Chris Davidson Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 If the Stemmon's sign top edge (blue line) creates a shield between foreground and background objects, how is it possible for the cycle fender to appear on the backside of the sign? Also, the upper ghost image area (just below the red line) appears to include the bottom edge of the sign. This is at an approx 4.5 degree angle. Shouldn't this be level in accordance with the top of the sign? thanks, chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 If the Stemmon's sign top edge (blue line) creates a shield between foreground and background objects, how is it possible for the cycle fender to appear on the backside of the sign? Also, the upper ghost image area (just below the red line) appears to include the bottom edge of the sign. This is at an approx 4.5 degree angle. Shouldn't this be level in accordance with the top of the sign? thanks, chris Chris...this looks very significant. You ought to run it by Costella. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 (edited) If the Stemmon's sign top edge (blue line) creates a shield between foreground and background objects, how is it possible for the cycle fender to appear on the backside of the sign? Also, the upper ghost image area (just below the red line) appears to include the bottom edge of the sign. This is at an approx 4.5 degree angle. Shouldn't this be level in accordance with the top of the sign? thanks, chris Nothing unusual about the MC. It's just specular highlights that excited the surrounding film grains and exposed them,"eating" away the sign. I see this all the time in my work. I can post examples of this if you like. The sign, the ONLY way the top and bottom edges of the sign can be parallel is is they were photographed EXACTLY and directly square with the camera. Very easy to test for those so inclined. Edited August 23, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Chris...this looks very significant. You ought to run it by Costella. Jack LOL! This is photo 101 stuff and the "great" Jack White fails photo 101...priceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Nothing unusual about the MC. It's just specular highlights that excited the surrounding film grains and exposed them,"eating" away the sign. I see this all the time in my work. I can post examples of this if you like. Please do so. Lets start with 216 first. You can see this process in action on both the Queen Mary and the JFK limo. Notice how the specular highlights from the windshield frames excite the surrounding film grains, expose them, and see this expanded highlight "eat away" the surrounding darker tones. Did they not teach you this stufff in "film school" ? You need more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Please do so. Just to complete this....notice the specular on the rim eating away the tire.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 (edited) You know Craig, this is why so many people are put off by you. You make a simple offer of evidence. I ask you to present what you offered. You don't and then you make a snide and cheap remark about me. When in fact, all I did was take you up on your original offer. Not a good way to win converts to your cause or influence people. You need to look in the mirror jimbo....your slip is showing.... Beside, you ASSUME I'm trying to make converts or influence people. I don't give a fig about either. People need to check this stuff for themself. I just offer tools. They can decide what to do with them. Edited August 23, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Harris Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 (edited) If the Stemmon's sign top edge (blue line) creates a shield between foreground and background objects, how is it possible for the cycle fender to appear on the backside of the sign? Also, the upper ghost image area (just below the red line) appears to include the bottom edge of the sign. This is at an approx 4.5 degree angle. Shouldn't this be level in accordance with the top of the sign? thanks, chris Throughout the Zapruder film, white or shiny objects often seemed to be much larger than they really were, due to the glare of the sun. For example, look at the grill of the limousine in frame 165. Notice that the glare extends well above the top of the grill. This false enlargement of the object occurs in the camera which was not capable of handling that much light, not in the real world. So, the edges of the distortion can overlap other objects in the photo, even if they are between the camera and the object. Edited August 24, 2010 by Robert Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 Everyone has missed Chris' point...it had to do with the image in the intersprocket area, not the bleed onto the top of the sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 (edited) Everyone has missed Chris' point...it had to do with the image in the intersprocket area, not the bleed onto the top of the sign. No Jack..YOU seemed to have missed part of the post. "If the Stemmon's sign top edge (blue line) creates a shield between foreground and background objects, how is it possible for the cycle fender to appear on the backside of the sign?" Not only has the "great photo expert" Jack White failed photo 101, he also fails READING 101.... Great job there Jack. Besides the question of the bottom edge of the sign as seen in the ghost image is also a non issue. Chris gets a break, he is just learning. You on the other hand, should be well aware of the issue and why it is what it is. You are not. Your photographic ignorance is showing once again. Edited August 24, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Harris Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 Everyone has missed Chris' point...it had to do with the image in the intersprocket area, not the bleed onto the top of the sign. This article explains the ghost images in the intersprocket area. Contrary to Marsh's boasting that he figured it all out in 5 seconds, I believe he made a phone call to Bell & Howell http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/zapruder.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 (edited) Everyone has missed Chris' point...it had to do with the image in the intersprocket area, not the bleed onto the top of the sign. This article explains the ghost images in the intersprocket area. Contrary to Marsh's boasting that he figured it all out in 5 seconds, I believe he made a phone call to Bell & Howell http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/zapruder.htm The issue is not how images are formed in the intersprocket area, but rather one about the angle of the bottom edge of the sign in relation to the top edge. Again it is nothing unusual and it can be easily tested by anyone with the desire to do so. Edited August 24, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 Just to complete this....notice the specular on the rim eating away the tire.... That's the opposite effect though, isn't it Craig? Chris was inquiring about how a background image (fender) appears to be eating away a foreground image (sign). Not the other way around. I suppose if you could show us the TIRE (background) eating away at the RIM (foreground) that would be different. I think you chose a very poor example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 (edited) Just to complete this....notice the specular on the rim eating away the tire.... That's the opposite effect though, isn't it Craig? Chris was inquiring about how a background image (fender) appears to be eating away a foreground image (sign). Not the other way around. I suppose if you could show us the TIRE (background) eating away at the RIM (foreground) that would be different. I think you chose a very poor example. No, its a PERFECT example, you just appear to not have the intelligence to understand. The emulsion of film or a digital sensor has NO CLUE if something is in front of or behind something. It's a 2d representation of a 3d scene. Why don't you get back to us when you have aqquired a clue. Edited August 24, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 (edited) Just to complete this....notice the specular on the rim eating away the tire.... That's the opposite effect though, isn't it Craig? Chris was inquiring about how a background image (fender) appears to be eating away a foreground image (sign). Not the other way around. I suppose if you could show us the TIRE (background) eating away at the RIM (foreground) that would be different. I think you chose a very poor example. I think he has a point. Geez Craig, didn't you go to photography school? But look out Greg, Lammy will insult his way out. So tell us jimmy, how does the film know? This should be priceless.... Edited August 24, 2010 by Craig Lamson 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