Dean Hagerman Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Im positive that the 1928 film has had many frames removed How do you know? Just making crap up from thin air again? So no frames were removed from that film? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Im positive that the 1928 film has had many frames removed How do you know? Just making crap up from thin air again? So no frames were removed from that film? You tell me...thats your claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Im positive that the 1928 film has had many frames removed How do you know? Just making crap up from thin air again? So no frames were removed from that film? You tell me...thats your claim. Im asking you, do you think no frames were removed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Im positive that the 1928 film has had many frames removed How do you know? Just making crap up from thin air again? So no frames were removed from that film? You tell me...thats your claim. Im asking you, do you think no frames were removed? From the master of that film....no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Im positive that the 1928 film has had many frames removed How do you know? Just making crap up from thin air again? So no frames were removed from that film? You tell me...thats your claim. Im asking you, do you think no frames were removed? From the master of that film....no Why do you think that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 A traveling matte is when you can actually move that background to make it seem like its in motion. Say for example, when the first spaceships arrive at Devil's Tower in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Very difficult to do. Although they did do it well. But recall, this is 1976. With a budget of 18 million dollars. And Trumbull and several other talented people, are working in front projection. Which was rarely used at the time and is a difficult process. My favorite Matte work in a film is by far from "Ghostbusters" This Youtube clip kind of sucks to see the Matte work, but here it is But they created a 360 degree Matte of New York City all around the stage, the skyline looks real, with blinking lights, amazing looking buildings, as well as the changing sky, and the top of the building that they are on I am not using "Ghostbusters" as proof of alteration, just stating that I love the Matte work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted August 13, 2010 Author Share Posted August 13, 2010 FYI: Film negative format 35 mm Printed film format: 35 mm Cinematographic process: Spherical Film length 499 meters (2 reels) Aspect ratio: 1.33 : 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted August 13, 2010 Author Share Posted August 13, 2010 Which means what Greg? Those are the technical specs of that film "FYI" -- in case "inquiring minds" wanted to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 (edited) Hello Chris, Using your definition of alteration it would appear that the film clip you posted is unaltered. It seems to be a simple stop frame animation where the camera stopped, the physical content of the scene is changed and the film is started to record the new physical reality. When the film is played back it appears as though a mysterious transformation has occurred in a moment but what the film doesn't show is the time interval where an assistant stepped into the scene and removed the the fake nose. It's not the film that has been altered in this instance, it's the scene that's changed. The film maker plays on your assumption that filming was uninterrupted and in real time. But no frame was altered, moved or added - that's exactly what the camera saw while it was recording. Assuming that the motorcade wasn't stopped along Elm to add or remove elements from the scene it's hard to see how stop frame animation could have played a role in the Zapruder film. Best to you, Jerry Jerry if a single frame was removed from that 1928 film then that means that its altered Im positive that the 1928 film has had many frames removed Just like the limo turn being taken out of the Z-film If a frame(s) have been removed that means the film was altered Hello Dean, I was referring to the clip Chris posted. It's obvious that clip was a stop frame animation so no part of the film was added or subtracted or changed - it was the scene which was changed between frames. I haven't commented on the entire 1928 film because I'm no expert in 1928 movie technology - although most of it looks to me like simple stop frame animation, not alteration in the sense of using composites or mattes to create images of things that didn't physically exist or happen or retouching frame content to change the images in the frame. Frankly, I find the entire thread kind of bizarre. Everyone (I think) knows that images have been retouched and composited since the very start of photography. The fact that someone in 1928 could use black and white professional negative film in a controlled studio environment to produce some limited special effects which look pretty good on youtube - that doesn't tell me anything about what's required to create a color positive 8mm film strip of a changing outdoor scene that's good enough to fool the guy who invented the film when he's examining the original with a 20x microscope. It's sort of like saying having the technology to produce a gatling gun means you can automatically produce an M16. Best to you, Jerry Edited August 13, 2010 by Jerry Logan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 No. Because you don't have any independent arguments. Really? Are you blind as well as being a photographic incompetent? Incompetent? Odd word to use. It wasn't me who removed frames and 'damaged' the Zapruder film. That was your boys! Try this one and show us why it fails. www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm Rottweilers bite at anything that moves, that's why some aggressive people buy them. Metaphorically that is your job on this forum. Bite at anything that suggests conspiracy. Trouble is Craig you really do overdo it. Clearly you don't have reading nor memory skills worth a hill of beans. I could care less about conspiracy. Oh I think you do Craig. In fact that is why you are here! I study the photographic claims and see if they are technically correct. Quite often I test and share the results. I don't ask people to believe me, I want them to test for themself and find the truth. Oh sure I stray a bit once in a while to slap aroound speculators, but its not the subject but rather the person that interests me. None of this is news. I've been open about for years. This is entertainment and sport. You have created nearly 4,000 posts on here. Why? When in your opinion nearly everyone who contributes is "ignorant" a "loony" and heaps of other childish insults. Because I ENJOY it. And this place is a target rich environment. Ther is more photographic ignorance in this place than anywhere else I have ever visited. Have you ever, through your work, convinced anyone who thought the film may have been altered that they were wrong? If I came across a Flat Earth Society Forum I can't imagine why I would want to waste my time (and 4,000 posts is a very long time) trying to correct the errors of their ways. Such ignorant people must be totally harmless and have no influence anywhere. Best leave them to it. You are not me. But its very clear that ignorance really does breed ignorance. So why do YOU persist communicating with people you obviously feel are your inferiors, and who have such "ridiculous" views? This post by you pretty much sums it up. Sport. Entertainment. LOL funny photo analysis by the the great unwashed. Heck, yhis place has it all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Hello Chris, Using your definition of alteration it would appear that the film clip you posted is unaltered. It seems to be a simple stop frame animation where the camera stopped, the physical content of the scene is changed and the film is started to record the new physical reality. When the film is played back it appears as though a mysterious transformation has occurred in a moment but what the film doesn't show is the time interval where an assistant stepped into the scene and removed the the fake nose. It's not the film that has been altered in this instance, it's the scene that's changed. The film maker plays on your assumption that filming was uninterrupted and in real time. But no frame was altered, moved or added - that's exactly what the camera saw while it was recording. Assuming that the motorcade wasn't stopped along Elm to add or remove elements from the scene it's hard to see how stop frame animation could have played a role in the Zapruder film. Best to you, Jerry Jerry if a single frame was removed from that 1928 film then that means that its altered Im positive that the 1928 film has had many frames removed Just like the limo turn being taken out of the Z-film If a frame(s) have been removed that means the film was altered Hello Dean, I was referring to the clip Chris posted. It's obvious that clip was a stop frame animation so no part of the film was added or subtracted or changed - it was the scene which was changed between frames. I haven't commented on the entire 1928 film because I'm no expert in 1928 movie technology - although most of it looks to me like simple stop frame animation, not alteration in the sense of using composites or mattes to create images of things that didn't physically exist or happen or retouching frame content to change the images in the frame. Frankly, I find the entire thread kind of bizarre. Everyone (I think) knows that images have been retouched and composited since the very start of photography. The fact that someone in 1928 could use black and white professional negative film in a controlled studio environment to produce some limited special effects which look pretty good on youtube - that doesn't tell me anything about what's required to create a color positive 8mm film strip of a changing outdoor scene that's good enough to fool the guy who invented the film when he's examining the original with a 20x microscope. It's sort of like saying having the technology to produce a gatling gun means you can automatically produce an M16. Best to you, Jerry It's sort of like saying having the technology to produce a gatling gun means you can automatically produce an M16. Precisely! Er, which came first again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 (edited) Why do you think that? Who knows. Its just baseless speculation like your original claim. And just like yours its meanningless. Edited August 13, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 (edited) Thanks for proving my point bernie. Yeat another foolish ct to add to the ever growing list of photo know nothings.... May the farce be with you. BTW, you might want to chat with Duncan... Edited August 13, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
François Carlier Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Bernie Laverick wrote : If I came across a Flat Earth Society Forum I can't imagine why I would want to waste my time (and 4,000 posts is a very long time) trying to correct the errors of their ways. Such ignorant people must be totally harmless and have no influence anywhere. Best leave them to it. Well, people who believe that the Earth is flat do so against all available evidence. They have created their own reality and they do believe it. No amount of reasonable talk can make them change their minds. Likewise, people who believe that there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination, and/or that Lee Oswald is not the only shooter, do so against all available evidence. They have created their own reality and they do believe it. No amount of reasonable talk can make them change their minds. What is very funny is that you belong to the "Kennedy conspiracy" family and you dare write that those in the "flat Earth" family are ignorant !!! What makes you think you are better than them ? In fact, you are not. You are just like them, you BELIEVE, against all evidence. Therefore, reasonable people (i.e. people who know for a fact that Lee Oswald was the sole assassin, and that the Zapruder film was never altered) should have as much consideration for you as you have for flat Earth believers ! /François Carlier/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Bernie Laverick wrote : If I came across a Flat Earth Society Forum I can't imagine why I would want to waste my time (and 4,000 posts is a very long time) trying to correct the errors of their ways. Such ignorant people must be totally harmless and have no influence anywhere. Best leave them to it. Well, people who believe that the Earth is flat do so against all available evidence. They have created their own reality and they do believe it. No amount of reasonable talk can make them change their minds. Likewise, people who believe that there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination, and/or that Lee Oswald is not the only shooter, do so against all available evidence. They have created their own reality and they do believe it. No amount of reasonable talk can make them change their minds. What is very funny is that you belong to the "Kennedy conspiracy" family and you dare write that those in the "flat Earth" family are ignorant !!! What makes you think you are better than them ? In fact, you are not. You are just like them, you BELIEVE, against all evidence. Therefore, reasonable people (i.e. people who know for a fact that Lee Oswald was the sole assassin, and that the Zapruder film was never altered) should have as much consideration for you as you have for flat Earth believers ! /François Carlier/ and you dare write that those in the "flat Earth" family are ignorant !!! What makes you think you are better than them ? In fact, you are not. You are just like them, you BELIEVE, against all evidence. Then why do you waste so much time arguing with such ridiculous dullards? I don't believe I am. But you obviously do. So what does that say about you? 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