David G. Healy

welcome Mr. Klein....

I'll be frank with you Robin, I can look at that Moorman 5 photo and see Sitzman on the left of Zapruder, then next time I view it she's on the right of Zapruder....adding to the mix -- on a tight insert of the same Moorman 5 either time, I can't tell who is in front of who..... Above all, I, nor anyone I know can ID whoEVER it is that's on the pedestal. (that'll bring BM out of the woodwork and a few emails from GaryM) David

according to FOX News OBL has a communique coming out today, sometime....

I'd say the beginning of the story: show us, examples that is. After all I provided examples of optical printing techniques, not to mention equipment nomenclatures. Surely this wasn't going to pass unnoticed.... Or is the technique simply illusion. After all, one can NOT make a soft edge negative and/or photo SHARP! So show us a few of these darkroom illusions.... Well David they made the unsharp mask process in Photoshop based on the same principals. If you don't think it works, fine with me. Try a google on local contrast. As for examples I'm still waiting for Costella to provide empirical examples of the claims he has made. What's the matter, the scientist can't use a camera? The story is over regardless of your feelings. Costella screwed up with this claim. The only question that remains is will he correct it. If he graces this forum re debating the above, be prepared to go technical........ he be the one who does the CODE! Who is THEY, please? Frankly, the argument is a none starter. As IF we don't know the photo/film printing industry is fraught with illusion -- i.e., making something out of nothing, eh? Or, as they say, no tickey-no washy! I do recall Kai Krauss had a hand in writing quite a few of Photoshop's primary plug-in filters, unsharp mask and gaussian blur comes to mind (sometime after Adobe's creation of the Illustrator program). Kai went on to other great software advances in plug-in filters, app's and things, Kai's Power Tools and MetaCreations specifically. Perhaps you know Kai, I met him at Brooks, Santa Barbara [when Brian Ratty was on staff there] -- Kai was a student there (way back when) Have you heard JCostella Ph.D has made great advances in image compression/decompression schemes-codec? HD too! Released just a few weeks ago.... If he chooses to debate, I suspect he's grounded in basics - word to the wise They..are the photoshop team David...as you well know. Why debate the process or the code David, thats a strawman. And yes I am aware of Costella's jpg-clear. Interesting, but of no use in this discussion. He can code...great...can he use a camera? The question and answer in this case is simple and the process nor the code have nothing to do with it. If you say something is impossilbe without modern computers and the truth is that it is, you have made a mistake. Thats the answer. The question still remains...will Costella correct his mistake. not a strawman Craig, after all, most digital photo plug-in filters (specifically Photoshop's) were brought to life by darkroom folks (in search for something they could not do in their labs and/or darkrooms.... with the aid and assistance of a coder of course.... Till I see examples, comparisions AND documentation -- no mistake.... I've never seen a blurry photos edges enhanced in a old-time photo lab..... softened yes, sharpend NO....

I'd say the beginning of the story: show us, examples that is. After all I provided examples of optical printing techniques, not to mention equipment nomenclatures. Surely this wasn't going to pass unnoticed.... Or is the technique simply illusion. After all, one can NOT make a soft edge negative and/or photo SHARP! So show us a few of these darkroom illusions.... Well David they made the unsharp mask process in Photoshop based on the same principals. If you don't think it works, fine with me. Try a google on local contrast. As for examples I'm still waiting for Costella to provide empirical examples of the claims he has made. What's the matter, the scientist can't use a camera? The story is over regardless of your feelings. Costella screwed up with this claim. The only question that remains is will he correct it. If he graces this forum re debating the above, be prepared to go technical........ he be the one who does the CODE! Who is THEY, please? Frankly, the argument is a none starter. As IF we don't know the photo/film printing industry is fraught with illusion -- i.e., making something out of nothing, eh? Or, as they say, no tickey-no washy! I do recall Kai Krauss had a hand in writing quite a few of Photoshop's primary plug-in filters, unsharp mask and gaussian blur comes to mind (sometime after Adobe's creation of the Illustrator program). Kai went on to other great software advances in plug-in filters, app's and things, Kai's Power Tools and MetaCreations specifically. Perhaps you know Kai, I met him at Brooks, Santa Barbara [when Brian Ratty was on staff there] -- Kai was a student there (way back when) Have you heard JCostella Ph.D has made great advances in image compression/decompression schemes-codec? HD too! Released just a few weeks ago.... If he chooses to debate, I suspect he's grounded in basics - word to the wise

'Craig Lamson' wrote: I'd say the beginning of the story: show us, examples that is. After all I provided examples of optical printing techniques, not to mention equipment nomenclatures. Surely this wasn't going to pass unnoticed.... Or is the technique simply illusion. After all, one can NOT make a soft edge negative and/or photo SHARP! So show us a few of these darkroom illusions....

so, is it *on-the-record* that LIFE Magazine used this "sharpening" process on any Z-frames they published? For that matter, on any image they published? EVER?

you're a busy beaver today... I doubt the Chaney WFAA interview is going away anytimesoon -- propping up Miller isn't going to get any CT to bite....

This the same logic as used hereunder: Many witnesses recall the car came to a full stop. No film (Zapruder, Muchmore, Nix, Hughes) shows the car come to a stop. THEREFORE THE FILMS AND PHOTOS ARE NECESSARILY FORGED! Sounds familiar? In effect I am asked to accept that some eyewitnesses are more reliable than 4 films. Wim you say the film are reliable?

whenever Dr. John Costella posts concerning DP JFK assassination related film - photos, the trolls appear.....

LMFAO you're a year and a half late champ! Is it any wonder Roland Zavada said he did not need your assistance....

Jack wrote I think you meant to say a M-16.

You're a self-professed bright guy. Figure it out yourself. LMAO!

Sad? Why sad? The reason for that "SPLICE" in the beginning is....? Badgeman discussion deals with an anomaly 'in' a still photo, this thread deals with something that SHOULD appear in DP film.... and doesn't appear..... So don't be sad Wim, every move us Z-film alterations make needs to be discussed -- get Dr. Costella's data and prove him wrong -- you should be able to find someone that can challenge his findings.... till then champ, you're wishful thinking is in vain..... Again, the reason for that "SPLICE" in the beginning is....? David Healy

Now David, I've always considered it just light hearted banter between peers... testy light hearted banter..... LMAO!

Craig Lamson wrote: Bill Miller wrote: And this is conversation about a 1st generation photo/print quality issue? Who cares what Badge Man in a book looks like! That gets someone closer to the original quality... Are you reading what your writing? Do you know what an image *loseless* codec is? This is ridiculous.... Perhaps you should get to work on that forum signature block of yours...

Your last comment is the same line of nonsense that David Healy used over Zfilm alteration. You ask me to post the images I have and yet you bitch that that Internet only offers worthless images for study. Its a no win situation that allows you to keep dancing all day long. I guess that you either need to talk with Groden one on one and to get off your behind and go look at the images used for yourself so not to rely on how they look on the Internet. Now how serious are you, Craig? Groden was the one who created one of those copy negatives and can get as technical as you want to about what he did to get from point A to point B, but it appears that you are not really interested in dancing with someone of his expertise. Mack was with White when they worked with those best prints and probably still has some of them in his collection, so get your tail to Dallas and get as serious about seeing these images as your trying to pretend to be. You already said that seeing them on the Internet is worthless .... so now you have little choice but to do it right - although I believe you to merely be grandstanding and won't spent an ounce of energy to follow through that narrow window you have created. You may remember that it was an Internet image that was posted on this forum showing the drum scan. I don't recall you ever saying the drum scan was worthless because it was being compressed and posted to the Internet. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Talking out of both sides of your mouth doesn't look like you are really here to learn or to teach if the Internet images are worthless ... so what other purpose could you have for running up post after post and not actually doing something as simple as emailing an expert like Groden so to at least first find out what he did to create his copy negative? Bill Miller my-my you're getting sensitive there old chap... For years I've called for a central photo repository where assassination researchers have access to DP 11/23/63 1st generation (*verifiable*) films (full size) film .mov files and assassination related PHOTOS in either .tiff or .png (both lose-less codecs)... C Lamson and I have more than none thing in common (other than much heated discussions and outright attacks). He happens to be a professional (with much photographic work on the net ) the PRIMARY however happens to be: many years in this photo/film/video business.... he also was kind enough to provid me [amongst other CTer's] a cd with the Moorman 5 .tiff image years back (which I still have [and NO I can't ID Zapruder or Suitzman on the pedestal]). My opinion concerning Moorman 5 issues remains the same: it's a canard.....plain and simple..... You on the other hand post to your hearts content making broad sweeping generalizations based on poor quality 72dpi imagery, then hide behind Gary and Groden's told me so's... utter foolishness... So if Groden has something to say, get his sorry rearend here....same for Gary (after all, Gary HAS the good-great imagery, correct). Less of course the pithy commentary/excuses that he's the caretaker of the images and bound by museum dctates.... that's BS and he knows it and most of us know it..... An email from Moe Weitzman exists (and I've seen it) concerning dear Robert Groden and his Z-film actions. What Moe knew and DIDN'T know (he does now) about Robert G.'s relationship with the 35mm Zapruder film blowups Moe produced for LIFE magazine. Getting real boring listening to you front for Robert Groden and Gary (who lurks here more and more daily).... REAL boring Reason for edit: changed word to its initials

Perhaps I did miss that part...... although I was there for the entire fiasco called the Moorman5 street-grass debate issue. Only to have that debate capped off with David Lifton's Pig on a Leash article (re Moorman's DP interview with Gary Mack- Producing) Although you, I and a few others may understand .jpeg compression artifacts (which vary depending on % of compression) it may be helpful for those that aren't up to speed concerning jpeg compression to show the difference between a .tiff Moorman5 image and the same Moorman5 compressed at utilizing the jpeg codec-100% & 75% (two jpeg image versions). Frankly I'd prefer to view Octagon's "drum" scan data file, was that in .RAW format or .tif? Frankly concerning the Moorman 5 Polaroid, GIGO... I don't care what format it was digitized under or output as..... I've yet to find one person who can ID Abraham Zapruder as the person standing on that pedestal -or- Marilyn Sitzman for that matter based on the Moorman5 photo --- -OR- any other photo in the *entire* DP archive of 11/22/63 film-photos....

a *flatbed* scan is NOT a *drum* scan.... How the hell did this scan get called a drum scan? If your above is correct, referring to Josiah's "research" Moorman5 image as from a drum scan is misleading.... Evidently Miller is pressing hard for a job at the 6th Floor Museum, AGAIN

Frankly I think the best is yet to come. Consider the forthcoming Bugliosi Reclaiming History HBO special (one of a ten part series produced by Tom Hanks).... complete with unflinching support for the WCR. Not to mention endless diatribe concerning those that disagree with the entire WCR/SBT-LHO did it all by his lonesome effort

No - it is called "resizing" one image to fit another image of the same, but different sized. yep, resizing = altering a image OR film clip...... gott'a be honest here, Bill!

Tom wrote: This guy was a very BUSY guy..

Karl - different zooms - different lenses makes the difference. The camera used in the first video has a far wider field of view. Look at the train car in the Nix film - its huge due to the way the lens magnified it. From a cursory glance at the two films - a few adjustments and they could be made to overlay IMO. Bill isn't that called "altering" film? For our viewing pleasure of course

oh my..... "no confusion", where have I seen that before!

looks like it might be time for you to step down, eh?