The Gordon Arnold Competition

[Miles Scull]

Follow up:

[Bill Miller]

Thanks Alan, I'll give it a go right now. This is my latest analysis using the true sized Arnold from TMWKK. This is a spot on accurate scaling comparison. Head shoulders and elbow have lines running through each image to show accuracy.

Here is a message I received by someone who is most knowledgeable about ratios concerning media images ...

"Duncan's post #326 has the aspect ratio all wrong, with the effect of making Arnold SHORTER than he really was. Right click on the image, click on Properties and you'll see the Dimensions are 442 x 281 pixels. Divide the first by the second and you get 1.5729537 to 1. The picture is wider than normal. The correct aspect ratio for video is 1.333 to one which, rounded up, is 4:3."

I won't be surprised that some, if not most, here will not understand what was said because I haven't had much experience in such things as well - which makes it tough to follow so to know what effects it may have on such an endeavor as this, but it is just another example of how some opinions don't matter much if not given based on thorough investigation.

Bill

Edited August 31, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Follow up:

If Badgeman is real, the flash looks ok to me.

Duncan

What has been interesting to me is that those people questioning these individuals being real or not have not had anything negative to say about their body parts being proportionate. Arnold - Badge Man - their head size for instance matches the size of the rest of their body. It's one thing to think one sees a face or a head, but to have it look correct in respect to the size of other body parts on the individual is certainly telling in itself.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Here is a message I received by someone who is most knowledgeable about ratios concerning media images ...

"Duncan's post #326 has the aspect ratio all wrong, with the effect of making Arnold SHORTER than he really was. Right click on the image, click on Properties and you'll see the Dimensions are 442 x 281 pixels. Divide the first by the second and you get 1.5729537 to 1. The picture is wider than normal. The correct aspect ratio for video is 1.333 to one which, rounded up, is 4:3."

I won't be surprised that some, if not most, here will not understand what was said because I haven't had much experience in such things as well - which makes it tough to follow so to know what effects it may have on such an endeavor as this, but it is just another example of how some opinions don't matter much if not given based on thorough investigation.

Bill

I'm not too knowledgeable about this either, but did a bit of studying after you made a post about this last week and found out that the aspect ratio's differ from country to country, EG, U.K aspect ratio is different to U.S aspect ratio. I took the video from Youtube, so no doubt they will also change the aspect ration when processing any clip which someone uploads to suit their site format. The clip I provided from Youtube is as is.

Duncan

Picture Standard DVD Video Dimensions

NTSC 720 x 480 pixels

720 divided by 480 = 1.5

PAL 720 x 576 pixels

720 divided by 576 = 1.25

I found out that dvd players from both countries convert to the correct aspect ration, so I can only concluse that the Youtube software works differently.

Duncan,

This might be helpful .... I use 'Image Styler' when scaling like images over the top of one another. By merely adjusting the opacity of one image by around 50% - this allows me to see both images at the same time. Image Styler then allows one to drag the one image in any direction needed to make it fit the other image. What this does in short is allow someone to scale an object without having to figure out the ratios. My Moorman overlay onto my color recreation was one such example.

Bill

[Jack White]

These jokers just don't think.

The badgeman image is a split-second frozen in time...BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT SPLIT-SECOND.

The puff of smoke could be as much as a SECOND after the gun fired. The shooter may have moved

his head AFTER pulling the trigger.

Also...scopes on sniper rifles have LARGE objective and EYEPIECE lenses so that the shooter does

not have to have his eye touching the lens to see the image and reticle.

The trouble with know-it-alls is they think they know it all.

Jack

[Miles Scull]

If Badgeman is real, the flash looks ok to me.

Duncan

Duncan,

I don't know, the colourisation looks to be a misaligned overlay on the true Moorman.

That's bad.

Anyway, here's a very rough look at BM rising over the fence top.

Thanks for your latest.

Edited August 31, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

It's aligned perfectly Miles.

Duncan

Duncan,

The wall apex is steady, BUT the flash moves!

Or the wall moves?

[Chris Davidson]

Sorry about that previous link.

I hope it didn't cause too much frustration.

Please download before playing, or you will probably experience slow playback.

New link is: http://66.75.7.97

Once again.

35mm(man on stairs) cloned into Moorman for comparison. (4.gif) + other's.

chris

Chris...I should mention that the CRAWLEY PHOTO I POSTED WAS CROPPED TO

SAVE FORUM SPACE. It is not useful to use it to study aspect ratio! Though taken

IN THE MOORMAN CAMERA, it has a much wider field of view and aspect ratio.

If you wish, I can EMAIL you the full image!

Jack

Jack.

It has been said before on this forum that the film that was used in Mary's camera for that shoot by Crawley had over twice the resolving potential comapared to the film that Mary used.

Would you care to comment on that?

Did Crawley compensate for this in anyway?

As for what you have shown us of that photo thus far, it wasn't good enough to see Turner above the wall. Everyone missed him, even you who were there.

So, can you show us a high quality crop of above the wall that really does show the "resoving power of the camera"?

Alan

PS: Chris,

that second link doesn't work for me either sorry.

Alan,

In setting up a quick alternative to the Simkin forum for downloads, I forgot to tell my wife don't shut down the machine.

The link is good: http://66.75.7.97

If it's down, try back later.

Will try to keep it up and running for as long as possible.

chris

[Bill Miller]

These jokers just don't think.

The badgeman image is a split-second frozen in time...BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT SPLIT-SECOND.

The puff of smoke could be as much as a SECOND after the gun fired. The shooter may have moved

his head AFTER pulling the trigger.

Also...scopes on sniper rifles have LARGE objective and EYEPIECE lenses so that the shooter does

not have to have his eye touching the lens to see the image and reticle.

The trouble with know-it-alls is they think they know it all.

Jack

Following a moving target with a scope at close range would be most difficult. It might also be worth mentioning that it may have been impossible for smoke to show up that brightly in deep shadow. And how could one justify looking like a cop so to make a getaway if he is going to be walking around with a scope on his gun. It seems more reasonable to me that we are seeing a muzzle flash. Did not Groden show such a flash in one of his DVD's?

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Alan,

In setting up a quick alternative to the Simkin forum for downloads, I forgot to tell my wife don't shut down the machine.

The link is good: http://66.75.7.97

If it's down, try back later.

Will try to keep it up and running for as long as possible.

chris

I don't want to prevent anyone from using the overlay for what ever purpose they think it may be helpful to them, but if one is trying to use it to show height comparisons beyond the wall - the two photos being taken at different elevations and locations will effect the outcome. The wall matches on the south dog leg, while the shelter is much taller in one photo than the other. The same can be said about the fence because the knoll slopes upward, so when an arrow is put at the base of the fence in one photo - it changes to the next because the two corners do not show at the same location, thus the two points on the fence in each photo are not even the same location.

Bill

[Miles Scull]

Miles, I can assure you my alignment is not out, nor does the wall move. Here's my original overlay which I used over Jack's best Badgeman image. I don't think i've posted these seperate images before, other than in gif animations, but these are what I used.

Check it out for accuracy by comparing the original black and white with my coloured overlay. I can hardly make out anything in your black and white image, but it looks larger to me than the other image that you used.

.

Duncan

Duncan,

Thanks for this comparison.

Oh ho!

I didn't realise that you considered my query as a challenge to your alignments. I thought of another alignment, not yours.

Therefore, please assist me here. Thx.

Where did you obtain your various (these above) images?

From Jack? Elsewhere?

Any provenances?

[Jack White]

Miles, I can assure you my alignment is not out, nor does the wall move. Here's my original overlay which I used over Jack's best Badgeman image. I don't think i've posted these seperate images before, other than in gif animations, but these are what I used.

Check it out for accuracy by comparing the original black and white with my coloured overlay. I can hardly make out anything in your black and white image, but it looks larger to me than the other image that you used.

.

Duncan

Duncan,

Thanks for this comparison.

Oh ho!

I didn't realise that you considered my query as a challenge to your alignments. I thought of another alignment, not yours.

Therefore, please assist me here. Thx.

Where did you obtain your various (these above) images?

From Jack? Elsewhere?

Any provenances?

Since I originated ALL badgeman images, I am the source of all of them.

As for provenance, the image is a gigantic enlargement from the Thompson Number 1

Moorman, photocopied by professional photographer Byrd Williams IV and drumscanned

by Global Graphics, and the colored version was hand-tinted with photo oils by me.

Jack

Edited August 31, 2007 by Jack White

[Chris Davidson]

Here is a message I received by someone who is most knowledgeable about ratios concerning media images ...

"Duncan's post #326 has the aspect ratio all wrong, with the effect of making Arnold SHORTER than he really was. Right click on the image, click on Properties and you'll see the Dimensions are 442 x 281 pixels. Divide the first by the second and you get 1.5729537 to 1. The picture is wider than normal. The correct aspect ratio for video is 1.333 to one which, rounded up, is 4:3."

I won't be surprised that some, if not most, here will not understand what was said because I haven't had much experience in such things as well - which makes it tough to follow so to know what effects it may have on such an endeavor as this, but it is just another example of how some opinions don't matter much if not given based on thorough investigation.

Bill

I'm not too knowledgeable about this either, but did a bit of studying after you made a post about this last week and found out that the aspect ratio's differ from country to country, EG, U.K aspect ratio is different to U.S aspect ratio. I took the video from Youtube, so no doubt they will also change the aspect ration when processing any clip which someone uploads to suit their site format. The clip I provided from Youtube is as is.

Duncan

Picture Standard DVD Video Dimensions

NTSC 720 x 480 pixels

720 divided by 480 = 1.5

PAL 720 x 576 pixels

720 divided by 576 = 1.25

I found out that dvd players from both countries convert to the correct aspect ration, so I can only concluse that the Youtube software works differently.

Difference between Arnold at 1.33/1(U.S.) and 1.57(U.K.).

Arnold.gif file

If it helps.

http://66.75.7.97

chris

[Miles Scull]

Miles, I can assure you my alignment is not out, nor does the wall move. Here's my original overlay which I used over Jack's best Badgeman image. I don't think i've posted these seperate images before, other than in gif animations, but these are what I used.

Check it out for accuracy by comparing the original black and white with my coloured overlay. I can hardly make out anything in your black and white image, but it looks larger to me than the other image that you used.

Duncan

Duncan,

Thanks for this comparison.

Oh ho!

I didn't realise that you considered my query as a challenge to your alignments. I thought of another alignment, not yours.

Therefore, please assist me here. Thx.

Where did you obtain your various (these above) images?

From Jack? Elsewhere?

Any provenances?

Since I originated ALL badgeman images, I am the source of all of them.

As for provenance, the image is a gigantic enlargement from the Thompson Number 1

Moorman, photocopied by professional photographer Byrd Williams IV and drumscanned

by Global Graphics, and the colored version was hand-tinted with photo oils by me.

Jack

OK. Thx.

Big help, Jack!

So, this is a crop from the drumscan? Yes?

And what exactly is this Moorman, please?

[Jack White]

Miles, I can assure you my alignment is not out, nor does the wall move. Here's my original overlay which I used over Jack's best Badgeman image. I don't think i've posted these seperate images before, other than in gif animations, but these are what I used.

Check it out for accuracy by comparing the original black and white with my coloured overlay. I can hardly make out anything in your black and white image, but it looks larger to me than the other image that you used.

Duncan

Duncan,

Thanks for this comparison.

Oh ho!

I didn't realise that you considered my query as a challenge to your alignments. I thought of another alignment, not yours.

Therefore, please assist me here. Thx.

Where did you obtain your various (these above) images?

From Jack? Elsewhere?

Any provenances?

Since I originated ALL badgeman images, I am the source of all of them.

As for provenance, the image is a gigantic enlargement from the Thompson Number 1

Moorman, photocopied by professional photographer Byrd Williams IV and drumscanned

by Global Graphics, and the colored version was hand-tinted with photo oils by me.

Jack

OK. Thx.

Big help, Jack!

So, this is a crop from the drumscan? Yes?

And what exactly is this Moorman, please?

The only image from the drumscan is the colored one.

There are MANY Moorman copies. Without checking, I would say

the one you ask about is the GORDON SMITH COPY from the original,

but I am not sure.

Jack