Chris Davidson

I just relieved the burden. Read previous postings. Frame removal is alteration. Prove me wrong by supplying a Nix version that contains the extra Itek frames. Been waiting for years and no-one has obliged.

Another way of looking at the Itek/Nix missing frames is just to add it to the back end (instead of the front end) after z313. Assume the Nix/Z sync does start at extant Z291. Sort of the way Breneman and Dino described the extra missing head shot frames. Notice that Itek did not assign frame numbers to the report, they only specify it was the frames prior to the extant headshot. Such as 291-319 instead of 285-313.

And who did a study of the Nix film back in 1967? The study they completed consisted of a version that possessed 28 frames prior to the extant z313 frame. Meyers starts syncing Nix to Z starting at Z291. 313 - 291 = 22 frames. Where are the Nix frames used by Itek that are absent from every Nix version in existence today? Once you find those then a new conversation can ensue.

Fairly certain Breneman knew nothing of Dino/NPIC when the interview took place in 1978. https://vimeo.com/964934452?share=copy

Recognize the conflation:

Mr. SPECTER. At any time in the course of the examination of the Zapruder film, was the original of that movie obtained? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it was. On February 25, Mr. Herbert Orth, who is the assistant chief of the Life magazine photographic laboratory, provided the original of the Zapruder film for review by the Commission representatives and representatives of the FBI and Secret Service here in the Commission building. Mr. SPECTER. And what was the reason for his making that original available? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Life magazine was reluctant to release the original because of the value. So he brought it down personally and projected it for us and allowed us to run through it several times, studying the original. Mr. SPECTER. Was that because the copies were not distinct on certain important particulars? Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. The original had considerably more detail and more there to study than any of the copies, since in the photographic process each time you copy you lose some detail.

I didn't know the WC was formed before the film was damaged.

Besides those. Look at the top edge of the sign. The splice comes in at a different height.

Strangely cropped similar to what is seen in the extant Z film around the headshot. Sorry, but this is what I meant to respond with a "yes" to. It was the immediate previous post to my "yes" response. Which would mean the same FOV at the beginning of both films, correct? I think you had asked me for footage up the street, so it's unnecessary.

Yes.

Paul, You're absolutely correct. Zoomed and strangely cropped. That's an odd shape for the StemmonsSign corner, especially since both frames were shot with the same camera, from the same location, within months of each other. It's as if some splicing has occurred, based on the black cut lines in that area. imo

Full zoom? Easier to compare extant Z to WC reenactment Z. Triangulation of three stationary objects near the frame edges for comparison. Unless you believe the reenactment was cropped approx 10% for some unknown reason.

I filmed back in 2005. Frame credit below to Rick Janowitz: Maybe you could ask him for some examples. Better quality.

— All the controls for the Acme-Dunn optical printer were accessible from one side of the machine. Photograph: The Cine-Technician, May/June 1944. Initially, the Acme-Dunn printer was manufactured purely for governmental use, with the first machine snapped up by the U.S. Navy’s Central Photographic Laboratory in Washington, D.C. After the war, widespread production began and the Acme-Dunn became what motion pictures had always lacked: an industry-standard optical printer. On 15 March 1945, the Academy Research Council bestowed a Class 3 Award on Linwood Dunn, Cecil Love and Edward Furer for the design and construction of their new optical printer, commenting, “This machine exemplifies technical advancement necessary to keep pace with the ever increasing scope of the motion picture art18.” Nearly forty years later, in 1981, the Academy recognised the same three men for the same achievement, retrospectively awarding them a special Oscar for technical merit. Experiments in Optical Once standardised, the optical printer solidified its reputation as a piece of essential equipment capable of performing a multitude of onerous tasks without complaint — and saving the production valuable dollars to boot — as illustrated in this laconic report from a 1956 edition of Motion Picture Daily: “C&G Films Effects, New York City, announce the acquisition of a new optical printer that does everything but write dialogue ... The idea, of course, is to save time in the industry where time is money19.” — Press advertisement from 1962 for an Acme optical printer.    Even though the optical printer was rapidly becoming an old dog, it was still capable of learning new tricks. For example, during the 1950s, Raymond Spottiswoode, an early proponent of 3D cinema, published a number of papers citing the optical printer as a useful tool in the delicate task of adjusting stereo displacement effects. And in 1957, Oxberry introduced the first commercially available aerial image optical printer, so named because the receiving camera was focused not on the plane of the film it was copying, but on a “virtual” or “aerial” image floating in empty space between its own lens and that of the projector.

https://vimeo.com/936475992?share=copy

Used intelligently, it "can be" and "has been" a very helpful and productive tool when working with equations.

Frame on the right side shot with B/H 414:

btw, the latter footsie is actually his left leg and foot: