Dean Hagerman Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Here is the "amazing" Bill Miller study that Craig is pimping The funny thing is that Craig refuses to admit that we see some of the same kinds of anomalies in the Z-film Where is old Bill Miller anyways? I miss him about as much as I miss Craig when he ducks out for a week or so Show us.... Get out your copy of TGZFH and look at Jacks section Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 The ''forgery'' of Mary Poppins are obvious when frames are studied. It is not a good example. Superficially perhaps, but if that is the best example ... Couldn't agree more, John. In fact very few Hollywood special-effects movies made before computers took over still look convincing. The Zapruder film on the other hand... "2001 A Space Odyssey" Remember Kubrick started filming 2001 in 1965 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Get out your copy of TGZFH and look at Jacks section No Dean..YOU show us SPECFIC examples that show the same mistakes seen in the frame above. Your claim, your proof..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 that show the same mistakes seen in the frame above. I said "we see some of the same kinds of anomalies" I never said anything close to we see the same mistakes as the frame above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 that show the same mistakes seen in the frame above. I said "we see some of the same kinds of anomalies" I never said anything close to we see the same mistakes as the frame above So exactly what are these same anomalies? Show us. Explain WHY they are the same. Your claim, your proof... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 So exactly what are these same anomalies? Again I said "the same kinds of anomalies" not the same anomalies You always misquote me Craig, such a shame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 So exactly what are these same anomalies? Again I said "the same kinds of anomalies" not the same anomalies You always misquote me Craig, such a shame Then show us these SAME KINDS of anomolies, and tell us why they are the same as what we see in the frame above. How tough can this be for you? Your claim, your proof.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Craig, Yes it would. However, from Z's position in relation to the objects, they appear on film to be pretty much parallel to each other. This allows us to see the gain in speed from one object to the next. chris Lets review the concept.... The only thing that has changed is the viewing angle... Craig, How long did it take for the viewing angle to change in your demonstration? Z takes 4 frames to show us the cycles catching the limo. Less than a quarter of a second. Relationship of handrail to cycle windshield. The upper ghost image movement is "in essence" replicated by the lower main frame image in this latest gif, even though the ghost image is not the actual cycle we see below. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Craig, Yes it would. However, from Z's position in relation to the objects, they appear on film to be pretty much parallel to each other. This allows us to see the gain in speed from one object to the next. chris Lets review the concept.... The only thing that has changed is the viewing angle... Craig, How long did it take for the viewing angle to change in your demonstration? Z takes 4 frames to show us the cycles catching the limo. Less than a quarter of a second. Relationship of handrail to cycle windshield. The upper ghost image movement is "in essence" replicated by the lower main frame image in this latest gif, even though the ghost image is not the actual cycle we see below. chris Time is meaningless in the concept demo. All that matters is viewing angle change. I'm confused with this post of yours. I thought this was about the ghost image changing in relation to the limo? In your original post you said: In the upper ghost image, does the limo slow down before the 313 head shot? Notice the relationship between the white motorcycle fender and limo. The question I pose is simple. Is the movement we see from simple viewing angle change, or speed changes or both? It seems to me that suggecting alteration based on this is a bit short sighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 The ''forgery'' of Mary Poppins are obvious when frames are studied. It is not a good example. Superficially perhaps, but if that is the best example ... Couldn't agree more, John. In fact very few Hollywood special-effects movies made before computers took over still look convincing. The Zapruder film on the other hand... "2001 A Space Odyssey" Remember Kubrick started filming 2001 in 1965 Dean, is this really a good comparison? The man responsible for the special effects in that film was a guy named Doug Trumbull. If you know anything about him, Trumbull was probably the number one guy at that time in his field. He took a method of special effects that was not really preeminent at the time--front projection--and made it state of the art. The method used in most films at the time was something called rear projection--which is quite detectable. Front projection was much harder to detect. But more difficult to do. Further, they had a lot of problems perfecting the techniques on that film. Which is one reason it took so long, and for that time, cost a lot. Remember, there are no big stars in that film--the budget was used mostly in production. Jim I was replying to Martins post "In fact very few Hollywood special-effects movies made before computers took over still look convincing" That was why I said 2001 in response to Martin 2001 for reasons you stated as well as others is not a good example as far as Z-film alteration is concerned Kubrick is my favorite director by far and 2001 is one of my top 5 films ever, the special effects are stunningly beautiful for a film made before computers and CGI My grandpa saw 2001 in theater in Los Angeles, he told me that he felt like he was dreaming about seeing the film because the special effects had him mezzmerized He had never seen a film like that before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Jim I was replying to Martins post "In fact very few Hollywood special-effects movies made before computers took over still look convincing" That was why I said 2001 in response to Martin 2001 for reasons you stated as well as others is not a good example as far as Z-film alteration is concerned Kubrick is my favorite director by far and 2001 is one of my top 5 films ever, the special effects are stunningly beautiful for a film made before computers and CGI My grandpa saw 2001 in theater in Los Angeles, he told me that he felt like he was dreaming about seeing the film because the special effects had him mezzmerized He had never seen a film like that before Hey Dean? You all hot air or are you ever gonna post those artifacts seen in both Zapruder and Mary Poppins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Jim I was replying to Martins post "In fact very few Hollywood special-effects movies made before computers took over still look convincing" That was why I said 2001 in response to Martin 2001 for reasons you stated as well as others is not a good example as far as Z-film alteration is concerned Kubrick is my favorite director by far and 2001 is one of my top 5 films ever, the special effects are stunningly beautiful for a film made before computers and CGI My grandpa saw 2001 in theater in Los Angeles, he told me that he felt like he was dreaming about seeing the film because the special effects had him mezzmerized He had never seen a film like that before Hey Dean? You all hot air or are you ever gonna post those artifacts seen in both Zapruder and Mary Poppins? I already told you, grab your copy of TGZFH (you told me you got a copy from Tink) and read Why would I waste my time scanning the pages and posting them when you can satisfy yourself at home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 The ''forgery'' of Mary Poppins are obvious when frames are studied. It is not a good example. Superficially perhaps, but if that is the best example ... Couldn't agree more, John. In fact very few Hollywood special-effects movies made before computers took over still look convincing. The Zapruder film on the other hand... "2001 A Space Odyssey" Remember Kubrick started filming 2001 in 1965 Dean, is this really a good comparison? The man responsible for the special effects in that film was a guy named Doug Trumbull. If you know anything about him, Trumbull was probably the number one guy at that time in his field. He took a method of special effects that was not really preeminent at the time--front projection--and made it state of the art. The method used in most films at the time was something called rear projection--which is quite detectable. Front projection was much harder to detect. But more difficult to do. Further, they had a lot of problems perfecting the techniques on that film. Which is one reason it took so long, and for that time, cost a lot. Remember, there are no big stars in that film--the budget was used mostly in production. Jim I was replying to Martins post "In fact very few Hollywood special-effects movies made before computers took over still look convincing" That was why I said 2001 in response to Martin 2001 for reasons you stated as well as others is not a good example as far as Z-film alteration is concerned Kubrick is my favorite director by far and 2001 is one of my top 5 films ever, the special effects are stunningly beautiful for a film made before computers and CGI My grandpa saw 2001 in theater in Los Angeles, he told me that he felt like he was dreaming about seeing the film because the special effects had him mezzmerized He had never seen a film like that before Yeah, that ending (even without acid) is quite a ride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 (edited) I already told you, grab your copy of TGZFH (you told me you got a copy from Tink) and read Why would I waste my time scanning the pages and posting them when you can satisfy yourself at home? WHY? WHY? Because you made a claim and you need to back it up. You think I'm the only one reading this thread? Which artifacts? Your claims...your proofs. Man up deano. Or are you somehow afraid to post Whites goofy stuff? Edited August 1, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 You think I'm the only one reading this thread? Your the only one asking me to post scans, why would I do that when you have what I would post in your home? 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