Chris Davidson Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 (edited) For those interested, Here's a segment from one of the many I took, while on the pedestal with a B/H 414. http://72.130.171.242:8400/14207/CAR.mp4 chris Edited April 7, 2009 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 For those interested,Here's a segment from one of the many I took, while on the pedestal with a B/H 414. http://72.130.171.242:8400/8126C/CAR.mp4 chris BTW Chris, what the heck did you do to the scan of rhar "vertical pole scan? Its rotated clockwise almost 2 degrees based only on the gate edges and the sprocket holes, but then again those are all warped and mis-shaped. In other words you scan is near USELESS. WHo were you trying to fool? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 (edited) For those interested,Here's a segment from one of the many I took, while on the pedestal with a B/H 414. http://72.130.171.242:8400/8126C/CAR.mp4 chris BTW Chris, what the heck did you do to the scan of rhar "vertical pole scan? Its rotated clockwise almost 2 degrees based only on the gate edges and the sprocket holes, but then again those are all warped and mis-shaped. In other words you scan is near USELESS. WHo were you trying to fool? No Craig, It was exported from one of the many filming segments. Just like the film provided. Speaks volumes. The car goes downhill. The film shows it going downhill. The person filming, pans from left to right and downward, as a car coming towards and past, goes downhill. What a concept. chris Edited April 7, 2009 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 For those interested,Here's a segment from one of the many I took, while on the pedestal with a B/H 414. http://72.130.171.242:8400/8126C/CAR.mp4 chris BTW Chris, what the heck did you do to the scan of rhar "vertical pole scan? Its rotated clockwise almost 2 degrees based only on the gate edges and the sprocket holes, but then again those are all warped and mis-shaped. In other words you scan is near USELESS. WHo were you trying to fool? No Craig, It was exported from one of the many filming segments. What frame are you talking about , I was talking about the last one, and its rotat4de and warped, like oyu attempted ot do some pin cushion correction. If htats the case its a no no to post an altered frame without stating it. IN any case he frame is rotated clockwie at least 1.5 degrees and then we really DON'T know what additional rotation is required because the camera isa pointed down. Again pretty useless in the context of this discussion. Just like the film provided. Speaks volumes. Yes it does speak volumes, about the conclusion you are attempting to draw. The car goes downhill. The film shows it going downhill. The person filming, pans from left to right and downward, as a car coming towards and past, goes downhill. What a concept. And all the while ROTATING the camera clockwise from level, not unlike the conterclockwise rotation of Zapruders camera. The conclusion...both photographers did a poor job of panning. Nothing more. What a concept...... chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Craig, That frame would be in this segment. http://72.130.171.242:8400/B2227/1.mp4 I guess I tampered with this too, because I put it in mp4 format so others on the forum can access it. Sounds like you're reverting to unfounded accusations. Any other footage you would like to see. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Craig,That frame would be in this segment. http://72.130.171.242:8400/B2227/1.mp4 I guess I tampered with this too, because I put it in mp4 format so others on the forum can access it. Sounds like you're reverting to unfounded accusations. Any other footage you would like to see. chris I NEVER make unfound accusations. The frame YOU posted in post 126 is altereed from its original form. The sprocket holes are a mess, as are the flim gate edges. They are all pincushioned. If you were tr process in PS it would take 4.75 barrel to correct . In addition the frame is rotated clockwise 1.5 degrees or so based ONLY onthe film gate and sprocket hole alignment. More is likely needed since the camera is pointed down. Got it? Your frame is altered and you offerd it as evidence (of what I'm not sure) without disclosing it was altered. That makes you a VERY bad boy Chris and destroys any credibility you may have ever had as an honest broker. Also your original post of a recreation frame, post 123, again shows the frame rotated about 1.5 degrees clockwise , just based on the gate and sprockets. Lets forget the additional rotation needed to bring the verticals to vertical, just this 1.4 of base rotation makes your downhill street look very level. Again you were a very bad boy, posting framres rotated out of alingment to bolster your case. Pretty shabby stuff, but not suprising. Of course aside from destroying whatever credibility you might have had, your entire study and conclusion were just meaningless. You proved that two photographers can shoot a scene with the camera in different rotations to level. Hooray! Meaningless. Sheesh. What a state CT photo research is in these days..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 I tried to deliberately mislead everyone by exporting frames from movies I had taken. Then posted the actual film clips themselves. OK Then I cut and pasted the frames at a different angle from the sprocket holes. Right Added the pin-cushioning affect. Sounds good Put it all back together to try and fool Craig. Didn't work Dream a little dream. What does this have to do with Z keeping the limo even close to centerframe at 10mph? chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 I tried to deliberately mislead everyone by exporting frames from movies I had taken.Then posted the actual film clips themselves. OK Then I cut and pasted the frames at a different angle from the sprocket holes. Right Added the pin-cushioning affect. Sounds good Put it all back together to try and fool Craig. Didn't work Dream a little dream. What does this have to do with Z keeping the limo even close to centerframe at 10mph? chris Hey they are YOUR frames, YOU posted them and the effects I pointed out are REAL. Are you now in denial that the frames are altered from their original state? Your posted the entire frames, SPROCKET HOLES and all , rotated clockwise. Dream a little dream... Can the work you post be trusted any longer? I don't thinnk so. What does your amateur film have to do with the framing of the film by amateur photographer Zpruder? Why NOTHING of course, which is the entire point, unless we are living in the dream world of Chris Davidson. Zapruder's framing in his film does not meet your expectations. Fine, but your "expectations" don't amount to a hill of beans in this instance. Nor should they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Craig, You can either have the movie or the frames. On the left is what it appears as, when playing in Quicktime. Notice the movie controller. On the right is a snapshot of it. Your effort to insinuate I have altered my original film is ludicrous. Now would you care to misinform others about what's between these sprocket holes. Why the rotation is the same. etc etc etc. I figured I'd alter these frames too, which I never intended to show. Get Real No, the frames have not been altered. Your reading of them is. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 (edited) Craig,You can either have the movie or the frames. On the left is what it appears as, when playing in Quicktime. Notice the movie controller. On the right is a snapshot of it. Your effort to insinuate I have altered my original film is ludicrous. Now would you care to misinform others about what's between these sprocket holes. Why the rotation is the same. etc etc etc. I figured I'd alter these frames too, which I never intended to show. Get Real No, the frames have not been altered. Your reading of them is. chris So, you are telling EVERYONE, the film you ran through your camera had sprocket holes that were not square with each other or the film edges. You are telling EVERYONE the film ran through the camera ROTATED clockwise. Fact: The images YOU posted are not the same as the actual film. Fact: the files were posted by Chris Davidson. Fact: the files posted are altered. Fact: Chris claims the frames have not been altered. Fact: the frames HAVE been altered..... Can Chris Davidson be trusted to post unaltered images? NO! Edited April 7, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) I guess we need to know what your definition of altered is. The process of converting 8mm film to a digital image is an alteration. Which is exactly what was done in this case. Fact: Chris filmed from pedestal with B/H 414 camera. Fact: Chris had film developed by "Dwayne's Photo" in Parsons, Kansas. One of the few I could find in the U.S that still develops 8mm film, back in 2004. Fact: Chris had it converted to DVD by "SunRay Video" in San Diego, CA. http://www.sunrayvideo.com/film_transfer.htm Fact: Chris imports the VOB files from the DVD into a movie player (Quicktime, etc.etc). Fact: Chris either exports or screen captures individual frames to post on the forum. He does not perform interframe rotations. Perhaps a step in the 8mm to digital format transfer is causing the effects which Craig refers too. Otherwise, you probably believe I shaved about 1/8 of an inch off the top sprocket hole, which has nothing to do with the street/cars. chris Edited April 8, 2009 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Chris, Can you re-post your hypothesis, please? I've looked at your images and I'm not quite sure what the point is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) Of course aside from destroying whatever credibility you might have had, your entire study and conclusion were just meaningless. You proved that two photographers can shoot a scene with the camera in different rotations to level. Craig, I don't think Chris is purposely altering stuff ... I just think he doesn't know enough about what in the hell he is doing. Bill Edited April 8, 2009 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) I guess we need to know what your definition of altered is.The process of converting 8mm film to a digital image is an alteration. Which is exactly what was done in this case. Fact: Chris filmed from pedestal with B/H 414 camera. Fact: Chris had film developed by "Dwayne's Photo" in Parsons, Kansas. One of the few I could find in the U.S that still develops 8mm film, back in 2004. Fact: Chris had it converted to DVD by "SunRay Video" in San Diego, CA. http://www.sunrayvideo.com/film_transfer.htm Fact: Chris imports the VOB files from the DVD into a movie player (Quicktime, etc.etc). Fact: Chris either exports or screen captures individual frames to post on the forum. He does not perform interframe rotations. Perhaps a step in the 8mm to digital format transfer is causing the effects which Craig refers too. Otherwise, you probably believe I shaved about 1/8 of an inch off the top sprocket hole, which has nothing to do with the street/cars. chris Altered is 8mm frames that are so warped in MANY directions they no longer resemble accurate 8mm frames.... The files are altered from the original format of the film..... badly They belong to Davidson. He is responsible for the content. He spends his free time looking for oddities in the JFK films and photos yet can't see the glaring errors in his own files...and argues there are no errors...makes a guy go HUH? You images, your work, your posts...you are reponsible for the ALTERED content, pure and simple. Your frames have nothing to do with content and framing of the Zapruder film. You conclusion was badly formed. Edited April 8, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Chris,Can you re-post your hypothesis, please? I've looked at your images and I'm not quite sure what the point is. Frank, Z pans the car down Elm. At 10mph or less, the focal point is almost out of the frame, directly in front of him. As Craig likes to say, test it out yourself. Bill, Still working on a solution to: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=165150 I see. I know enough to bring Hester out of the shadows with what you refer to as grainy/lousy film. While you're at it, let us know the distance traveled between Z161-166. Craig, I guess in your perfect world, I wouldn't have to rotate(.5CW) this frame to get it to conform to your specs. But common sense to most dictates that they are sprocket holes and frames from a 8mm camera. So sorry they are having such a detrimental affect on you. chris 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