Jerry Logan Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 The ovals proliferate.Jack Jack, If you run through the entire film once you'll see that there is a police officer to Nix's left. The round shape to the left is the officer's shoulder and the alien (although consistent with a particle beam weapon) is the white head cover and visor of the officer. Jerry But Jerry...what will you say when I tell you that Nix had to be over seven feet tall to take these images?????? Then it will MAKE NO DIFFERENCE WHAT YOU THINK THE BLURRED IMAGES SHOW, will it? Or will you still insist that what the film shows is what Nix photographed? I think vanishing point analysis shows that Nix was not tall enough to take his film. I believe that film taken by a remote control camera about SEVEN FEET TALL took a movie which was substituted for his original film. To make it appear that the robotic camera WAS AT GROUND LEVEL, various anomalous shapes (previous studies) were painted into the foreground, resembling someone's arm or cap. If you can refute this vanishing point analysis, have at it: Jack, You don't really mean this - you've missed an important point. Re-think it and I'll get back to you in the morning if you still want to go with it. Think about perpendicular. Jerry Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 That's it. (I sensed it like a morning mist, but couldn't articulate it.) Thank you Jerry, you're a gem, but I bet you know that. I'll risk saying that because you have a grip on your ego and the staying power needed to bring an example of rationality to the forum. Others do come, but run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 That's it. (I sensed it like a morning mist, but couldn't articulate it.) Thank you Jerry, you're a gem, but I bet you know that. I'll risk saying that because you have a grip on your ego and the staying power needed to bring an example of rationality to the forum. Others do come, but run. John, I thank you for those kind words but I'm working at something I love. Strangely, I enjoyed mechanical drawing in high school. I loved photography because of the magic transformation from three dimensions to two. My favorite artist is Vermeer! It's easy to look good when you're having a good time. Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 (edited) That's great. Me too, drafting in civil engineering dreaming of being an archaeologist with computer generated 3D maps of digs, but ending up working in various metal shops all over Oz. I love Dali and Monet, one for his warping of reality the other for his progressive reproduction of it. Of course the early renaissance artists can't be ignored, I think particularly Leonardo because of his multiple ambidexrtrousness, physically and mentally and his devotion to study what is and use that to create his art, like the movement of birds and other animals, anatomy and so on. But even then, the lens,, in creating images, was used very widely. Theres a great british documentary where the presenter disects old art and explains it using how the lens was used by the artist and why certain mistakes were widely repeated. Prob the impressionist added a motion blur with a proper understanding of all 3D facets and were capable of capturing moments in greater detail by being less detailed... edit add: can't stop there without mentioning Cabousier and Hundertwasser. Edited February 12, 2010 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 (edited) add : as I touched on in needlepont, using the mona lisa as example, here is a charcterised, text, version of it %$$$22222222222555222222222225522500 =+++%+++%%%%%%%%%%+++++==++++%%+%%%$ *======*=====++%$22$%=***========+%% ********(****+0058mEEm8=********==++ ****((((((((+2;!!;*0m##E+*(((((**=+= +++=***(;;;=8+;!!(*=2E#©m2%+==(**=++ 852$222$+==2Q$+*++%$$m#©©A8005=*=+$2 0880008A88AQm+;;=(;*5E#©©mA8885$2500 QmAAAAAAAQQEEA=*2%=2AE#©©#EmmEmmQmEE EmmQQQQQAA8mE#m$%20QE#©©©#QQQmEEEEE# EmEmAA80055AEE##A8AA8Q#©©©EQQQmmmm#E QAAA8AAQQQQmmmA5+*===%QEE©©#EQQ58QE# 8AQ8008QQmmmA2(!!!!!;*0AE©###A5508Am 88AA8550QEEQ+;,,,,,!!=50558m©©©mQA55 A052550Q##EA5+=(!,,!*$0Am#©©HHH©EmmQ Q82$22Q###mmmQ888808QmEEmEE#©©©©©mEm Q85228E©©©#©##EEEE#©©©##EmQm#©H©©#m# A888AE###©©©©©©©#©©H©©©©##©©©HH©©©#E QQmEEEEEE#©©©©©©©©HHHHH©HH©©HHH©©©©# QE##EmmmE#©©©©©©HHHHHHHHHH©©©HHHHH©# E###QA8A80$%28m©HHHHHHHHHHH©HHHHHHH© E#©©Emmmm2=*(((*$0E©HHH©©HHHHHHHHH©© E©©©©©©©#A5$%===+$$500AAAQE#HHHHHHH© #©©©©©©©02+=205$$55AQmmmE###©HHHHH©# ©©©©©©©©E82AmEEEEEEm©©©©©©©HHHH©©©©© #©©©©©©©©#E©©©©#©©©©©©©HHHHHHHH©©©©© #©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©HHHHHH©HHHH©©HH©©©©© font="Courier New", 2 and the basis with a snapshot of the text which us then gauss smoothed I think it helps to understand perception in terms of amount of data, which is relevant to photo analysis, the result speaks for itself imo Edited February 12, 2010 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 That's great. Me too, drafting in civil engineering dreaming of being an archaeologist with computer generated 3D maps of digs, but ending up working in various metal shops all over Oz. I love Dali and Monet, one for his warping of reality the other for his progressive reproduction of it. Of course the early renaissance artists can't be ignored, I think particularly Leonardo because of his multiple ambidexrtrousness, physically and mentally and his devotion to study what is and use that to create his art, like the movement of birds and other animals, anatomy and so on. But even then, the lens,, in creating images, was used very widely. Theres a great british documentary where the presenter disects old art and explains it using how the lens was used by the artist and why certain mistakes were widely repeated. Prob the impressionist added a motion blur with a proper understanding of all 3D facets and were capable of capturing moments in greater detail by being less detailed...edit add: can't stop there without mentioning Cabousier and Hundertwasser. Hundertwasser! You know Hundertwasser. Amazing. Beyond exploring formal space and into it's outright rejection - making fun of formal space, playing with it in real structures. I live forty miles from the Quixote Winery. It's astounding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 LOL, and he's a neighbour in Kiwiland now and, last I heard, still churning out interesting stuff (and my ex has three original miniatures of his) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 LOL, and he's a neighbour in Kiwiland now and, last I heard, still churning out interesting stuff (and my ex has three original miniatures of his) Sadly, I think he's passed away - but if your ex ever wants to...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 I'm not surprised, he seemed to drop off the radar at some point. Anyway, NO, I used to sit and look at them repeatedly, amazing color, form, brushstrokes, they're a family heirloom. You can get one of my brothers easily enough through the web though. To me they're a nuisance, continually having to find places to store them, I'd rather give them away, but no, they're not mine to dispose of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Anyway, what was the topic again? I've forgotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Is it possible to post a full frame, showing edges, copy of that frame, Jack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen Collins Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 add : as I touched on in needlepont, using the mona lisa as example, here is a charcterised, text, version of it%$$$22222222222555222222222225522500 =+++%+++%%%%%%%%%%+++++==++++%%+%%%$ *======*=====++%$22$%=***========+%% ********(****+0058mEEm8=********==++ ****((((((((+2;!!;*0m##E+*(((((**=+= +++=***(;;;=8+;!!(*=2E#©m2%+==(**=++ 852$222$+==2Q$+*++%$$m#©©A8005=*=+$2 0880008A88AQm+;;=(;*5E#©©mA8885$2500 QmAAAAAAAQQEEA=*2%=2AE#©©#EmmEmmQmEE EmmQQQQQAA8mE#m$%20QE#©©©#QQQmEEEEE# EmEmAA80055AEE##A8AA8Q#©©©EQQQmmmm#E QAAA8AAQQQQmmmA5+*===%QEE©©#EQQ58QE# 8AQ8008QQmmmA2(!!!!!;*0AE©###A5508Am 88AA8550QEEQ+;,,,,,!!=50558m©©©mQA55 A052550Q##EA5+=(!,,!*$0Am#©©HHH©EmmQ Q82$22Q###mmmQ888808QmEEmEE#©©©©©mEm Q85228E©©©#©##EEEE#©©©##EmQm#©H©©#m# A888AE###©©©©©©©#©©H©©©©##©©©HH©©©#E QQmEEEEEE#©©©©©©©©HHHHH©HH©©HHH©©©©# QE##EmmmE#©©©©©©HHHHHHHHHH©©©HHHHH©# E###QA8A80$%28m©HHHHHHHHHHH©HHHHHHH© E#©©Emmmm2=*(((*$0E©HHH©©HHHHHHHHH©© E©©©©©©©#A5$%===+$$500AAAQE#HHHHHHH© #©©©©©©©02+=205$$55AQmmmE###©HHHHH©# ©©©©©©©©E82AmEEEEEEm©©©©©©©HHHH©©©©© #©©©©©©©©#E©©©©#©©©©©©©HHHHHHHH©©©©© #©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©HHHHHH©HHHH©©HH©©©©© font="Courier New", 2 and the basis with a snapshot of the text which us then gauss smoothed I think it helps to understand perception in terms of amount of data, which is relevant to photo analysis, the result speaks for itself imo I know this is off topic, but I didn't start it. The blurry picture of the Mona Lisa on the right looks like figures seen on the grassy knoll -- how to get them clearer? Kathy C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 12, 2010 Author Share Posted February 12, 2010 Closeup look at THE THING in a single Nix frame that the retouchers failed to obscure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 12, 2010 Author Share Posted February 12, 2010 Here is another look at the pole fastened to the wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 Exactly Kathy. How? You can't, it's already far off from the original by the loss of data in the texting of it. 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