Fake or real?

[Craig Lamson]

I didnt mean to type claims, I meant anomalies

Im sure you could have figured out what I meant Craig

So what are the anomolies? What are the anomolies?

Show us, Your claim, your proof.

Just show us Dean.

What's the problem?

Edited August 1, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Dean Hagerman]

I didnt mean to type claims, I meant anomalies

Im sure you could have figured out what I meant Craig

So what are the anomolies? What are the anomolies?

Show us, Your claim, your proof.

Just show us Dean.

What's the problem?

The problem is that im not going to bow down to your crazy demands to scan and post pages out of a book that YOU OWN!

Read that sentence a couple times and let it sink in

[Craig Lamson]

I didnt mean to type claims, I meant anomalies

Im sure you could have figured out what I meant Craig

So what are the anomolies? What are the anomolies?

Show us, Your claim, your proof.

Just show us Dean.

What's the problem?

The problem is that im not going to bow down to your crazy demands to scan and post pages out of a book that YOU OWN!

Read that sentence a couple times and let it sink in

Dean, do you ever look to see who is reading threads? I't not just mumbers. Lots of guests. DO YOU expect them to have hte same reference material you have? Are they supposed to run out and get it everytime YOU make some silly and open ended claim like:

"we see some of the same kinds of anomalies in the Z-film"

For starters we don't have a clue what KIND of anomolies your are talking about.

We don't have the first clue wher ein the book you claim these unkonwn anomolies reside.

We can't read your mind, not that I'm sure there is much to read anyways, but I digress.

You made a claim. The forum rules ask that you back up your claims.

Just show us the anomolies you THINK you see in the Zap film that are the same kind of anomolies found in Mary Poppins.

Why are you not willing to do this?

Are you afraid to show the exact comparisons?

Remember, its YOUR claim, your burden of proof. Is that concept too hard for you to understand?

[Dean Hagerman]

Are you afraid to show the exact comparisons?

Of course im afraid to show exact comparisons because I never claimed exact comparisons

If we keep going at this in a week from now your going to be quoting me as saying that the people who worked on Mary Poppins are the same ones that worked on the Z-film, or that I claimed to have witnessed Julie Andrews in bed with Dick Van Dyke

The longer this kind of thread goes on the more ludicrous your demands and quotes become

[Craig Lamson]

The longer this kind of thread goes on the more ludicrous your demands and quotes become

So in other words you made a TOTALLY baseless and stupid claim that you can't come close to proving. Of course, thats not news when it comes to deano.

Thats fine with me, You are the one looking silly and very afraid.

[Dean Hagerman]

Thats fine with me, You are the one looking silly and very afraid.

I dont think so, and im sure 99% of the members and guests dont think so either Craig

[Craig Lamson]

I dont think so, and im sure 99% of the members and guests dont think so either Craig

Ok deano, if NOT being able to even SHOW what your claim is based on is your idea of good research..so be it.

I'll just file this a away for future reference, under deano is a gasbag....right next to the bushes...

Edited August 2, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[John Dolva]

Thanks Craig. I was just trying to think of an explanation of the apparent differing vanishing points. I only used a couple of straight edges against the screen. The camera moving struck me as one reason. A mis alignment an other, (mine or yours), of the lower left corner couch, or perhaps being a mobile home there are things that always will not be square. You've done a fine job of compositing imo, as well as the lighting of course. That was another matter, I was going to comment on the lights. There seemed something unreal about them but I couldn't pin it down (light and shadow and reflections). Your explanation, linked to, seems to clear that up. TY

[Craig Lamson]

Thanks Craig. I was just trying to think of an explanation of the apparent differing vanishing points. I only used a couple of straight edges against the screen. The camera moving struck me as one reason. A mis alignment an other, (mine or yours), of the lower left corner couch, or perhaps being a mobile home there are things that always will not be square. You've done a fine job of compositing imo, as well as the lighting of course. That was another matter, I was going to comment on the lights. There seemed something unreal about them but I couldn't pin it down (light and shadow and reflections). Your explanation, linked to, seems to clear that up. TY

The shot is in single point perspective. I really like shooting in SPP. In this shot the perspective point in the distance is NOT the center of the frame but it is offset to the left. Thats that is screwing you up visually. I tend to do this, to shake it up a bit, rather than putting the perspective point in the cneter.

Single point perspective need both the horizontals and the verticals to be parallel. In the old days (2000) these were shot on a view camer which allowed you to adjust the film plane apart from the lens axis. In other words I could place the camera to the left of the centerline, and aim the lens to the right (or shift it the image circle was large enough) and adjust the film plane by itself so that both the horizontals and verticals were all parallel with each other.

Today the view camera is dead with digital for this kind of work unless you want to spend nearly $50K to $100K. Beyond my reach and my customers would not pay the increase in costs for such a system.

So I shoot with a fixed lens camera, a Canon 1dsMKIII or a Canon 5dMKII. Lenses are mostly zooms these days and they have faults view camera lenses mostly did not. They must be corrected for chromic abberation, barrel or pincushion distortion, vingnetting and the camera anti aliasing filter countered with deconvolution using computer software.

Then you take the processed image and correct the perspective in Photoshop to bring all the horizontal lines (if doing SPP) and verticals to parallel using the perspective, distort or skew commands. Youy do in softare what was once doen in camera my simply changing the position of hte film plane.

Sorry...Long story!

Edited August 2, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[John Dolva]

Yes, I can see that offset. One can also percieve it from the reflection points. In a way one can sense a logic that in a way is ''twisted'', giving it your stamp or signature rather cleverly if I understand your explanation. These sort of preferences makes it possible to say that such and such an image is by whoever. I saw this fairly directly but couldn't understand why. I wondered whether it might be a crop, but not so.. I located it (the vanishing point) at about the lower left corner of the gridded illuminated ''square'' on the back wallabove the bed. From this, all assumed straight lines converge. : except for those of the left sofa. They seem to converge slightly straight up above this. ???

Long explanations with lots of keywords to follow up are great imo. The way I figure it, the left couch is indeed differently oriented, I'm mistaken about the observation, I don't understand perspective, or you have in merging these four images and hor ver corrected compromised with regards to the couch. Or something else. ???

edit:typo

Edited August 2, 2010 by John Dolva

[Craig Lamson]

Yes, I can see that offset. One can also percieve it from the reflection points. In a way one can sense a logic that in a way is ''twisted'', giving it your stamp or signature rather cleverly if I understand your explanation. These sort of preferences makes it possible to say that such and such an image is by whoever. I saw this fairly directly but couldn't understand why. I wondered whether it might be a crop, but not so.. I located it (the vanishing point) at about the lower left corner of the gridded illuminated ''square'' on the back wallabove the bed. From this, all assumed straight lines converge. : except for those of the left sofa. They seem to converge slightly straight up above this. ???

Long explanations with lots of keywords to follow up are great imo. The way I figure it, the left couch is indeed differently oriented, I'm mistaken about the observation, I don't understand perspective, or you have in merging these four images and hor ver corrected compromised with regards to the couch. Or something else. ???

edit:typo

There are a couple of things happening on the left side that might explain this.

First is the countertop. It is not straight. It angles outwards as it gets closer to the mirror.

Second, the seat of the left sofa is alos not straight. It "dips in" at the center. The cushion at the far arm is wider than it is at the split between the cushions.

These both are misleading.

[John Dolva]

Ok so it's just a feature of a structural assymmetry. I suppose one could compare it to Marilyn Monroes mole in the sense that all true beauty must have a flaw. Total symmetry doesn't please the human mind. It in itself is an unreality. Something ''alien'' perhaps. Anyway, interesting study.