Craig Lamson Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 (edited) Say, are you still running around the woods and forests looking for 8-10' creatures naked but for hair, I think they call them Yeti in some cultures? You finally give that career up when you determined there's more fertile ground to plow in the JFK assassination film-photo area. Bill when you feel you want a public, face-to-face debate concerning film composition let me know, railing away on a forum such as this is a waste of time, andIF you have talents - wasting those TOO! You're hiding son, the entire CT world knows it! p.s. how do you know I didn't fill out a request, Wild Bill? The Yeti has a totally different looking foot that the Giganto-pitheicus which is thought by many Ph.Ds to be what is still being seen and labeled the Sasquatch. In your attempt to try and appear like a wise guy - your misstating the evidence exposes your ignorance on the subject. I also made some references in my previous post that you did not address ... I hardly call that going toe to toe. Now what images did you composite in a dark room that you can show us??? Bill Miller Wild Bill, I could care less whether you recited The Apostle Creed in previous post. Simply get yourself a public forum with cameras, buy myself and my second round trip plane tickets, cover all expenses for 3 days, and lest I forget, bring your lunch, you'll need it: Film and Photo Composition is the topic.... So anytime you feel the courage.... LMFAO! Gee, I kinda like doing all bold, makes me feel important like Wild Bill here p.s. you don't make film composites in a darkroom, clod. Bad, bad sign for your side -- better get Craig back in here, you're in trouble already You don't make film composites in the darkroom? What are you smoking these days? Added on edit: I've made a good percentage of my "film" (as opposed to digital) based composities in the darkroom, and I think your choice of phrases leaves lots to be desired. Edited April 6, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Say, are you still running around the woods and forests looking for 8-10' creatures naked but for hair, I think they call them Yeti in some cultures? You finally give that career up when you determined there's more fertile ground to plow in the JFK assassination film-photo area. Bill when you feel you want a public, face-to-face debate concerning film composition let me know, railing away on a forum such as this is a waste of time, andIF you have talents - wasting those TOO! You're hiding son, the entire CT world knows it! p.s. how do you know I didn't fill out a request, Wild Bill? The Yeti has a totally different looking foot that the Giganto-pitheicus which is thought by many Ph.Ds to be what is still being seen and labeled the Sasquatch. In your attempt to try and appear like a wise guy - your misstating the evidence exposes your ignorance on the subject. I also made some references in my previous post that you did not address ... I hardly call that going toe to toe. Now what images did you composite in a dark room that you can show us??? Bill Miller Wild Bill, I could care less whether you recited The Apostle Creed in previous post. Simply get yourself a public forum with cameras, buy myself and my second round trip plane tickets, cover all expenses for 3 days, and lest I forget, bring your lunch, you'll need it: Film and Photo Composition is the topic.... So anytime you feel the courage.... LMFAO! Gee, I kinda like doing all bold, makes me feel important like Wild Bill here p.s. you don't make film composites in a darkroom, clod. Bad, bad sign for your side -- better get Craig back in here, you're in trouble already You don't make film composites in the darkroom? What are you smoking these days? Added on edit: I've made a good percentage of my "film" (as opposed to digital) based composities in the darkroom, and I think your choice of phrases leaves lots to be desired. that's right Craigster, you ever see an optical film printer in a "darkroom"? Ya got special kinda stuff there in Indiana? (on another note: how close are you to David Von Pein aka Dave Reitzes?) Now back to biz, I'm going to call you to task here concerning your website, do you have any client testimonials referring your professional work, composites in particular (photo or film)? And what publications has your work appeared in? Throw-away (mail order) catalog work, if so, which ones? Any commercial *spot* :30, :60, :90, :120sec. advertisements still or motion? Mucho lookey like stock photo stuff, tell me it ain't so! Strange, no client testimonials, no awards -- all this from a marketing pro? Odd. Gave up smoking 10 years ago Craigster. And haven't touched a doobie in 37 years, you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 (edited) Say, are you still running around the woods and forests looking for 8-10' creatures naked but for hair, I think they call them Yeti in some cultures? You finally give that career up when you determined there's more fertile ground to plow in the JFK assassination film-photo area. Bill when you feel you want a public, face-to-face debate concerning film composition let me know, railing away on a forum such as this is a waste of time, andIF you have talents - wasting those TOO! You're hiding son, the entire CT world knows it! p.s. how do you know I didn't fill out a request, Wild Bill? The Yeti has a totally different looking foot that the Giganto-pitheicus which is thought by many Ph.Ds to be what is still being seen and labeled the Sasquatch. In your attempt to try and appear like a wise guy - your misstating the evidence exposes your ignorance on the subject. I also made some references in my previous post that you did not address ... I hardly call that going toe to toe. Now what images did you composite in a dark room that you can show us??? Bill Miller Wild Bill, I could care less whether you recited The Apostle Creed in previous post. Simply get yourself a public forum with cameras, buy myself and my second round trip plane tickets, cover all expenses for 3 days, and lest I forget, bring your lunch, you'll need it: Film and Photo Composition is the topic.... So anytime you feel the courage.... LMFAO! Gee, I kinda like doing all bold, makes me feel important like Wild Bill here p.s. you don't make film composites in a darkroom, clod. Bad, bad sign for your side -- better get Craig back in here, you're in trouble already You don't make film composites in the darkroom? What are you smoking these days? Added on edit: I've made a good percentage of my "film" (as opposed to digital) based composities in the darkroom, and I think your choice of phrases leaves lots to be desired. that's right Craigster, you ever see an optical film printer in a "darkroom"? Ya got special kinda stuff there in Indiana? (on another note: how close are you to David Von Pein aka Dave Reitzes?) Now back to biz, I'm going to call you to task here concerning your website, do you have any client testimonials referring your professional work, composites in particular (photo or film)? And what publications has your work appeared in? Throw-away (mail order) catalog work, if so, which ones? Any commercial *spot* :30, :60, :90, :120sec. advertisements still or motion? Mucho lookey like stock photo stuff, tell me it ain't so! Strange, no client testimonials, no awards -- all this from a marketing pro? Odd. Gave up smoking 10 years ago Craigster. And haven't touched a doobie in 37 years, you? Can you READ daive? Its becoming quite clear that the simple task of reading words on a screen and UNDERSTANDING the meaning is beyond you. "I've made a good percentage of my "film" (as opposed to digital) based composites in the darkroom, and I think your choice of phrases leaves lots to be desired." Now if you want to talk about MOTION PICTURE "film" based compsoites, then please do so.... BTW, you ever made a film based composite in the darkroom using an enlarger or contact printer? My website is a gallery of my work, and a quick bio about myself. Thats its intended purpose. Self serving displays such as testimonials, and the posting of client lists and awards are demeanig and of little value (IMO) on a web based portfoilo. My work stands just fine on its own. I'm not alone in my thinking, were are the lists of awards, clients and publications? http://www.russellrutherford.com/ I've done very little stock or personal work in the last 25 years and with the exception of the fine arts gallery everything you see ion my website is customer work shot for publication, web, brochures, print advertising or editiorial. I've a 6 foot or so tall stack of tearsheets and printed sample sto show for it. That not good enough for you, too bad. Film based composites for advertising bit the dust in the late 80's. Everything I've done since then is digital. My website contains 70 composites, find them if you can. I shoot stills, so look elsewhere for a demo reel. Now of course all of this begs the question, where is David Healys work? Why not show us all that wonderful compositing experience YOU have completed? A google for David G Healy film producer...no links to any samples ... A google for David G Healy film director...no links to any samples... A google for David G Healy motion picture compositing...no links to any samples A google for David G Healy video producer...no links to any samples A google for David G Healy videographer...no links to any samples... A google for David G Healy...no links to any samples of professional motion picture, video samples. Who exaclty IS David G Healy??????? Don't do drug,s don't smoke, rarely drink and I have never met nor communicated with David Von Pein aka Dave Reitzes, nor read any of their work to the best of my knowlege. Edited April 7, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Wild Bill, I could care less whether you recited The Apostle Creed in previous post. Simply get yourself a public forum with cameras, buy myself and my second round trip plane tickets, cover all expenses for 3 days, and lest I forget, bring your lunch, you'll need it: Film and Photo Composition is the topic.... So anytime you feel the courage.... LMFAO! Gee, I kinda like doing all bold, makes me feel important like Wild Bill herep.s. you don't make film composites in a darkroom, clod. Bad, bad sign for your side -- better get Craig back in here, you're in trouble already Jack said in the past that getting the frames - enlarging them to be altered - and then adjusted and put back into a film would require dark room work. I agree! I have seen nothing that you have presented that shows your work so it can be tested. Just as it was your right to post that you have seen no proof of alteration ... I have seen no proof that you know what in the hell you are talking about. A this forum is public for all to see. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 (edited) B. Why does the clarity of the film fail to demonstrate that the motorcycle policemen's logo on their helmets can not be observed at any point within the film. (which by the way is a prime indicator as to exactly what direction they had their head turned) Lets deal with this one first. In another thread you claimed (from the top of my head so feel free to correct me, I'm not interesting in doing the search) that the lofog wer black or at least dark. Close examination of the photographic record shows that not to be the case but rather the logos are highly reflective. When seen in the Zapruder film these logos (even those seen in the shade) are reflections a very bright lightsource, and its not just the sun. Exactly what is that lightsource? Why its the blue sky of course! Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection and all of that! Next! "When seen in the Zapruder film these logos (even those seen in the shade) are reflections a very bright lightsource, " Would that lightsource be from "Flashlight Man" hiding in the shadows? Therefore making some logo's completely disappear while others actually reflected brighter than the surrounding background of the white helmets???? http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z095.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z196.jpg That would most certainly amaze me, considering that there are multitudes of photographs which have a "bright lightsource" from a variety of different angles and locations, yet still manage to show the logo's on the helmet. To include the simple fact that I personally have never heard of a darker object actually reflecting light waves at a brighter intensity than a surrounding white field. Obviously, I will not convince you otherwise, and rest assured that you will not convince me that it is all merely another of those "coincidences" related to an anomoly of light reflection. First. WHAT DARKER OBJECT? Show us the dark object! Second this realloy is blowingt right over your head and your ability to read seems rather limited. You ask what is reflecting in the shield on the helmet while it is in a patch of cast shadow? As I answered before...THE WIDE OPEN BLUE SKY! As for dark reflecting pure white, even though there is no DARK OBJECT on the helmets, clearly real world observation is not your forte. Believe what you want Tom, if fantasy makes you feel better. HMMMMMM! Musta stopped the motorcade and removed all of those "darker" logo's prior to entering dealey Plaza. Edited April 7, 2009 by Thomas H. Purvis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 B. Why does the clarity of the film fail to demonstrate that the motorcycle policemen's logo on their helmets can not be observed at any point within the film. (which by the way is a prime indicator as to exactly what direction they had their head turned) Lets deal with this one first. In another thread you claimed (from the top of my head so feel free to correct me, I'm not interesting in doing the search) that the lofog wer black or at least dark. Close examination of the photographic record shows that not to be the case but rather the logos are highly reflective. When seen in the Zapruder film these logos (even those seen in the shade) are reflections a very bright lightsource, and its not just the sun. Exactly what is that lightsource? Why its the blue sky of course! Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection and all of that! Next! "When seen in the Zapruder film these logos (even those seen in the shade) are reflections a very bright lightsource, " Would that lightsource be from "Flashlight Man" hiding in the shadows? Therefore making some logo's completely disappear while others actually reflected brighter than the surrounding background of the white helmets???? http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z095.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z196.jpg That would most certainly amaze me, considering that there are multitudes of photographs which have a "bright lightsource" from a variety of different angles and locations, yet still manage to show the logo's on the helmet. To include the simple fact that I personally have never heard of a darker object actually reflecting light waves at a brighter intensity than a surrounding white field. Obviously, I will not convince you otherwise, and rest assured that you will not convince me that it is all merely another of those "coincidences" related to an anomoly of light reflection. First. WHAT DARKER OBJECT? Show us the dark object! Second this realloy is blowingt right over your head and your ability to read seems rather limited. You ask what is reflecting in the shield on the helmet while it is in a patch of cast shadow? As I answered before...THE WIDE OPEN BLUE SKY! As for dark reflecting pure white, even though there is no DARK OBJECT on the helmets, clearly real world observation is not your forte. Believe what you want Tom, if fantasy makes you feel better. HMMMMMM! Musta stopped the motorcade and removed all of those "darker" logo's prior to entering dealey Plaza. Fooled by that old angle of incidence thing again! Chrome or gold logo, or a "dark logo"? What color is the logo Tom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 HMMMMMM!Musta stopped the motorcade and removed all of those "darker" logo's prior to entering dealey Plaza. Or maybe not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 B. Why does the clarity of the film fail to demonstrate that the motorcycle policemen's logo on their helmets can not be observed at any point within the film. (which by the way is a prime indicator as to exactly what direction they had their head turned) Lets deal with this one first. In another thread you claimed (from the top of my head so feel free to correct me, I'm not interesting in doing the search) that the lofog wer black or at least dark. Close examination of the photographic record shows that not to be the case but rather the logos are highly reflective. When seen in the Zapruder film these logos (even those seen in the shade) are reflections a very bright lightsource, and its not just the sun. Exactly what is that lightsource? Why its the blue sky of course! Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection and all of that! Next! "When seen in the Zapruder film these logos (even those seen in the shade) are reflections a very bright lightsource, " Would that lightsource be from "Flashlight Man" hiding in the shadows? Therefore making some logo's completely disappear while others actually reflected brighter than the surrounding background of the white helmets???? http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z095.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z196.jpg That would most certainly amaze me, considering that there are multitudes of photographs which have a "bright lightsource" from a variety of different angles and locations, yet still manage to show the logo's on the helmet. To include the simple fact that I personally have never heard of a darker object actually reflecting light waves at a brighter intensity than a surrounding white field. Obviously, I will not convince you otherwise, and rest assured that you will not convince me that it is all merely another of those "coincidences" related to an anomoly of light reflection. First. WHAT DARKER OBJECT? Show us the dark object! Second this realloy is blowingt right over your head and your ability to read seems rather limited. You ask what is reflecting in the shield on the helmet while it is in a patch of cast shadow? As I answered before...THE WIDE OPEN BLUE SKY! As for dark reflecting pure white, even though there is no DARK OBJECT on the helmets, clearly real world observation is not your forte. Believe what you want Tom, if fantasy makes you feel better. HMMMMMM! Musta stopped the motorcade and removed all of those "darker" logo's prior to entering dealey Plaza. Fooled by that old angle of incidence thing again! Chrome or gold logo, or a "dark logo"? What color is the logo Tom? Couldn't make it "disappear" I see! Show me one in which that is fully accomplished and I just may be highly impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 (edited) B. Why does the clarity of the film fail to demonstrate that the motorcycle policemen's logo on their helmets can not be observed at any point within the film. (which by the way is a prime indicator as to exactly what direction they had their head turned) Lets deal with this one first. In another thread you claimed (from the top of my head so feel free to correct me, I'm not interesting in doing the search) that the lofog wer black or at least dark. Close examination of the photographic record shows that not to be the case but rather the logos are highly reflective. When seen in the Zapruder film these logos (even those seen in the shade) are reflections a very bright lightsource, and its not just the sun. Exactly what is that lightsource? Why its the blue sky of course! Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection and all of that! Next! "When seen in the Zapruder film these logos (even those seen in the shade) are reflections a very bright lightsource, " Would that lightsource be from "Flashlight Man" hiding in the shadows? Therefore making some logo's completely disappear while others actually reflected brighter than the surrounding background of the white helmets???? http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z095.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z196.jpg That would most certainly amaze me, considering that there are multitudes of photographs which have a "bright lightsource" from a variety of different angles and locations, yet still manage to show the logo's on the helmet. To include the simple fact that I personally have never heard of a darker object actually reflecting light waves at a brighter intensity than a surrounding white field. Obviously, I will not convince you otherwise, and rest assured that you will not convince me that it is all merely another of those "coincidences" related to an anomoly of light reflection. First. WHAT DARKER OBJECT? Show us the dark object! Second this realloy is blowingt right over your head and your ability to read seems rather limited. You ask what is reflecting in the shield on the helmet while it is in a patch of cast shadow? As I answered before...THE WIDE OPEN BLUE SKY! As for dark reflecting pure white, even though there is no DARK OBJECT on the helmets, clearly real world observation is not your forte. Believe what you want Tom, if fantasy makes you feel better. HMMMMMM! Musta stopped the motorcade and removed all of those "darker" logo's prior to entering dealey Plaza. Fooled by that old angle of incidence thing again! Chrome or gold logo, or a "dark logo"? What color is the logo Tom? Couldn't make it "disappear" I see! Show me one in which that is fully accomplished and I just may be highly impressed. Didn't try, but its quite possible, but tell us Tom, what color is the logo? And why are the three logos all different tone in the last image you posted, they are all in the same light? Edited April 7, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 B. Why does the clarity of the film fail to demonstrate that the motorcycle policemen's logo on their helmets can not be observed at any point within the film. (which by the way is a prime indicator as to exactly what direction they had their head turned) Lets deal with this one first. In another thread you claimed (from the top of my head so feel free to correct me, I'm not interesting in doing the search) that the lofog wer black or at least dark. Close examination of the photographic record shows that not to be the case but rather the logos are highly reflective. When seen in the Zapruder film these logos (even those seen in the shade) are reflections a very bright lightsource, and its not just the sun. Exactly what is that lightsource? Why its the blue sky of course! Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection and all of that! Next! "When seen in the Zapruder film these logos (even those seen in the shade) are reflections a very bright lightsource, " Would that lightsource be from "Flashlight Man" hiding in the shadows? Therefore making some logo's completely disappear while others actually reflected brighter than the surrounding background of the white helmets???? http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z095.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z196.jpg That would most certainly amaze me, considering that there are multitudes of photographs which have a "bright lightsource" from a variety of different angles and locations, yet still manage to show the logo's on the helmet. To include the simple fact that I personally have never heard of a darker object actually reflecting light waves at a brighter intensity than a surrounding white field. Obviously, I will not convince you otherwise, and rest assured that you will not convince me that it is all merely another of those "coincidences" related to an anomoly of light reflection. First. WHAT DARKER OBJECT? Show us the dark object! Second this realloy is blowingt right over your head and your ability to read seems rather limited. You ask what is reflecting in the shield on the helmet while it is in a patch of cast shadow? As I answered before...THE WIDE OPEN BLUE SKY! As for dark reflecting pure white, even though there is no DARK OBJECT on the helmets, clearly real world observation is not your forte. Believe what you want Tom, if fantasy makes you feel better. HMMMMMM! Musta stopped the motorcade and removed all of those "darker" logo's prior to entering dealey Plaza. Fooled by that old angle of incidence thing again! Chrome or gold logo, or a "dark logo"? What color is the logo Tom? Couldn't make it "disappear" I see! Show me one in which that is fully accomplished and I just may be highly impressed. Didn't try, but its quite possible, but tell us Tom, what color is the logo? And why are the three logos all different tone in the last image you posted, they are all in the same light? Since you claim it to be possible to make the image of the DPD logo's completely disappear (as well as actually get brighter) against the white background of the helmet, then show us the testing which you have conducted which will empirically demonstrate such a claim is even remotely possible Otherwise, take your little photo games of the rear end of an automobile and go play with some child who knows no better. We are speaking here of the contrast and light reflection of the DPD helmets, through various stages and angular changes in relationship to the direction of the sunlight/light source, as well as a continuing change in the angle from the helmets to the film. No doubt, you did also take into consideration the simple fact that the DPD helmets are not a flat surface, didn't you? Last time that I checked, an oval surface reflected diffused light in a manner which is considerably different than the flat backend of your car shiny, along with most other flat and/or semi-flat glossy objects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidirectional...bution_function Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) B. Why does the clarity of the film fail to demonstrate that the motorcycle policemen's logo on their helmets can not be observed at any point within the film. (which by the way is a prime indicator as to exactly what direction they had their head turned) Lets deal with this one first. In another thread you claimed (from the top of my head so feel free to correct me, I'm not interesting in doing the search) that the lofog wer black or at least dark. Close examination of the photographic record shows that not to be the case but rather the logos are highly reflective. When seen in the Zapruder film these logos (even those seen in the shade) are reflections a very bright lightsource, and its not just the sun. Exactly what is that lightsource? Why its the blue sky of course! Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection and all of that! Next! "When seen in the Zapruder film these logos (even those seen in the shade) are reflections a very bright lightsource, " Would that lightsource be from "Flashlight Man" hiding in the shadows? Therefore making some logo's completely disappear while others actually reflected brighter than the surrounding background of the white helmets???? http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z095.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z196.jpg That would most certainly amaze me, considering that there are multitudes of photographs which have a "bright lightsource" from a variety of different angles and locations, yet still manage to show the logo's on the helmet. To include the simple fact that I personally have never heard of a darker object actually reflecting light waves at a brighter intensity than a surrounding white field. Obviously, I will not convince you otherwise, and rest assured that you will not convince me that it is all merely another of those "coincidences" related to an anomoly of light reflection. First. WHAT DARKER OBJECT? Show us the dark object! Second this realloy is blowingt right over your head and your ability to read seems rather limited. You ask what is reflecting in the shield on the helmet while it is in a patch of cast shadow? As I answered before...THE WIDE OPEN BLUE SKY! As for dark reflecting pure white, even though there is no DARK OBJECT on the helmets, clearly real world observation is not your forte. Believe what you want Tom, if fantasy makes you feel better. HMMMMMM! Musta stopped the motorcade and removed all of those "darker" logo's prior to entering dealey Plaza. Fooled by that old angle of incidence thing again! Chrome or gold logo, or a "dark logo"? What color is the logo Tom? Couldn't make it "disappear" I see! Show me one in which that is fully accomplished and I just may be highly impressed. Didn't try, but its quite possible, but tell us Tom, what color is the logo? And why are the three logos all different tone in the last image you posted, they are all in the same light? Since you claim it to be possible to make the image of the DPD logo's completely disappear (as well as actually get brighter) against the white background of the helmet, then show us the testing which you have conducted which will empirically demonstrate such a claim is even remotely possible Otherwise, take your little photo games of the rear end of an automobile and go play with some child who knows no better. We are speaking here of the contrast and light reflection of the DPD helmets, through various stages and angular changes in relationship to the direction of the sunlight/light source, as well as a continuing change in the angle from the helmets to the film. No doubt, you did also take into consideration the simple fact that the DPD helmets are not a flat surface, didn't you? Last time that I checked, an oval surface reflected diffused light in a manner which is considerably different than the flat backend of your car shiny, along with most other flat and/or semi-flat glossy objects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidirectional...bution_function Tom, are you unable to answer the simple questions asked of you? How hard can it be? I'm well aware of how reflections work Tom, its been the subject of by daily work and craft for about 30 years. I'm a master at creating them and eliminating them. You? I've taken it all in consideration Tom, and I don't need to go googling like you do. Makes you look kind of shallow. Maybe you should stick to maps? You want empirical proof of how a "dark" surface (and not a flat one either) can reflect as bright as a white surround I suggest to check out the last image in post #168, and there it is, in a nice red box. I'm sure you remember the photo, its the one where you can't tell us why the three helmet logos are different tones yet they are in the same light.....or is the problem over your head? Crawl back to the end of the line Purvis... BTW, if you consider the back of that travel trailer flat, you have quite a perception problem, given the number of complex shapes contained in that small section, including the logo...which is WHAT COLOR? Edited April 8, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 ...Fooled by that old angle of incidence thing again! Chrome or gold logo, or a "dark logo"? What color is the logo Tom? speaking of *fooled* by that odd angle of incidence thingy, AGAIN! Looks like a reflectance texture map off of a simulated metallic surface making up the logo... the entire image looks like a (3D) file.... and don't think I can't spend the next 3 weeks feeding you 3D photo-realistic imagery depicting exactly that.... one of the latest POV artists: not a single element or thing in this image exists, only in the 3D universe... http://www.ignorancia.org/en/index.php?page=Bulbs So, what color is the bulb Craig? Answer: whatever color under the sun -- or what one wants it to be.... magenta, blue, chrome texture too (we simulate plastic and every type of glass too!), all coded in a bastardized version of 'C' with radiosity lighting effects, particle effects and atmospherics added... Look around this one particular artists site, he's even created a insert stage complete with simulated product lighting (3200 - 5400K) all in plug-in form to a 3D ray tracing program.... the client provides the product (label) artwork.... well, you get the idea.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) ...Fooled by that old angle of incidence thing again! Chrome or gold logo, or a "dark logo"? What color is the logo Tom? speaking of *fooled* by that odd angle of incidence thingy, AGAIN! Looks like a reflectance texture map off of a simulated metallic surface making up the logo... the entire image looks like a (3D) file.... and don't think I can't spend the next 3 weeks feeding you 3D photo-realistic imagery depicting exactly that.... one of the latest POV artists: not a single element or thing in this image exists, only in the 3D universe... http://www.ignorancia.org/en/index.php?page=Bulbs So, what color is the bulb Craig? Answer: whatever color under the sun -- or what one wants it to be.... magenta, blue, chrome texture too (we simulate plastic and every type of glass too!), all coded in a bastardized version of 'C' with radiosity lighting effects, particle effects and atmospherics added... Look around this one particular artists site, he's even created a insert stage complete with simulated product lighting (3200 - 5400K) all in plug-in form to a 3D ray tracing program.... the client provides the product (label) artwork.... well, you get the idea.... Now why in the world would a cleint pay for a 3d model when you can produce the shot above in a studio in an hour or less? That would just be silly if you had the product available. And of course the above photo was just a simple shot of a chrome logo on the back of a silver trailer. Wanna play with the .cr2? 3d rendering is very cool. My rep handles some of the best in the car business and the work is very nice. Quite expensive as well. So tell us did the artist you linked do a good job on dof AND Bokeh Edited April 8, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 B. Why does the clarity of the film fail to demonstrate that the motorcycle policemen's logo on their helmets can not be observed at any point within the film. (which by the way is a prime indicator as to exactly what direction they had their head turned) Lets deal with this one first. In another thread you claimed (from the top of my head so feel free to correct me, I'm not interesting in doing the search) that the lofog wer black or at least dark. Close examination of the photographic record shows that not to be the case but rather the logos are highly reflective. When seen in the Zapruder film these logos (even those seen in the shade) are reflections a very bright lightsource, and its not just the sun. Exactly what is that lightsource? Why its the blue sky of course! Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection and all of that! Next! "When seen in the Zapruder film these logos (even those seen in the shade) are reflections a very bright lightsource, " Would that lightsource be from "Flashlight Man" hiding in the shadows? Therefore making some logo's completely disappear while others actually reflected brighter than the surrounding background of the white helmets???? http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z095.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z196.jpg That would most certainly amaze me, considering that there are multitudes of photographs which have a "bright lightsource" from a variety of different angles and locations, yet still manage to show the logo's on the helmet. To include the simple fact that I personally have never heard of a darker object actually reflecting light waves at a brighter intensity than a surrounding white field. Obviously, I will not convince you otherwise, and rest assured that you will not convince me that it is all merely another of those "coincidences" related to an anomoly of light reflection. First. WHAT DARKER OBJECT? Show us the dark object! Second this realloy is blowingt right over your head and your ability to read seems rather limited. You ask what is reflecting in the shield on the helmet while it is in a patch of cast shadow? As I answered before...THE WIDE OPEN BLUE SKY! As for dark reflecting pure white, even though there is no DARK OBJECT on the helmets, clearly real world observation is not your forte. Believe what you want Tom, if fantasy makes you feel better. HMMMMMM! Musta stopped the motorcade and removed all of those "darker" logo's prior to entering dealey Plaza. Fooled by that old angle of incidence thing again! Chrome or gold logo, or a "dark logo"? What color is the logo Tom? Couldn't make it "disappear" I see! Show me one in which that is fully accomplished and I just may be highly impressed. Didn't try, but its quite possible, but tell us Tom, what color is the logo? And why are the three logos all different tone in the last image you posted, they are all in the same light? Since you claim it to be possible to make the image of the DPD logo's completely disappear (as well as actually get brighter) against the white background of the helmet, then show us the testing which you have conducted which will empirically demonstrate such a claim is even remotely possible Otherwise, take your little photo games of the rear end of an automobile and go play with some child who knows no better. We are speaking here of the contrast and light reflection of the DPD helmets, through various stages and angular changes in relationship to the direction of the sunlight/light source, as well as a continuing change in the angle from the helmets to the film. No doubt, you did also take into consideration the simple fact that the DPD helmets are not a flat surface, didn't you? Last time that I checked, an oval surface reflected diffused light in a manner which is considerably different than the flat backend of your car shiny, along with most other flat and/or semi-flat glossy objects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidirectional...bution_function Tom, are you unable to answer the simple questions asked of you? How hard can it be? I'm well aware of how reflections work Tom, its been the subject of by daily work and craft for about 30 years. I'm a master at creating them and eliminating them. You? I've taken it all in consideration Tom, and I don't need to go googling like you do. Makes you look kind of shallow. Maybe you should stick to maps? You want empirical proof of how a "dark" surface (and not a flat one either) can reflect as bright as a white surround I suggest to check out the last image in post #168, and there it is, in a nice red box. I'm sure you remember the photo, its the one where you can't tell us why the three helmet logos are different tones yet they are in the same light.....or is the problem over your head? Crawl back to the end of the line Purvis... BTW, if you consider the back of that travel trailer flat, you have quite a perception problem, given the number of complex shapes contained in that small section, including the logo...which is WHAT COLOR? Here you go Craig: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~wricntr/docume...mpAnalysis.html You quite obviously know a few things in regards to photography as well as have some great library of photographic images. However, within the world of empirical research, demonstration of a photograph of the rear end of your car/trailer/(whatever). is considerably lacking in attempting to compare this image with the ever-changing photographic image of the oval DPD helmets which had an ever-changing lighting (from light to shadow) as well as an ever-changing reflective angle when compared with the location of the light source in relationship to the film on which the image reflection was transferred. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidirectional...bution_function Was given, as in computation of reflectance, one must not only take into consideration the ever-changing horizontal angle between the light source to the camera, but also inculde the ever-changing vertical angle due to the continuation of the elevation change between the target (helmet) and the camera as well. And, since you quite obviously have no intentions of actually going to Dealey Plaza and conduct Comparative Analysis testing in order to have something which can be actually compared, it was my hope that you would demonstrate all of the mathmatical computations necessary to demonstrate your claim in regards to the reflected radiance produced by the motorcycle helmets, irrelevant as to actual exposure to light source (in the shadows) as well as the ever-changing angles between the light source--to target---to camera. Not to even mention the change created as a result of the non-uniform nature of the helmets as one may actually turn their head, resulting in additional changes in angles of reflectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Here you go Craig:http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~wricntr/docume...mpAnalysis.html You quite obviously know a few things in regards to photography as well as have some great library of photographic images. However, within the world of empirical research, demonstration of a photograph of the rear end of your car/trailer/(whatever). is considerably lacking in attempting to compare this image with the ever-changing photographic image of the oval DPD helmets which had an ever-changing lighting (from light to shadow) as well as an ever-changing reflective angle when compared with the location of the light source in relationship to the film on which the image reflection was transferred. Can you grasp a SIMPLE point Tom? The trailer photo was posted to see if you understood a very simple principle...namely that when you photograph a highly reflective surface, you don't actually photograph the surface but rather WHAT IS REFLECTED in that surface. Thats why I asked you the questions I did. Thats the reason the logos on the helment have DIFFERENT TONES in all of the different photos, because they have DIFFERENT things that are reflected from their surface. A very simply concept, don't you think. In case the logos in the Zapruder film, they are reflecting TWO different lightsources. First they are reflecting a huge, broad lightsource...the blue sky. Given the large expanse of this source, the AOI is great enough that it will be reflected in the logos as they moved down ELM. The second source is the sun. It creates a specular highlight on the logo. Speculars have a habit of SPREADING in a photo, in other words they tend to become MUCH LARGER ON FILM that the actual size of the light as it is reflected in the object. If you need examples of this just ask, I'll post them. Its NO PROBLEM to think that the speculars will continue to be located over the logo on the helmets as the AOI slighty changes. In fact it is the curved nature of the logo that ALLOWS the specular to continue as the AOI changes. Don't believe it, just observe the specular highlight on a curved corner of a car and watch as the highlight stays as you move around.... Now, can you understand this or do you need a graphic demonstration? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidirectional...bution_function Was given, as in computation of reflectance, one must not only take into consideration the ever-changing horizontal angle between the light source to the camera, but also inculde the ever-changing vertical angle due to the continuation of the elevation change between the target (helmet) and the camera as well. See above. And, since you quite obviously have no intentions of actually going to Dealey Plaza and conduct Comparative Analysis testing in order to have something which can be actually compared, it was my hope that you would demonstrate all of the mathmatical computations necessary to demonstrate your claim in regards to the reflected radiance produced by the motorcycle helmets, irrelevant as to actual exposure to light source (in the shadows) as well as the ever-changing angles between the light source--to target---to camera. Of course I'm not going to the plaza, don't need to. You can study the concept in your own back yard. Have you, or better yet DID you before you made your claim? You don't need the math Tom, just a few photos or even your own eyes to observe the world around you. Hve you actually DONE any of hte above before you made your claim? I've offered you a number of examples, both from images YOU posted and from my own collection. You beed more, or can you finally grasp the concepts involved? Not to even mention the change created as a result of the non-uniform nature of the helmets as one may actually turn their head, resulting in additional changes in angles of reflectivity. Explained above...you GET IT YET? 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