Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate?

[Jerry Logan]

Thanks Jerry,

Did you ever get a chance to look at this thread?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16361&view=findpost&p=200540

Instead of extracting frames from a film shot at 18 FPS, would the "increase in speed" aspect be more difficult to decipher, if it was originally shot at 48FPS, with frames extracted from that?

chris

Chris,

That's a very interesting idea and I'm going to have to think about it for a while.

My immediate reaction (and it's definitely open to revision) is that is that a 48 fps film from Zapruder's camera would have been shot at a 1/100 sec shutter speed as opposed to a 1/36 sec shutter speed at 18 fps. It seems to me that there's too much motion blur in the Zapruder frames for the relatively short 1/100 shutter speed.

As I said, it's a very interesting thought - and an idea that can actually be tested! Since you're not really concerned about emulsion characteristics or ghost images it would be easy to run some film through a 414PD at 48 fps and see if you can make a plausible 18 fps movie by selectively and periodically deleting frames. Obviously you'd have to set it up right with a moving subject and objects/people moving in the background. (Please - no sleeping cats:>). I suspect it might be impossible to make it look right but it's an easy test and would make a powerful demonstration if you could pull it off.

More later.

Best to you,

Jerry

Jerry and all,

The best I can do is footage from my digital camera.

If you're interested in what the difference looks like, the links are supplied below.

A brief description:

All 3 are from the same footage.

It was shot at 30FPS.

I then reduced the FPS to 15 for all of them.

The one labeled ORIG is 30FPS to 15FPS.

The next one labeled ORIG -1 has every other frame removed. So it consists of frames 1,3,5,7 etc etc.

The last one labeled ORIG -2 has every other 2 removed. This consists of frames 1,4,7,10 etc, etc.

After looking at these, take a look at the cycle speeds again, using the damaged frames (157 and 207) as the speed increase markers. http://98.155.4.83:8400/57A42/Cycles.flv

thanks,

chris

http://98.155.4.83:8400/23854/ORIG.flv

http://98.155.4.83:8400/00E51/ORIG_-1.flv

http://98.155.4.83:8400/94C8D/ORIG_-2.flv

Chris,

I'm definitely not rejecting your idea. It's very suggestive and deserves some serious thought.

I have three gut reactions that may or may not be true and could possibly be overcome by other adjustments.

First, removing every other frame or every 2nd and 3rd frame is the easy case. It seems to me that an altered film would need to be more lumpy - as Jim noted previously, it seems like what someone would want to eliminate would probably be longer than 1/24th of a second duration.

Second, it seems like removing frames speeds up the apparent motion. Wouldn't the limousine have to have been moving really, really slowly to to have every one or two frames removed and still look as slow as it does in real time?

Third, in relation to the motorcycles speeding up after the splices - don't they speed up in relation to the other objects in the frame - so their increased speed, for instance, shows them advancing on the limousine? If the increase in speed were due only to deleted frames then it doesn't seem to me they would be closing the distance - the limousine and motorcycles would appear to move faster equally.

I repeat, just some quick reactions for your thoughts. I'm really gonna have to puzzle over this one.

Best to you,

Jerry

Jerry,

I'm not necessarily saying that this is the exact process that was used. Either 1 or 2 frames at a time.

I just introduced the idea so a comparison could ensue.

When I asked about the speed of the motorcycles, I should have been more descriptive.

Actually, I should have broken the cycle clip into distinct parts.

What I'm seeing is a very noticeable speed increase in the panning and inner frame (all elements) movements between the first part and the last.

The two gifs running side by side, will give you a better ideal of what I'm describing.

Both gifs are set with a .06sec delay between frames.

When played back in Quicktime Pro, this equates to 18FPS.

Or, play them in 2 separate browser windows simultaneously.

chris

http://98.155.4.83:8400/95FBB/2A.gif

http://98.155.4.83:8400/8317A/3A.gif

Chris,

That's very interesting - I'm going to study this for a while.

In the mean time, what do you make of Apron Man's clap rate in 3A?

Does that look natural to you?

Best,

Jerry

[Chris Davidson]

Jerry,

Apron Man looks like he is clapping quickly.

The gentleman next to Apron Mans "clapping speed" looks out of this world.

Let me extend this part of the film, so there are more frames to view.

Hopefully, there is more clapping provided.

Give me a little time to put it together.

thanks,

chris

[Craig Lamson]

Jerry,

I'm not necessarily saying that this is the exact process that was used. Either 1 or 2 frames at a time.

I just introduced the idea so a comparison could ensue.

When I asked about the speed of the motorcycles, I should have been more descriptive.

Actually, I should have broken the cycle clip into distinct parts.

What I'm seeing is a very noticeable speed increase in the panning and inner frame (all elements) movements between the first part and the last.

The two gifs running side by side, will give you a better ideal of what I'm describing.

Both gifs are set with a .06sec delay between frames.

When played back in Quicktime Pro, this equates to 18FPS.

Or, play them in 2 separate browser windows simultaneously.

chris

http://98.155.4.83:8400/95FBB/2A.gif

http://98.155.4.83:8400/8317A/3A.gif

I've not looked at the files yet Chris but the pan rate must increase as the limo moves towards Z. That's a natural occurance for the viewing angles involved. Also it should appear that things move faster, interframe, as the action moves closer to Z. Again all natural.

This should be very easy to test if someone was so inclined.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Chris Davidson]

Craig,

I'll do that with some of my pedestal footage.

Jerry,

Here is a little bit more of Apron Man and guest.

chris

http://98.155.4.83:8400/B12AB/4A.gif

[Chris Davidson]

Thanks Craig,

You are absolutely correct.

Here is comparison footage (succeeding posts) I took with a digital camera.

I used this clip, instead of results from my B/H 414 material, for quality purposes only. (If interested, I can supply the B/H results, but it's just a confirmation of the others).

Jerry,

You can stop pondering on this one, if you haven't already.

Something else I did notice, which may or may not be of interest, is the camera movement just as JFK comes out from behind the sign.

The elevation drop and blurred frame at 227.

chris

[Chris Davidson]

Comparison movie clips.

[John Dolva]

fwiw Z panned, and adjusted throughout the film (he was looking through the viewfinder, not the camera lens at one zoom setting.), one would expect a regular pan/drop and a wider panorama shows this stepping, but this doesn't negate that the splicing there probably removed one or more split frames. The irregular lengthening of the Limo is one indicator that the splicing involved at least one frame destruction, or perhaps two into one.

[Jerry Logan]

Thanks Craig,

You are absolutely correct.

Here is comparison footage (succeeding posts) I took with a digital camera.

I used this clip, instead of results from my B/H 414 material, for quality purposes only. (If interested, I can supply the B/H results, but it's just a confirmation of the others).

Jerry,

You can stop pondering on this one, if you haven't already.

Something else I did notice, which may or may not be of interest, is the camera movement just as JFK comes out from behind the sign.

The elevation drop and blurred frame at 227.

chris

Chris,

I'm still pondering!

Craig is surely right about the change in panning angles and the apparent motion of the limousine and motorcycles relative to inter-frame background objects.

However, I'm still puzzled by the clapping - maybe AMC was just a fast clapper...or.....?

Is there any chance for an enlarged stabilized view? Don't bother if you're working on something more interesting - it's just kind of a personal question for me at this point.

Best to you,

Jerry

Also, Herbert Blenner noticed what he thought was a speed anomaly involving the arm of the man directly behind AMC on Houston Street 223, 224, 225. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Edited August 17, 2010 by Jerry Logan

[Chris Davidson]

Jerry,

That's not a problem.

Would you like me to use this version or switch back to MPI's?

No thought's on the background yet.

I'll slow that down and see how it looks.

A little time needed.

chris

[Jerry Logan]

Jerry,

That's not a problem.

Would you like me to use this version or switch back to MPI's?

No thought's on the background yet.

I'll slow that down and see how it looks.

A little time needed.

chris

Chris,

Many thanks. Whichever and whenever is easiest for you - but I do find your recent version sharper than MPI.

Here's the guy Herbert noticed - Herbert has problems with what appears to be the man's right arm.

Best,

Jerry

[Bernie Laverick]

Monk...beware of snake oil salesmen.

Noted!

Thank you, my friend...I will.

Oh dear! Have I been had?

You're too trusting Bernie......

No Bernie, no....don't go tribal on me. I'm a lawyer. My natural inclination is to ask questions and probe for weaknesses.

All I did was ask Greg a question he can't seem to answer - "...exactly how did your film professionals think "There it Is" addressed...the issues of grain structure, contrast mismatching, and image structure degradation in duplicating Kodachrome II color film?"

Does that makes me part of the suppression apparatus?

Jerry

Hi Jerry

No it doesn’t necessarily make you a ‘part’ of anything. I just get quite suspicious when members jump on a perfectly innocuous observation that states that at the dawn of cinematography the technical ability to alter reality existed. It really doesn’t even need saying; it is such an obvious truism. So why would anyone passionately argue against that? Unless, of course like Craig Lamson, Len Colby et al there is a ‘hidden’ agenda, and a fear of where that may lead.

This thread is like a touchstone. And you all scrambled to touch it!

The 1928 film IMO is quite a sophisticated piece of work. It proves that 30 odd years before the event the manipulation of film was already at quite a high standard. Never mind that the techniques bear no resemblance to what may have happened, or what is being proposed; that isn’t the point.

I haven't read any of your other posts on this forum and consequently don't know where you stand regarding the whole picture. I don't know whether you believe there was a conspiracy but just don't believe the Z film was altered. Fair enough; I have no hostility to that position whatsoever. Maybe more debate and an honest appraisal of other people's position may change that. Maybe not.

But on this post at least your fellow travelers are Craig Lamson and Len Colby and I know only too well exactly where they stand.

[Chris Davidson]

Jerry,

That's not a problem.

Would you like me to use this version or switch back to MPI's?

No thought's on the background yet.

I'll slow that down and see how it looks.

A little time needed.

chris

Chris,

Many thanks. Whichever and whenever is easiest for you - but I do find your recent version sharper than MPI.

Here's the guy Herbert noticed - Herbert has problems with what appears to be the man's right arm.

Best,

Jerry

Jerry,

Enlarged 300%, running at approx 18 FPS.

chris

[Jack White]

Good work, as usual, Chris.

Something I think is never considered is that the original film used in fabrication MAY have been

shot IN SLOW MOTION using 16mm, giving fabricators much more material to work with in manipulating

frames...i.e., 48 fps to reduce to 16 (or fudge it to 18.3).

Chris...have you ever considered that possibility?

Jack

[Chris Davidson]

Good work, as usual, Chris.

Something I think is never considered is that the original film used in fabrication MAY have been

shot IN SLOW MOTION using 16mm, giving fabricators much more material to work with in manipulating

frames...i.e., 48 fps to reduce to 16 (or fudge it to 18.3).

Chris...have you ever considered that possibility?

Jack

Thanks Jack,

Yes, I brought up a similar thought in this topic a little while ago: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16374&view=findpost&p=201602

You probably just missed it.

Jerry has pointed out that the clapping speed of Apron Man and his friend appear to be quite rapid.

He wanted a larger view of them.

I am waiting to hear what his thoughts are.

chris

[Jerry Logan]

Good work, as usual, Chris.

Something I think is never considered is that the original film used in fabrication MAY have been

shot IN SLOW MOTION using 16mm, giving fabricators much more material to work with in manipulating

frames...i.e., 48 fps to reduce to 16 (or fudge it to 18.3).

Chris...have you ever considered that possibility?

Jack

Thanks Jack,

Yes, I brought up a similar thought in this topic a little while ago: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16374&view=findpost&p=201602

You probably just missed it.

Jerry has pointed out that the clapping speed of Apron Man and his friend appear to be quite rapid.

He wanted a larger view of them.

I am waiting to hear what his thoughts are.

chris

Jeez Chris - I don't know. I can get myself to clap that quickly but it's not very natural. And the action on Houston street looks very odd.

Maybe the speed of the passing cars on Houston or a motorcycle? What are your thoughts?

Best,

Jerry

Thanks for the stabilization! If Jack and I agree you know it's got to be true. Nice work.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Jerry Logan