Moorman-in-the-street?

[Craig Lamson]

Quoting Craig

"Chris, just curious, where whould you place the windshield of the forth motorcycle in Moorman 5?"

Craig,

Do you believe the fourth motorcycle windshield is obscuring Newman's left arm?

Some more studying for anyone interested.

Is there a problem with the gas tank emblem. Also, the support rod to the left and below the emblem.

I do believe this was shot from street level.

Had to rotate it 5 degrees CW to align the cycles.

chris

Yep Chris I sure do. The tank/windshield area of the third bike is a very good fit the forth bike windshield.

Is there a problem? Are all the bikes of the exact same vintage and equipped exactly the same?

Edited March 10, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Bill Miller]

Do you believe the fourth motorcycle windshield is obscuring Newman's left arm?

Some more studying for anyone interested.

Is there a problem with the gas tank emblem. Also, the support rod to the left and below the emblem.

I do believe this was shot from street level.

Had to rotate it 5 degrees CW to align the cycles.

chris

Have you contacted the museum to see if there are prints that better show Newman? Do you know the height of the photographer who took the photo of the cycles at street level compared to Moorman's?? Do you know why when two bikes are overlaid to scale - the poeple are so much smaller along the north side of Elm Street???

Just curious.

Bill Miller

[Chris Davidson]

Bill,

Maybe Craig should ask you the same question:

Are all the bikes of the exact same vintage and equipped exactly the same?

In regards to the Moorman prints, at least 5 different versions have been posted. I was hoping one of these would be of high quality. Not one shows Newman's

left arm. Do you have any that do? Please post!!!

No, I do not know the photographer's height.

Are you implying that a comparison of the same motorcycle, shot from ground level with 2 different camera's, is not possible?

What 2 bikes on Elm have you overlayed to scale?

Craig,

A few bike photos.

chris

[Craig Lamson]

Bill,

Maybe Craig should ask you the same question:

Are all the bikes of the exact same vintage and equipped exactly the same?

In regards to the Moorman prints, at least 5 different versions have been posted. I was hoping one of these would be of high quality. Not one shows Newman's

left arm. Do you have any that do? Please post!!!

No, I do not know the photographer's height.

Are you implying that a comparison of the same motorcycle, shot from ground level with 2 different camera's, is not possible?

What 2 bikes on Elm have you overlayed to scale?

Craig,

A few bike photos.

chris

Chris, First you need to undertstand exaclty what it is you are seeing and concluding is wrong. Your mis-placed"support' is in fact the shfter. Last time I looked it was not unusual for shifters to move.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1959-harley-...ice-special.htm

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1951-harley-...ice-special.htm

Next crop the tank/windshield area of the third bike and overlay it on the fourth - the area of Newmans arm. Pretty close match eh?

Finally why not take a look at the films and see where that fourth bike should be.

[Robin Unger]

The 4th motorcycle in Willis 5 appears to have fallen back behind the 3rd motorcycle.

I think that the reason newman's arm appears missing below the shoulder is because the bottom half is being viewed THROUGH the windscreen of the 4th motorcycle.

In the same manner as we see millican's arm through the motorcycle windscreen in Altgens 6.

the only difference being that Altgens camera had better resolution than Moormans polaroid camera.

In Moorman it appears to me that the 4th motorcycles windscreen is just coming into frame, below newman.

Willis showing the 3rd and 4th motorcycle helmets.

Edited March 12, 2009 by Robin Unger

[Chris Davidson]

The 4th motorcycle in Willis 5 appears to have fallen back behind the 3rd motorcycle.

I think that the reason newman's arm appears missing below the shoulder is because the bottom half is being viewed THROUGH the windscreen of the 4th motorcycle.

In the same manner as we see millican's arm through the motorcycle windscreen in Altgens 6.

the only difference being that Altgens camera had better resolution than Moormans polaroid camera.

In Moorman it appears to me that the 4th motorcycles windscreen is just coming into frame, below newman.

Willis showing the 3rd and 4th motorcycle helmets.

Thanks Robin,

Have you come across any photos/film where the windscreen actually obscurs the object seen through it?

Remember, at least according to Bill, this camera len's resolving power is good enough to pick up badgeman in shadow, how many feet away?

chris

[Craig Lamson]

The 4th motorcycle in Willis 5 appears to have fallen back behind the 3rd motorcycle.

I think that the reason newman's arm appears missing below the shoulder is because the bottom half is being viewed THROUGH the windscreen of the 4th motorcycle.

In the same manner as we see millican's arm through the motorcycle windscreen in Altgens 6.

the only difference being that Altgens camera had better resolution than Moormans polaroid camera.

In Moorman it appears to me that the 4th motorcycles windscreen is just coming into frame, below newman.

Willis showing the 3rd and 4th motorcycle helmets.

Thanks Robin,

Have you come across any photos/film where the windscreen actually obscurs the object seen through it?

Remember, at least according to Bill, this camera len's resolving power is good enough to pick up badgeman in shadow, how many feet away?

chris

Robin just posted the image you need to see. Notince how trhw cops very dark shirt cahnges tone by about 2 or three stops?

Now imagine a shirt sleeve in highlight (see moorman5 ) which is very near in tone to the grass already, and lighten it 2 or 3 stops in tone. What exactly SHOULD you see?

This is beyond silly.

[Bill Miller]

Remember, at least according to Bill, this camera len's resolving power is good enough to pick up badgeman in shadow, how many feet away?

chris

Chris, actually it was Geoffrey Crawley (a well noted photo scientist who specializes in debunking images) who was able to duplicate the clarity as represented in Jack's work. Crawley used the same type camera with the glass lens. So it isn't a matter of what I or you say, but rather a fact that it was done using the same equipment as Moorman did.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

This is beyond silly.

That is the understatement of 2009 so far.

Bill

Edited March 12, 2009 by Bill Miller

[Chris Davidson]

Remember, at least according to Bill, this camera len's resolving power is good enough to pick up badgeman in shadow, how many feet away?

chris

Chris, actually it was Geoffrey Crawley (a well noted photo scientist who specializes in debunking images) who was able to duplicate the clarity as represented in Jack's work. Crawley used the same type camera with the glass lens. So it isn't a matter of what I or you say, but rather a fact that it was done using the same equipment as Moorman did.

Bill Miller

Bill,

That's fine.

I'm referring to the actual photo.

He probably missed this behind the wall.

Or, we all see things we want to see.

chris

[Craig Lamson]

Remember, at least according to Bill, this camera len's resolving power is good enough to pick up badgeman in shadow, how many feet away?

chris

Chris, actually it was Geoffrey Crawley (a well noted photo scientist who specializes in debunking images) who was able to duplicate the clarity as represented in Jack's work. Crawley used the same type camera with the glass lens. So it isn't a matter of what I or you say, but rather a fact that it was done using the same equipment as Moorman did.

Bill Miller

You have it wrong Bill,

The resolution a camera can produce is just more than the lens. Its the product of stability ( tripod, handheld, panning etc), lens resolving power, film resolving power, f/stop used (was the lens diffraction limited by being stopped down too far) and shutter speed ( action stopping power.)

Crawley screwed up the test completely.

The ONLY things he got right was the lens and the shutter speed.

What he got wrong:

The film he used has a higher Lp/mm than the Polaroid film Mary used.

He used the wrong f-stop. Moorman 5 was taken with the lens stopped all the way down since it was taken using asa 3000 film in bright daylight. The lens was diffraction limited.

The camera was not panned during exposure.

The long and short of it is that Crawleys experiment is worthless as a test of the resolving power of the Moorman film/lens/fstop/shutterspeed/stability combo.

Edited March 12, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Bill Miller]

[ name=Bill Miller' post='163971' date='Mar 12 2009, 05:13 PM][ name=Chris Davidson' post='163966' date='Mar 12 2009, 05:18 PM]Remember, at least according to Bill, this camera len's resolving power is good enough to pick up badgeman in shadow, how many feet away?

chris

Chris, actually it was Geoffrey Crawley (a well noted photo scientist who specializes in debunking images) who was able to duplicate the clarity as represented in Jack's work. Crawley used the same type camera with the glass lens. So it isn't a matter of what I or you say, but rather a fact that it was done using the same equipment as Moorman did.

Bill Miller

Bill,

That's fine.

I'm referring to the actual photo.

He probably missed this behind the wall.

Or, we all see things we want to see.

chris

I don't think he missed much of anything for he used a far better print than you have posted.

[David G. Healy]

Remember, at least according to Bill, this camera len's resolving power is good enough to pick up badgeman in shadow, how many feet away?

chris

Chris, actually it was Geoffrey Crawley (a well noted photo scientist who specializes in debunking images) who was able to duplicate the clarity as represented in Jack's work. Crawley used the same type camera with the glass lens. So it isn't a matter of what I or you say, but rather a fact that it was done using the same equipment as Moorman did.

Bill Miller

Geoffrey Crawley! ROTFLMFAO.... You have to be kidding? Best take a look at what Craig Lamson has to say (further in this thread) about Geoffrey Crawley's test..... sheeeesh! Thank you Craig, you spared me the effort!

[Bill Miller]

You have it wrong Bill,

The resolution a camera can produce is just more than the lens. Its the product of stability ( tripod, handheld, panning etc), lens resolving power, film resolving power, f/stop used (was the lens diffraction limited by being stopped down too far) and shutter speed ( action stopping power.)

Crawley screwed up the test completely.

The ONLY things he got right was the lens and the shutter speed.

What he got wrong:

The film he used has a higher Lp/mm than the Polaroid film Mary used.

He used the wrong f-stop. Moorman 5 was taken with the lens stopped all the way down since it was taken using asa 3000 film in bright daylight. The lens was diffraction limited.

The camera was not panned during exposure.

The long and short of it is that Crawleys experiment is worthless as a test of the resolving power of the Moorman film/lens/fstop/shutterspeed/stability combo.

Craig, with all due respect, isn't Crawley an expert in lenses ... I think I saw somewhere how George Lucas, the Star Wars guy, would consult him on projects.

The film to my understanding was the same film Moorman used, just a different name, but never-the-less the same film.

I also thought that Crawley used the same model camera as Moorman. His camera had a glass lens as Mary's did ... and Mary's camera was said to have not been used since her taking that picture, thus the settings were checked against those on Mary's camera.

Crawley reported that he could get the resolution with that camera to see the details in Jack's work.

Do you know something different?

Bill

Edited March 13, 2009 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

You have it wrong Bill,

The resolution a camera can produce is just more than the lens. Its the product of stability ( tripod, handheld, panning etc), lens resolving power, film resolving power, f/stop used (was the lens diffraction limited by being stopped down too far) and shutter speed ( action stopping power.)

Crawley screwed up the test completely.

The ONLY things he got right was the lens and the shutter speed.

What he got wrong:

The film he used has a higher Lp/mm than the Polaroid film Mary used.

He used the wrong f-stop. Moorman 5 was taken with the lens stopped all the way down since it was taken using asa 3000 film in bright daylight. The lens was diffraction limited.

The camera was not panned during exposure.

The long and short of it is that Crawleys experiment is worthless as a test of the resolving power of the Moorman film/lens/fstop/shutterspeed/stability combo.

Craig, with all due respect, isn't Crawley an expert in lenses ... I think I saw somewhere how George Lucas, the Star Wars guy, would consult him on projects.

The film to my understanding was the same film Moorman used, just a different name, but never-the-less the same film.

I also thought that Crawley used the same model camera as Moorman. His camera had a glass lens as Mary's did ... and Mary's camera was said to have not been used since her taking that picture, thus the settings were checked against those on Mary's camera.

Crawley reported that he could get the resolution with that camera to see the details in Jack's work.

Do you know something different?

Bill

if you're going to banter around known commercial film-industry names - provide a cite! Also, provide lurkers where they might review Crowley's "polaroid" work!

BTW, what makes up a lens expert?