Jump to content
The Education Forum

Question for Z-film experts


Pat Speer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Jerry,

What Pat has described is the same process used by Dale Myers to determine the FPS when doing his multi film sync.

In order for Myer's sync to work, Tina Towner's camera has to shoot at 23-24 FPS. Her camera does not have a setting for this frame rate.

I have her model camera. It's consistant at 17 FPS.

SS came to the conclusion that the last head shot was approx 30 Ft farther down Elm than 313.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm

Tom Purvis has shown this and many other pieces relating to this aspect of the case.

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jerry,

What Pat has described is the same process used by Dale Myers to determine the FPS when doing his multi film sync.

In order for Myer's sync to work, Tina Towner's camera has to shoot at 23-24 FPS. Her camera does not have a setting for this frame rate.

I have her model camera. It's consistant at 17 FPS.

SS came to the conclusion that the last head shot was approx 30 Ft farther down Elm than 313.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm

Tom Purvis has shown this and many other pieces relating to this aspect of the case.

chris

Hello Chris!

Yes, I know your work on the Towner camera - that's very interesting. I've also followed Purvis (to the extent that's humanly possible).

I think Pat's point (and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong) is a little different. The short, bastardized version -

SS does first re-creation on 11/27/63 reaches first conclusion about shot locations.

12/4/63 Barrett understands Zapruder to say the camera runs at 24 fps.

12/5/63 Secret Service realizes that if the camera runs at 24 fps then shot locations have to be further down the street to give LHO time to make the shots.

12/5/63 2nd Secret Service re-creation moves the shot locations down the street.

12/20/63 FBI tests indicate 18.3 fps.

Then everybody has to change the locations again in order to match the new fps.

Hence, cover-up.

My comment is that the Secret Service never thought the camera ran at 24 fps.

1) They wouldn't have known about Zapruder's statement because only the FBI had it.

2) Overnight is kind of speedy to set up a whole new re-creation.

3) They knew the camera ran at 16 fps from B&H or the camera manual.

4) Life had 18 fps on 12/6/63.

5) The NPIC analysis shows they only considered 16 fps or 18 fps, never 24 fps.

It is possible that the Secret Service may have tried to infer frame rate from mph but there's no evidence of that and Greer and Kellerman were saying 12 to 15 mph - nothing to pin the frame rate at 24 fps.

I'm not sure this is any clearer than before. I hope it helps.

Best regards,

Jerry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly, 16MM MOVIE CAMERAS run at 24fps for normal speed.

I have always thought that the (ahem) "original" Zapruder film was shot in 16mm.

Maybe this contributed to the confusion.

Jack

Hello Mr. White,

Yes, that's a possibility. If it's true, what do you think was processed and slit at Kodak Dallas that night? And what was it that Jamieson copied?

Best regards,

Jerry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

I'm afraid your initial premise may be incorrect. Life Magazine reported on December 6 that Zapruder's camera ran at 18 fps. Additionally, the CIA NPIC analysis for the Secret Service seems to indicate that they thought the camera should run at 16 fps. Most importantly, the FBI was definitely not sharing its field reports with the Secret Service on a day to day basis, therefore it seems extremely unlikely that the Secret Service would even know of Zapruder's statement to Barrett. It's most likely that the Secret Service just RTFM and assumed 16 fps since it obviously wasn't 48 fps or they called B&H. I don't know why they'd believe Zapruder's camera was running at a frame rate that was impossible for that camera.

Jerry

Jerry,

I applied that same logic to Towner's camera.

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm

To download the frame sync study, click on "HERE" in red type.

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly, 16MM MOVIE CAMERAS run at 24fps for normal speed.

I have always thought that the (ahem) "original" Zapruder film was shot in 16mm.

Maybe this contributed to the confusion.

Jack

Hello Mr. White,

Yes, that's a possibility. If it's true, what do you think was processed and slit at Kodak Dallas that night? And what was it that Jamieson copied?

Best regards,

Jerry

Jerry...nobody really knows. but my opinion is that there were several films shot from the grassy knoll

that day, and that the extant Z film is a composite of selected images. The perps would not risk shooting

their big event in just an amateur's 8mm. I believe that at least one 16mm film was shot, and one or more

8mm films. At least one of the films was shot from the Z pedestal by someone (not Abe). The NPIC processed

and studied a film that DEFINITELY was not the extant film.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

I'm afraid your initial premise may be incorrect. Life Magazine reported on December 6 that Zapruder's camera ran at 18 fps. Additionally, the CIA NPIC analysis for the Secret Service seems to indicate that they thought the camera should run at 16 fps. Most importantly, the FBI was definitely not sharing its field reports with the Secret Service on a day to day basis, therefore it seems extremely unlikely that the Secret Service would even know of Zapruder's statement to Barrett. It's most likely that the Secret Service just RTFM and assumed 16 fps since it obviously wasn't 48 fps or they called B&H. I don't know why they'd believe Zapruder's camera was running at a frame rate that was impossible for that camera.

Jerry

Jerry,

I applied that same logic to Towner's camera.

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm

To download the frame sync study, click on "HERE" in red type.

chris

OK Chris - I think I now understand what you're saying. (Just another minor brain spasm, nothing to worry about really.)

"I don't know why they'd believe Zapruder's camera was running at a frame rate that was impossible for that camera" isn't right.

If I had expressed myself fully and clearly, what I should have written is something like this:

The Secret Service needs to know what the frame rate is to understand the timing. There's no evidence the SS is conducting tests to see how fast the camera actually runs but they need a number. So what are their choices? If they read the manual, the camera can be set for run (normal) or slow motion. The manual says normal is 16 fps, slow motion is 48 fps. If they call B&H or read Life they learn that the run (normal) setting really films at 18 fps, not 16. If they see Zapruder's statement (which is doubtful), he says the camera is set to run (normal) which is 24 fps. So who are they going to believe actually knows what the normal frame rate is? The manual? The manufacturer? Life? The dress maker from Dallas? Specifically, would they immediately schedule a a whole new reenactment for the very next day and change all the shot locations because the Dallas dressmaker says run = normal = 24 fps?

Because of your Towner work, I want to make sure we're clear about what Barrett thought (reported) Zapruder told him. Zapruder said he had the camera set to take normal speed movies, which are 24 fps. Zapruder didn't say he'd tested his camera and that his camera ran at 24 fps. He said the camera was set to take normal speed movie film. In other words, Zapruder wasn't offering test results for his particular camera, he was offering a definition of what normal means that contradicted the definitions found in the manual and the definitions of the people who made the camera. What I should have written was: "I don't know why the Secret Service would believe Zapruder knew more about the normal speed of the 414PD than Bell & Howell."

Of course you're right that any camera is actually most likely to run at a speed that can't be set on the camera; you can't choose 18.3 fps or 19.75 fps and numbers like those are what real run rates look like. Just because you can't choose a particular rate doesn't mean that it's impossible for the camera to run at that rate. So it's not impossible for Zapruder's 414DP to have run at 24 fps just because 24 fps wasn't on the menu. I would think very differently about the Secret Service issue if Zapruder had said something like, "I've tested my camera and it runs...." or "On my camera..." instead of "The camera was set to take normal speed movie film or 24 frames per second."

I'm hoping I've got it this time and thanks for your help.

Thinking about this has raised a question for me about Towner. It's true that Myers work leads to a frame rate for Towner that can't be set on her camera, but why is that such a problem? Pat reports on his website that CBS bought 5 414PD's in 1967 that had frame rates of 15.45, 17.7, 18.7, 19.25, and 20.95 fps. It's true that Myer's implied rate for Towner doesn't match her camera setting or your models actual speed, but doesn't Myer's rate fall within the natural range of variation for this type of camera? That's a real question, not rhetorical. Do we know what the variation range is for Towner's camera? Isn't it kind of a re-badged 414?

Best to you,

Jerry

Edited by Jerry Logan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...Of course you're right that any camera is actually most likely to run at a speed that can't be set on the camera; you can't choose 18.3 fps or 19.75 fps and numbers like those are what real run rates look like. Just because you can't choose a particular rate doesn't mean that it's impossible for the camera to run at that rate. So it's not impossible for Zapruder's 414DP to have run at 24 fps just because 24 fps wasn't on the menu. I would think very differently about the Secret Service issue if Zapruder had said something like, "I've tested my camera and it runs...." or "On my camera..." instead of "The camera was set to take normal speed movie film or 24 frames per second..."

It is impossible for Zapruder's 414PD to run at 24fps if it was an 18fps (or 16fps) camera. There are no menus on the camera. There is a simple spring-loaded switch that reads "Animation" (which clicks off one frame), "Stop" (off position), "Run" (normal operation mode) and "Slow Motion" (which speeds the film up - and makes a hell of a racket, by the way!). There is no middle ground between the "Run" and "Slow Motion" either, the camera either runs at the normal speed or the faster speed.

Common speeds for 8mm film were 15, 16 and eventually 18fps. Since these cameras were spring wound, there are variations in the speed (resulting in an 18.3fps, etc).

24fps was used by 16mm and 35 mm film.

414PD's can be had on ebay for $10. I have four (including an exact match of Zapruder's camera (414PD, with manual lens stick).

Hope this helps.

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although, as Craig and Jerry have pointed out, the FBI memo on Zapruder stating the film was recorded 24 frames per second was clearly in error, it nevertheless proves there was a cover-up, IMO.

It hit me when reading this memo that the date on this memo was 12-4, and the FBI Crime Lab report claiming the camera ran 18.3 frames per second was dated 12-20. This means that the Secret Service and FBI re-enactments of 12-5 were performed under the belief the camera was running 24 frames per second. This is demonstrated in the reports of the FBI's Gauthier, as he repeatedly made reference to the limousine's traveling 15 mph. Now, I could never figure out why he thought this...and then it hit me. If the Zapruder film was filmed at 24 frames per second, the limo would have been moving 15 mph.

So why is this significant, you might ask? As demonstrated in chapters 2 and 2b at patspeer.com, the Secret Service and FBI re-enactments of early December, and the final versions of the shooting they presented to the Warren Commission, had the head shot (which they proposed was the third shot) 34 and 47 feet further down the road than the location determined by the Secret Service on 11-27, and 29 and 42 feet further down the road than eventually proposed by the Warren Commission. Now, previously I had thought that maybe they were simply incompetent. But now I realize that 15 mph meant the film was recording at 22 frames per second, and that this made the elapsed time between the first shot (which both the SS and FBI believed hit Kennedy) and third shot at frame 313 TOO SHORT for the shooter to have been lone little Oswald.

So...voila...In early December, as a response to agent Barrett's memo on Zapruder, and the assertion the camera recorded 24 frames per second, BOTH the Secret Service and FBI suddenly concluded the limo was much further down the street at the time of the third shot than previously believed, and later proven beyond any doubt.

Now why else would they have done this, other than to conceal the likelihood there was a second shooter? The incompetence argument falters when you consider that both agencies, working independently, came to the same completely unsupportable conclusion. The why-would-they-do-such-a-thing argument falters when you consider that at the time of these re-enactments, in early December, the assumption was that the Zapruder and Nix films would never be shown to the public and the Warren Commission was just gonna rubber stamp the conclusions of the Secret Service and FBI.

So, yes, Virginia, they lied. It then follows that they would not have done such a thing if they didn't believe the President would approve.

Pat,

I'm afraid your initial premise may be incorrect. Life Magazine reported on December 6 that Zapruder's camera ran at 18 fps. Additionally, the CIA NPIC analysis for the Secret Service seems to indicate that they thought the camera should run at 16 fps. Most importantly, the FBI was definitely not sharing its field reports with the Secret Service on a day to day basis, therefore it seems extremely unlikely that the Secret Service would even know of Zapruder's statement to Barrett. It's most likely that the Secret Service just RTFM and assumed 16 fps since it obviously wasn't 48 fps or they called B&H. I don't know why they'd believe Zapruder's camera was running at a frame rate that was impossible for that camera.

Jerry

Jerry, maybe the Secret Service thought the camera recorded 16 or 18 fps. Maybe. (The question arises how Life could possibly know the film speed without testing the camera).. But then you're stuck trying to explain how the Secret Service re-enactment of 12-5 could possibly have concluded that Kennedy at frame 313 was 34 feet further from the sniper's nest than the re-enactment of 11-27, when BOTH used the Zapruder film...and WHY the FBI also concluded the head shot location was further than previously presumed.

Agent Howlett's 11-27 re-enactment performed BEFORE the Barrett memo claiming the camera recorded 24 fps had the first shot at 170 feet and the third at 260 feet. Roughly 90 feet. 24 frames per second means 22 fps. This suggests three shots were fired in barely four seconds. Although the NPIC numbers indicate someone believed the shooter could have fired shots as rapidly as two seconds apart, they most certainly would not have wanted to say the sniper did this twice in a row. It comes as no surprise then that the 12-5 re-enactment performed by Elmer Moore (who would go on to become Chief Justice Warren's "bodyguard" and keep a close eye on the conduct of the WC) had the first shot at 184 feet and the second at 294. This conveniently translates to a 5 second scenario. Now ain't that a coinky-dink. Still, it's possible this was just a coincidence. One wonders, however, why the only record in the Warren Commission's files of Agent Howlett's earlier re-enactment is an FBI report. This suggests the Secret Service destroyed all records of this earlier, more accurate re-enactment....hmmm... (If you know where we can find Agent Howlett's 11-27 report on the re-enactment please let me know...)

FBI Agent Gauthier, however, almost certainly knew of both Barrett's memo on Howlett's re-enactment on 11-27, and Barrett's memo on Zapruder's camera speed. His early reports on his reconstruction mention that the limo was moving 15 mph. Where else would he have got this? Even worse, the FBI's re-enactment had the first shot at 167 feet and the third at 307 feet. 140 feet. How on Earth does the distance traveled during the shooting grow "accidentally" from 90 feet to 140 feet, only to shrink back to 90 feet or less during the WC's re-enactment?

Either the Secret Service and FBI were INCREDIBLY INCOMPETENT and far worse a threat to national security than the likes of 100 Oswalds, or were LIARS reporting dutifully to a corrupt President. I'm not sure which one is worse.

(P.S. I'm well aware that Tom Purvis thinks the SS and FBI's re-enactments were accurate, and that the WC's latter one disguised that there was shot after frame 313, but he deliberately avoids all the FBI and SS memos indicating they thought the third shot was the head shot at frame 313 even while placing it 30 feet or more further down the road.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Pat. speaking of 'truth", have you corrected your disinformation at patspeer.com about the bunch in JFK's jacket in Croft. It has been proven with unimpeachable evidence that your claim is simply BALONEY. All in the interest of intellectual honesty, you know. Pretty hard for you top beat on someone else when you do the same don't you think?

My, Craig, what a typical response! I raise a valid point and you immediately try to derail the discussion. Bravo!

You can have that argument somewhere else. As you don't even pretend to believe the bunching in Croft lifts the hole in the jacket to the point pushed by Lattimer/Artwohl etc... what's the point, really?

As far as this thread...Mr. Photo Expert...please explain how the Secret Service and FBI--AFTER having accurately established the location of Kennedy at frame 313 within a few feet on 11-27--could POSSIBLY have concluded JFK was 30 feet or more further down the street, unless they were doing so for political purposes. They had the Z-film. They had the Moorman photo. The FBI even had the Nix film. My 72 year-old mom and a troop of girl scouts could do better...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly, 16MM MOVIE CAMERAS run at 24fps for normal speed.

I have always thought that the (ahem) "original" Zapruder film was shot in 16mm.

Maybe this contributed to the confusion.

Jack

What was the speed of the Powers film? It sure looked clear BEFORE IT RAN OUT OF FILM!

Anyone really believe it RAN OUT OF FILM?

Sure would have been a good film of the assassination!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Pat. speaking of 'truth", have you corrected your disinformation at patspeer.com about the bunch in JFK's jacket in Croft. It has been proven with unimpeachable evidence that your claim is simply BALONEY. All in the interest of intellectual honesty, you know. Pretty hard for you top beat on someone else when you do the same don't you think?

My, Craig, what a typical response! I raise a valid point and you immediately try to derail the discussion. Bravo!

You can have that argument somewhere else. As you don't even pretend to believe the bunching in Croft lifts the hole in the jacket to the point pushed by Lattimer/Artwohl etc... what's the point, really?

As far as this thread...Mr. Photo Expert...please explain how the Secret Service and FBI--AFTER having accurately established the location of Kennedy at frame 313 within a few feet on 11-27--could POSSIBLY have concluded JFK was 30 feet or more further down the street, unless they were doing so for political purposes. They had the Z-film. They had the Moorman photo. The FBI even had the Nix film. My 72 year-old mom and a troop of girl scouts could do better...

Geeze Pat, if your mom and her girl scouts are as inept as you are when to comes to matters photographic, no doubt they would stuff it up as badly as you did with Croft.

I'm not having an argument with you Pat, just keeping you honest, if that's possible.

You see you screwed the pooch big time with your oh so ignorant notion tha that the bunch is Croft was his RIGHT SHOULDER! Never mind that the unbending laws of light, shadow and geometry show you are simply full of caca.

And what is the response by patspeer.com to the news that that they got it all wrong as shown by unimpeachalbe proof? Does patspeer.com correct it's gross error? No... instead pastspeer.com continues to fill the internet with pure disinformation. And low and behold the owner of said site takes others to task for not telling the "truth" while he does the same himself. patspeer.com and it's author...intellectually honest? Not even close. Just another ct who can't deal with truth.

As fo the FBI and the Secret Service? Don't have a clue nor do I care. I don't deal in speculation. "Recreations" are a fools errand.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Pat. speaking of 'truth", have you corrected your disinformation at patspeer.com about the bunch in JFK's jacket in Croft. It has been proven with unimpeachable evidence that your claim is simply BALONEY. All in the interest of intellectual honesty, you know. Pretty hard for you top beat on someone else when you do the same don't you think?

My, Craig, what a typical response! I raise a valid point and you immediately try to derail the discussion. Bravo!

You can have that argument somewhere else. As you don't even pretend to believe the bunching in Croft lifts the hole in the jacket to the point pushed by Lattimer/Artwohl etc... what's the point, really?

As far as this thread...Mr. Photo Expert...please explain how the Secret Service and FBI--AFTER having accurately established the location of Kennedy at frame 313 within a few feet on 11-27--could POSSIBLY have concluded JFK was 30 feet or more further down the street, unless they were doing so for political purposes. They had the Z-film. They had the Moorman photo. The FBI even had the Nix film. My 72 year-old mom and a troop of girl scouts could do better...

Geeze Pat, if your mom and her girl scouts are as inept as you are when to comes to matters photographic, no doubt they would stuff it up as badly as you did with Croft.

I'm not having an argument with you Pat, just keeping you honest, if that's possible.

You see you screwed the pooch big time with your oh so ignorant notion tha that the bunch is Croft was his RIGHT SHOULDER! Never mind that the unbending laws of light, shadow and geometry show you are simply full of caca.

And what is the response by patspeer.com to the news that that they got it all wrong as shown by unimpeachalbe proof? Does patspeer.com correct it's gross error? No... instead pastspeer.com continues to fill the internet with pure disinformation. And low and behold the owner of said site takes others to task for not telling the "truth" while he does the same himself. patspeer.com and it's author...intellectually honest? Not even close. Just another ct who can't deal with truth.

As fo the FBI and the Secret Service? Don't have a clue nor do I care. I don't deal in speculation. "Recreations" are a fools errand.

Now who's proven himself to be the disinformation peddler? You "don't care" whether or not the Secret Service or FBI deliberately faked a reenactment in order to deceive the Warren Commission that Oswald acted alone, but fill this forum with attacks on my character because I have a different interpretation of the word "shoulder" than you do?

Now, I would have thought the many times I've differed with my fellow CTs on issues like photo alteration and body alteration would have convinced you that, right or wrong, I'm trying to get at the truth of this thing, and don't deserve to be harassed in such a manner. But no, I dare think the Federal Government lied about something over 40 years ago...and that makes makes me fair game...

P.S. thanks again for setting me straight on the frame rate/film speed issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Pat. speaking of 'truth", have you corrected your disinformation at patspeer.com about the bunch in JFK's jacket in Croft. It has been proven with unimpeachable evidence that your claim is simply BALONEY. All in the interest of intellectual honesty, you know. Pretty hard for you top beat on someone else when you do the same don't you think?

My, Craig, what a typical response! I raise a valid point and you immediately try to derail the discussion. Bravo!

You can have that argument somewhere else. As you don't even pretend to believe the bunching in Croft lifts the hole in the jacket to the point pushed by Lattimer/Artwohl etc... what's the point, really?

As far as this thread...Mr. Photo Expert...please explain how the Secret Service and FBI--AFTER having accurately established the location of Kennedy at frame 313 within a few feet on 11-27--could POSSIBLY have concluded JFK was 30 feet or more further down the street, unless they were doing so for political purposes. They had the Z-film. They had the Moorman photo. The FBI even had the Nix film. My 72 year-old mom and a troop of girl scouts could do better...

Geeze Pat, if your mom and her girl scouts are as inept as you are when to comes to matters photographic, no doubt they would stuff it up as badly as you did with Croft.

I'm not having an argument with you Pat, just keeping you honest, if that's possible.

You see you screwed the pooch big time with your oh so ignorant notion tha that the bunch is Croft was his RIGHT SHOULDER! Never mind that the unbending laws of light, shadow and geometry show you are simply full of caca.

And what is the response by patspeer.com to the news that that they got it all wrong as shown by unimpeachalbe proof? Does patspeer.com correct it's gross error? No... instead pastspeer.com continues to fill the internet with pure disinformation. And low and behold the owner of said site takes others to task for not telling the "truth" while he does the same himself. patspeer.com and it's author...intellectually honest? Not even close. Just another ct who can't deal with truth.

As fo the FBI and the Secret Service? Don't have a clue nor do I care. I don't deal in speculation. "Recreations" are a fools errand.

Now who's proven himself to be the disinformation peddler? You "don't care" whether or not the Secret Service or FBI deliberately faked a reenactment in order to deceive the Warren Commission that Oswald acted alone, but fill this forum with attacks on my character because I have a different interpretation of the word "shoulder" than you do?

Now, I would have thought the many times I've differed with my fellow CTs on issues like photo alteration and body alteration would have convinced you that, right or wrong, I'm trying to get at the truth of this thing, and don't deserve to be harassed in such a manner. But no, I dare think the Federal Government lied about something over 40 years ago...and that makes makes me fair game...

P.S. thanks again for setting me straight on the frame rate/film speed issue.

Exactly what "disinformation" have I offered? Oh yea, NONE! I've not studied the FBI, SS situation you mention. Since I don't have an opinion (and I don't do "opinions") and don't care, now I'm somehow peddling disinformation? Once again you prove your logic truly sucks.

You don't get to have an "interpertation" when it comes to Croft. It's black and white. The unbendable laws of light, shadow and the angle of incidence of the sunlight in relation to JFK are not up for "interpretation". The proof is unimpeachable.

Now eihter you have the intellectual honesty to deal with this unimpeachable fact or you don't. That Pat is what decides your character. You make your own bed...

Question the government all you wish. I have no problem with that at all. But when you make a serious error and fail to correct it, you get what you get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...Of course you're right that any camera is actually most likely to run at a speed that can't be set on the camera; you can't choose 18.3 fps or 19.75 fps and numbers like those are what real run rates look like. Just because you can't choose a particular rate doesn't mean that it's impossible for the camera to run at that rate. So it's not impossible for Zapruder's 414DP to have run at 24 fps just because 24 fps wasn't on the menu. I would think very differently about the Secret Service issue if Zapruder had said something like, "I've tested my camera and it runs...." or "On my camera..." instead of "The camera was set to take normal speed movie film or 24 frames per second..."

It is impossible for Zapruder's 414PD to run at 24fps if it was an 18fps (or 16fps) camera. There are no menus on the camera. There is a simple spring-loaded switch that reads "Animation" (which clicks off one frame), "Stop" (off position), "Run" (normal operation mode) and "Slow Motion" (which speeds the film up - and makes a hell of a racket, by the way!). There is no middle ground between the "Run" and "Slow Motion" either, the camera either runs at the normal speed or the faster speed.

Common speeds for 8mm film were 15, 16 and eventually 18fps. Since these cameras were spring wound, there are variations in the speed (resulting in an 18.3fps, etc).

24fps was used by 16mm and 35 mm film.

414PD's can be had on ebay for $10. I have four (including an exact match of Zapruder's camera (414PD, with manual lens stick).

Hope this helps.

Rob

Hello Rob,

Thanks for taking the time to try to set me straight. You are right that there's no way a person can choose to run a 414PD at 24 fps because, as you've correctly stated, there's no way to select 24 fps. You can select run, slow motion or animation - according to the manual 16 fps, 48 fps or single frame respectively.

However, as Chris pointed out and I agree, just because you can't select 24 fps doesn't mean the camera can't run at 24 fps. They're not high precision instruments. So, even though you've selected 16 fps, the camera may actually be filming at a different speed. Pat says CBS obtained samples of the 414PD that ran at actual rates of 15.45, 17.7, 18.7, 19.25 and 20.95 fps. Those aren't user selectable rates but the cameras ran at those rates nonetheless. Therefore I think it's inaccurate to say a 414PD can't run at 24 fps. It is accurate to say that a user can't set a 414PD to run at 24 fps - the user sets the camera to run or slow motion and takes whatever frame rate the mechanical condition of the camera yields. In other words, there's no nominal 24 fps on the 414 but there may be an actual 24 fps.

I'm sorry the menu reference was confusing - it was a metaphor but I didn't make that very clear. You're right about that too. Definitely no menus on that camera!

Best to you,

Jerry

Edited by Jerry Logan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...