Jack White Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Chris...I notice that in your gif the CORNER OF THE PICKET FENCE MISSES LINING UPby a considerable amount. I put my cursor on it and when the picture changed it was about an eighth inch off. Please check it. Jack Jack, I think the Crawley photo may be missing a few south facing palings. It's hard for me to tell where the actual corner is. Maybe with this comparison, you can point it out to me. chris Chris...since I am unable to post images, that is too much trouble. Just put your cursor on the corner in Moorman, and then see where the corner is in Crawley. They do not match. Also, as Miller points out in the next message, put your cursor on the center of the tree in Moorman, and watch where the tree moves in your animation. Crawley and I were only guessing at the Moorman line of sight....and WE WERE SITTING ON THE GRASS, NOT STANDING, ABOUT EIGHT FEET SOUTH OF THE CURB. The Crawley image was not intended to be an exact replication, but was to check resolving power for detail using Mary's camera, size relationships, etc. Because we were farther away than Mary was, the background objects shift even on the correct line of sight. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Comparison by Jack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Chris...I notice that in your gif the CORNER OF THE PICKET FENCE MISSES LINING UPby a considerable amount. I put my cursor on it and when the picture changed it was about an eighth inch off. Please check it. Jack Jack, I think the Crawley photo may be missing a few south facing palings. It's hard for me to tell where the actual corner is. Maybe with this comparison, you can point it out to me. chris Chris...since I am unable to post images, that is too much trouble. Just put your cursor on the corner in Moorman, and then see where the corner is in Crawley. They do not match. Also, as Miller points out in the next message, put your cursor on the center of the tree in Moorman, and watch where the tree moves in your animation. Crawley and I were only guessing at the Moorman line of sight....and WE WERE SITTING ON THE GRASS, NOT STANDING, ABOUT EIGHT FEET SOUTH OF THE CURB. The Crawley image was not intended to be an exact replication, but was to check resolving power for detail using Mary's camera, size relationships, etc. Because we were farther away than Mary was, the background objects shift even on the correct line of sight. Jack Bill/Jack It is not my intention to match the Moorman position with the comparisons. Rather to use as a possible size comparison between individuals near the wall/fence. It appears from the Crawley/Bill Miller/Dealy in Murder Plaza examples we get an idea of sizing. I was hoping other's had photos with multiple people in them. Bill, That's a nice example you have provided. Can we get the original with no layers and not as a gif. It appears you have others behind the center of the wall which might help in the sizing comparisons. thanks, chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Comparison by Jack. Sorry Jack, thats the drumscan compaired to badgeman as seen in a fifth generation copy that exceeds the resolving power of the Moorman lens/film combination. Care to explain exactly HOW thats possible? Toast..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Comparison by Jack. Sorry Jack, thats the drumscan compaired to badgeman as seen in a fifth generation copy that exceeds the resolving power of the Moorman lens/film combination. Care to explain exactly HOW thats possible? Toast..... Craig, Should the a fifth generation copy show a badge that the drumscan does not? What could be a possible explanation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 (edited) Comparison by Jack. Sorry Jack, thats the drumscan compaired to badgeman as seen in a fifth generation copy that exceeds the resolving power of the Moorman lens/film combination. Care to explain exactly HOW thats possible? Toast..... Craig, Should the a fifth generation copy show a badge that the drumscan does not? What could be a possible explanation? Dust. If you go back a few posts and find that longer contact print image of Jacks negatives you can see exactly how overexposure can change the edges of an image by looking at the "badge". Watch it grow as he exposure increases. The other thing you have to remember is that the drumscan process really increases the apperance of film grain. You would see far less grain in a print because the enlarging lens ( and even the type of enlarger light source) acts as sort of a filter to reduce the grain. Edited September 2, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 (edited) Comparison by Jack. Sorry Jack, thats the drumscan compaired to badgeman as seen in a fifth generation copy that exceeds the resolving power of the Moorman lens/film combination. Care to explain exactly HOW thats possible? Toast..... Craig, Should the a fifth generation copy show a badge that the drumscan does not? What could be a possible explanation? Dust. If you go back a few posts and find that londer contact print image of Jacks negatives you can see exactly how overexposure can change the edges of an image by looking at the "badge". Watch it grow as he exposure increases. The other thing you have to remember is that the drumscan process really increases the apperance of film grain. You would see far less grain in a print because the enlarging lens ( and even the type of enlarger light source) acts as sort of a filter to reduce the grain. Craig, That's what I suspected. Robin, Is you assessment different or do you agree with Craig here? Your idea? Edited September 2, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 (edited) Comparison by Jack. Sorry Jack, thats the drumscan compaired to badgeman as seen in a fifth generation copy that exceeds the resolving power of the Moorman lens/film combination. Care to explain exactly HOW thats possible? Toast..... Craig, Should the a fifth generation copy show a badge that the drumscan does not? What could be a possible explanation? Dust. If you go back a few posts and find that londer contact print image of Jacks negatives you can see exactly how overexposure can change the edges of an image by looking at the "badge". Watch it grow as he exposure increases. The other thing you have to remember is that the drumscan process really increases the apperance of film grain. You would see far less grain in a print because the enlarging lens ( and even the type of enlarger light source) acts as sort of a filter to reduce the grain. Looks like a Hubble shot of the Orion Nebula. Star dust? In the realm of pretend: I can't see the alleged badge (AS SEEN ABOVE) not being covered by a raised sniper's left arm, so to jibe with anatomical symmetry requirements. As seen here (Altgens) the badge is higher on the shirt. It would be covered even allowing for the fabric elevating with the arm being raised. For example: Edited September 2, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 (edited) I refer all to the work of the late Tom Wilson which showed the badge matched a database for metal, not dust...and whose subsequent analysis showed detail of the badge including that it had a "spread eagle" on top of the badge. Tom was a vice president of quality operations at US Steel in Pittsburg and his decisions on computer database work of metal was responsible for detecting metal flaws in multimillion dollar USS contracts. Jack PS. Lamson is ignorant about resolving power of lenses. Tom related to me that LENSES are not even necessary to GATHER INFORMATION FROM REFLECTED LIGHT. In his assembly line work for USS, he had invented a NON-LENS which gathered images far more accurately than glass lenses. He called it a LIGHT VALVE and was in the process of getting it patented. In the extreme heat of steel production lines, glass lenses had coating problems and introduced lens distortions, whereas his light valve was problem-free. Tom was an electrical engineer and computer expert. I think the light valve was based on the familiar PINHOLE CAMERA in theory, but electronics magnified the images produced by the tiny precision hole thousands of times for superior distortion free images. Edited September 3, 2007 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 Dust. If you go back a few posts and find that longer contact print image of Jacks negatives you can see exactly how overexposure can change the edges of an image by looking at the "badge". Watch it grow as he exposure increases. You guys are talking about a poor degraded print and not the quality of the image Jack had to work with ... is this really a fair comparison or is it just the best you can offer to try and win a point? Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 Dust. If you go back a few posts and find that longer contact print image of Jacks negatives you can see exactly how overexposure can change the edges of an image by looking at the "badge". Watch it grow as he exposure increases. You guys are talking about a poor degraded print and not the quality of the image Jack had to work with ... is this really a fair comparison or is it just the best you can offer to try and win a point? Bill Learn to read Bill. We are discussing the growing "badge" in Jack badgeman contact sheet. Can you deny that the continued overexposure of Jack series di d not cause the "badge to about double in size? Perfect example of creating new "detail" by overexposing. Wanna try again? And how much did the Moorman really degrade? Maybe Gary can send you some hints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 Thought it might be interesting to make the inserted shooter around the same sharpness as the Badge Man, so add one more badge to the light spot collection. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 (edited) Learn to read Bill. We are discussing the growing "badge" in Jack badgeman contact sheet. Can you deny that the continued overexposure of Jack series di d not cause the "badge to about double in size? Perfect example of creating new "detail" by overexposing. Wanna try again?And how much did the Moorman really degrade? Maybe Gary can send you some hints. Jack didn't create detail ... Groden didn't create detail ... lightening the image caused detail to be lost. A good example is the MPI images ... they are dark - too dark in some places, but one can lighten them and still hold onto the original shapes with minimal blurring. Why not email Groden and let him tell you exactly what he did and then if you think it changed the image and created something out of nothing, then post your opinion. Right now you are merely offering an opinion about what occurred to the image when you haven't even seen the original Moorman photo before it started fading and losing its sharpness with time so to know whats different about Jack's images. Bill Edited September 3, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 (edited) I refer all to the work of the late Tom Wilson which showed the badgematched a database for metal, not dust...and whose subsequent analysis showed detail of the badge including that it had a "spread eagle" on top of the badge. Tom was a vice president of quality operations at US Steel in Pittsburg and his decisions on computer database work of metal was responsible for detecting metal flaws in multimillion dollar USS contracts. Jack PS. Lamson is ignorant about resolving power of lenses. Tom related to me that LENSES are not even necessary to GATHER INFORMATION FROM REFLECTED LIGHT. In his assembly line work for USS, he had invented a NON-LENS which gathered images far more accurately than glass lenses. He called it a LIGHT VALVE and was in the process of getting it patented. In the extreme heat of steel production lines, glass lenses had coating problems and introduced lens distortions, whereas his light valve was problem-free. Tom was an electrical engineer and computer expert. I think the light valve was based on the familiar PINHOLE CAMERA in theory, but electronics magnified the images produced by the tiny precision hole thousands of times for superior distortion free images. Yea right, Wilson could tell it was metal fom a multi-generational b'w image....sure.... ...and it had WINGS! now thats a hoot. Which version of the "badge?" The one thats the smalle than the head of a pin, or the one you doulbled in size by overexposing youe copy negative? Man are you reaching now. Thats what happens when you need to deflect the argument you are losing...for example...resolution. Sorry to burst your bubble but I'm very well versed in the resolving power of lenses. You see as a professional working today, the biggest issue we are dealing with since going digital is the resolving power of lenses. Digital is murder on lenses. I'm also very well versed on system resolution and Wilsons light valve aside (another nice but failed attempt at deflection) we are dealing with a system resolution problem and that problem includes a glass lens. A pretty poor glass lens at that. Its not uncommon for a poor to medium quality lens to reduce system resolution by up to 60%. Lets be generous and give the Moorman 3000 iso polaroid film a LP/MM resolution of 16. Now reduce that by 50%. You are left with a system resolution of only 8 LP/MM. That would be recorded at very high contrast...pure black and white, not the mush found in the shade where 'badgeman" lived. Then lets add in final nail in`the system resolution coffin for the Moorman polaroid...hand holding the camera and panning. Once again high resolution digital imaging and the ability to "pixel peep" our images and 100% or 200% in Photoshop has shown us that the old 1/focal length formula does not work. To get maximun resolution you NEED a very sturdy tripod, caable release and mirror lockup. Hand holding even at 1/2000 of a second can and does knock 20% or more off of your ssytem resolution. And you want us to believe Marys camera/lens/film which at best could record 6-8 LP/MM could resolve the eyebrow of badgeman and the wings on his badge from 125 feet away? Yea right..... Edited September 3, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 (edited) Learn to read Bill. We are discussing the growing "badge" in Jack badgeman contact sheet. Can you deny that the continued overexposure of Jack series di d not cause the "badge to about double in size? Perfect example of creating new "detail" by overexposing. Wanna try again?And how much did the Moorman really degrade? Maybe Gary can send you some hints. Jack didn't create detail ... Groden didn't create detail ... lightening the image caused detail to be lost. A good example is the MPI images ... they are dark - too dark in some places, but one can lighten them and still hold onto the original shapes with minimal blurring. Why not email Groden and let him tell you exactly what he did and then if you think it changed the image and created something out of nothing, then post your opinion. Right now you are merely offering an opinion about what occurred to the image when you haven't even seen the original Moorman photo before it started fading and losing its sharpness with time so to know whats different about Jack's images. Bill Groden is welcome to debate me here. Jack DID create new detail, he changed the edges. Look at the wall, or the badge or the white spot on the "head' and watch them grow as the exposure changes New image detail is created with each f-stop. And yes by throwing away detail he created NEW detail. You not seen the Moorman original at the time it was taken, nor has Jack nor has Groden, nor has Mack. You are all GUESSING about what it looked like. Was it overexposed, underexposed, over processed, uunderprocessed...tell me Bill what was the EXACT condition of that image at the time it was taken. Here is what I know based on the film data, the resolving power of the lens as tested by me and years of experience using b/w polaroid film on a daily basis. The system resolution of the Moorman lens/film/fstop is simply unable to record the level of detail found in the badgeman alteration. Now Bill, if the system resolution is too low to record the detail, how did it get in White badgeman image? Until all of you can deal with that issue you are simply blowing rifle smoke... Edited September 3, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now