with no real experience in any of this attempt to degrade anyone who rains on your parade. You are a loser David.
It's okay Craig, only hurts for a little while - we know you're one of those great perservers of Dealey Plaza 'Lone Neuter' photo history.... -- now thats over, maybe you can tell us what version of the Z-film D.Rather saw that day so long ago. Split or unsplit film? Was it the alledged Zapruder camera original or one of the three optical prints?
Back-on-point, still photog - back on point
So lurkers stay tuned!
...
Whats to hurt David? I have the background and experience, unlike you so if theres pain involved its from your end. As for the rest of your post, back on point, what point? I could care less if the "history of the Dealy Plaza photo record is preserved" Truth is truth, simple as that. Now if you and the rest of your tin foil buddies have some truth post it. So far you and yours have been shown to be miserable failures. Now thats gotta hurt AND leave a mark.
As for Rather and his viewing of the Z film...I really dont care.
-
Exactly David who really cares? Its always amusing though to watch the tinfoil hats go nuts in situations like this. I'm guessig yours is a bit too tight.
Love it when you non-creative types resort to Lone Neuter comedy...
I love it when tinfoils like you with no real experience in any of this attempt to degrade anyone who rains on your parade. You are a loser David.
-
My second post trumps my first post. I don't think this photo has anything to do with the backyard photos. From what my friend told me, it seems apparent that someone at UPI wanted a picture of the rifle found in the sniper's nest, but could only find this photo of the upheld rifle. They then had a graphic artist create an image of the rifle all by itself. The photo on the left was part of this process.
Do David and Craig (perhaps for the first time) agree that this is the most likely scenario?
Thats clearly a good possiblilty and the one that crossed my mind when the image was first posted.
Craig Lamson wrote:Come on David, a ruby is only as accurate as the person cutting it. In any case the accuracy also depends on the subject being masked. Quite a bit of difference where accuracy is concerned when cutting around the hair on a head or a solid line on the barrel of a gun.
dgh01: duh, you think the junior varsity would recieve the call? And, of course hair could be an issue, If the hair is in the forground OVER the rifle -- not the case here
In any case a ruby makes at best a good ROUGH outline device. It won't hold up under close inspection.
dgh01: who might of examined/inspected this photos in say, 1965? Who knows what lineage this photo has -- who actually cares ---- rotflmfao
Exactly David who really cares? Its always amusing though to watch the tinfoil hats go nuts in situations like this. I'm guessig yours is a bit too tight.
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any ideas why?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John;
With your computer capabilities, I would have thought that the answer would be quite obvious.
Tom
Well, throw in a conspiratorial mindset to colour the picture, perhaps not so obvious..
Tom, I think this is one for Pat and David. What I see is (with my understanding of what they say) a 'cut out' for a rifle image where the photo here is unaltered. It's not a very precise attempt as the edges in places are blotchy so it could be a first attempt, put aside/discarded and now re-surfacing.I suppose that this cut out could then have been used to analyse the backyard photo's. nothing fishy.
_____________________
Circa 1963-64 mattes material (ruby - color of the transparant mask material) or masks were cut with a knife -- when complete, they were very, VERY accurate -- it appears they (whomever) had not begun the cutting process...
btw John, Tom Purvis is quite able discussing Dealey Plaza photos/motion film - backyard photos...
Come on David, a ruby is only as accurate as the person cutting it. In any case the accuracy also depends on the subject being masked. Quite a bit of difference where accuracy is concerned when cutting around the hair on a head or a solid line on the barrel of a gun.
In any case a ruby makes at best a good ROUGH outline device. It won't hold up under close inspection.
-
Numerous obstructionists have claimed that Zapruder and Sitzman
were in the shadow of a tree while on the pedestal. I challenged
them to produce evidence of a shadow. They have not, because
the pedestal WAS IN FULL SUNLIGHT.
In this image from Nix, the shadow of the pedestal is seen on the
sidewalk. If a tree shadow were there, it would also fall on the sidewalk
and would hide the pedestal shadow.
Jack
Thank you once again Jack, you have just shown that from Weigman the Pedestal is in backlight.
BTW, when I get time tomorrow I'm going to destroy your statments about the tone of a tan dress and how tones photograph. You might want to take some time tonight and bone up on the zone system and the exposure properties of film, because you really need it. I might suggest www.google.com as a start.
Till tomorrow....
-
Some may disagree, but I don't care. There is nothing that will make me change my mind.
You are talking about Moorman being a babe right?
-
Lamson says he sees Zapruder and Sitzman
SITTING on the pedestal. Tell us if that is what you find.
Thanks.
Jack
Good point, I didn't spot the addition to the post as I first responded.
I don't see Sitzman sitting, I see what could be interpreted as such.
I see faintly Zapruder in the process of jumping off. If it can be established he was holding the camera in his left hand and put his right hand on the edge to 'dismount' it would lend support to this.
On the whole it is in the eye of behiolder and therefore borderline as any sort of evidence that Zapruder was not there. However there appears to be much clear evidence that he was.
Clearly this is an exercise in subjectivity. None of these Weigman frames are worth a dang, at least not the net version. I usu ally dont like playing this game because it is subjective and no clear answer can be found. However I did work on two of the weigman frames posted and have put together some quick graphics to support "subjectivity"
Rather than post here and I simply put them up on my webspace.
www.infocusinc.net/sitzman/index.htm
-
'Craig Lamson' wrote:
[...]
Jack, Zapruder was not in full sun, he was backlit and in dark clothing. Consult your moorman in a previous post. Why did you put a person in light clothes on the pedestal to try and make your point?
[...]
Zapruder was backlit? roflmfao! Photographer and photo anaylyst, yeah, right..... LOL
Yes David, from the Weigman camera position, Zapruder was backlit.
________
What? If he turned with his back towards Elm Street and faced Sitzman, perhaps. Zapruder has NO backlight in that photo, the Zapruder camera position has more than adequate KEY-SIDE light from Weigman's camera position.
What you need there Craig, is a few 5K HMI's and a 2K (all 5600) rim light "behind" Zapruder and Sizman now THAT's outdoor backlight (or the sun), then we could see whose actually ON the pedestal, (despite the piss poor quality of ALL photos/film taken that day which I do find interesting in and of itself, that we mere mortals have been allowed to view) -- nobody can positively ID him, Zapruder (based on on-the-record DP photos), not that I doubt it's probably him.
Nope, you are wrong David, the sun was a good 120 degrees around from the Weigman camera position, which makes it backlight. There are ample examples of this in the Weigman frames.
Craig, any chance of posting the examples in the Weigman frames so that those of us not skilled in photo analysis can get a look, or suggest a link where they can be viewed..Thanks, Steve.
Steve...I think you will find this illustration of interest. It shows the Weigman clear
frame lightened and colorized. THERE IS NOTHING ON THE PEDESTAL. It also
shows Sitzman in the very light colored dress she was wearing. Such a light
dress would have photographed in sharp contrast to the dark background, regardless
of the direction of lighting. Mr. Light lies when he says the pedestal was BACKLIGHTED.
The sun was in the south, not the west, as any fool can plainly see. Mr. Light surely
knows the difference between SIDE-lighting and BACK-lighting.
Jack
Here is another Wiegman which seems to show a large black box
atop the pedestal.
Jack
Nice post Jack, on this one you can clearly see Sitzman sitting on the pedestal with her back to the camera.
-
'Craig Lamson' wrote:
[...]
Jack, Zapruder was not in full sun, he was backlit and in dark clothing. Consult your moorman in a previous post. Why did you put a person in light clothes on the pedestal to try and make your point?
[...]
Zapruder was backlit? roflmfao! Photographer and photo anaylyst, yeah, right..... LOL
Yes David, from the Weigman camera position, Zapruder was backlit.
________
What? If he turned with his back towards Elm Street and faced Sitzman, perhaps. Zapruder has NO backlight in that photo, the Zapruder camera position has more than adequate KEY-SIDE light from Weigman's camera position.
What you need there Craig, is a few 5K HMI's and a 2K (all 5600) rim light "behind" Zapruder and Sizman now THAT's outdoor backlight (or the sun), then we could see whose actually ON the pedestal, (despite the piss poor quality of ALL photos/film taken that day which I do find interesting in and of itself, that we mere mortals have been allowed to view) -- nobody can positively ID him, Zapruder (based on on-the-record DP photos), not that I doubt it's probably him.
Nope, you are wrong David, the sun was a good 120 degrees around from the Weigman camera position, which makes it backlight. There are ample examples of this in the Weigman frames.
Craig, any chance of posting the examples in the Weigman frames so that those of us not skilled in photo analysis can get a look, or suggest a link where they can be viewed..Thanks, Steve.
Steve...I think you will find this illustration of interest. It shows the Weigman clear
frame lightened and colorized. THERE IS NOTHING ON THE PEDESTAL. It also
shows Sitzman in the very light colored dress she was wearing. Such a light
dress would have photographed in sharp contrast to the dark background, regardless
of the direction of lighting. Mr. Light lies when he says the pedestal was BACKLIGHTED.
The sun was in the south, not the west, as any fool can plainly see. Mr. Light surely
knows the difference between SIDE-lighting and BACK-lighting.
Jack
Yes Jack I know the difference between side and back lighting..side light is 90 degrees or less, and Weigman was at least at 120 degrees, which makes it backlight. Its really pretty simple.
You say no one is on the pedestal yet plain sight is Sitzman sitting on the ped in her tan dress, with her legs hanging over the edge. I suspect that Zapurder is leaning down placing his camera on the Pedestal as is written he did after he became dizzy after the shooting. He's the black blob besides Sitzman.
And surely you know about the properties of film and the threshold of exposure ? You think it might apply here? Given that both people ont he pedestal had their shadow sides facing the Weigman camera, what zones do you suppose zapruders black suit or Sitzmans tan dress were in the Weigman photo and how does that compare to the threshold of exposure based on a camera exposure set for full sun? (you know the sunny 16 rule right?)
I'll give you a hint. Most films have a threshold of exposure of about 4 to 5 stops under middle gray. The difference between a full sun exposure and open shade is 3-4 stops.
-
'Craig Lamson' wrote:
[...]
Jack, Zapruder was not in full sun, he was backlit and in dark clothing. Consult your moorman in a previous post. Why did you put a person in light clothes on the pedestal to try and make your point?
[...]
Zapruder was backlit? roflmfao! Photographer and photo anaylyst, yeah, right..... LOL
Yes David, from the Weigman camera position, Zapruder was backlit.
________
What? If he turned with his back towards Elm Street and faced Sitzman, perhaps. Zapruder has NO backlight in that photo, the Zapruder camera position has more than adequate KEY-SIDE light from Weigman's camera position.
What you need there Craig, is a few 5K HMI's and a 2K (all 5600) rim light "behind" Zapruder and Sizman now THAT's outdoor backlight (or the sun), then we could see whose actually ON the pedestal, (despite the piss poor quality of ALL photos/film taken that day which I do find interesting in and of itself, that we mere mortals have been allowed to view) -- nobody can positively ID him, Zapruder (based on on-the-record DP photos), not that I doubt it's probably him.
Nope, you are wrong David, the sun was a good 120 degrees around from the Weigman camera position, which makes it backlight. There are ample examples of this in the Weigman frames.
Craig, any chance of posting the examples in the Weigman frames so that those of us not skilled in photo analysis can get a look, or suggest a link where they can be viewed..Thanks, Steve.
Steven, quite a few in this thread alone.
-
'Craig Lamson' wrote:
[...]
Jack, Zapruder was not in full sun, he was backlit and in dark clothing. Consult your moorman in a previous post. Why did you put a person in light clothes on the pedestal to try and make your point?
[...]
Zapruder was backlit? roflmfao! Photographer and photo anaylyst, yeah, right..... LOL
Yes David, from the Weigman camera position, Zapruder was backlit.
________
What? If he turned with his back towards Elm Street and faced Sitzman, perhaps. Zapruder has NO backlight in that photo, the Zapruder camera position has more than adequate KEY-SIDE light from Weigman's camera position.
What you need there Craig, is a few 5K HMI's and a 2K (all 5600) rim light "behind" Zapruder and Sizman now THAT's outdoor backlight (or the sun), then we could see whose actually ON the pedestal, (despite the piss poor quality of ALL photos/film taken that day which I do find interesting in and of itself, that we mere mortals have been allowed to view) -- nobody can positively ID him, Zapruder (based on on-the-record DP photos), not that I doubt it's probably him.
Nope, you are wrong David, the sun was a good 120 degrees around from the Weigman camera position, which makes it backlight. There are ample examples of this in the Weigman frames.
-
[...]
Jack, Zapruder was not in full sun, he was backlit and in dark clothing. Consult your moorman in a previous post. Why did you put a person in light clothes on the pedestal to try and make your point?
[...]
Zapruder was backlit? roflmfao! Photographer and photo anaylyst, yeah, right..... LOL
Yes David, from the Weigman camera position, Zapruder was backlit.
-
It appears that 'backlit' (though more correct would be over right shoulder lit) is not entirely incorrect for this frame. However, I wonder if 'dappled over right shoulder lit might be even more correct'.
Sidelit is not backlit, especially with regard to midday sunlight. The perspective arrow in the previous post shows the sun to be at a lateral angle no greater than 90 degrees; backlit would be 180. We are talking about midday sunlight, no more than 90 degrees from straight on.
Tim
High noon or not, from the Weigman camera position Zapruder is backlit for all intents. Its not 180, but at least 120 140 degrees. That qualifies as backlit in my book. One thing is for sure, he's not front lit in full sun. For a good indication of the shadow angle look at the back of the 59 chevy.
-
Colby is not aware that Wiegman, who caught several clear frames
of the pedestal, SHOWS THE PEDESTAL WITH NOBODY ON TOP.
Apparently in the dragnet of films, the govt missed this.
In FULL SUNLIGHT, Wiegman should have shown SOMETHING
on top of the pedestal. Below, Wiegman is compared to Betzner.
Both are in b/w just seconds apart.
Jack
In the Wiegman frame below which shows NOBODY ON THE PEDESTAL,
I have moved the man in the hardhat from the curb to the pedestal
to show what a person in FULL SUNLIGHT would look like.
Jack
Jack, Zapruder was not in full sun, he was backlit and in dark clothing. Consult your moorman in a previous post. Why did you put a person in light clothes on the pedestal to try and make your point?
Anyways, you cant see him on the pedestal? I'm shocked!
In any case a backlit subject in dark clothing against a very dark background, blurred by camera movement...you call this evidence that Zapruder was not on the pedestal? Even more in light of the fact that everything else shows him htere?
Zapruder alteration - possible?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Craig Lamson
Good grief David...the one needing the help in this thread is you and your "a" team. LOL! You got killed in this thread starting with that piece of crap art you post at the top..LOL!
Anyways, on the subject of credentials, exactly how many composite frames of film similar to what you say was done on the Z film have you PERSONALLY created on an optical printer? Your current computer experience is a no go, as is your news cameraman background...just your actual experience with creating comps on an optical printer.
Finally a little emperical evidence from your "a" team would be interesting. Where is your attempt to produce a "fake z film" made today using that 1963 tech? Surely you guys have the talent and the resouces. With such a wonderful artist like White, your peresonal optical printer skills, and Costella to provide the "physics..lol!". And geez there is all that money from the profits of Fetzers books...you know them money he says funnels right back into jfk research....hell that alone should be a huge bankroll...profit from what...500 books? LOL! Get with the program David! You made the claim its possible...produce some emperical evidence that it is. The burden of proof is on you and so far you have provided nothing...oh wait I'm wrong...you read a book... ROTFLMAO!