Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is this expected on the ORIGINAL Z film?


Recommended Posts

As I look thru each and every frame of the Z film I see the black lines that separates the intersprocket images from the "above and below the sprocket hole" images...

These "holes" are the sprocket holes themselves and should not contain any photographic information - they're holes, right?

So why do these black separation lines change size as well as appear to extend INTO the sprocket holes...

this shouldn't be, should it?

DJ

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi David,

As I put together those "ghost panel" images, I have the answer for you. (From New York, of all places!)

The MPI images that were my source material did not extend far beyond the top and bottom of each frame. Consequently, there are parts of the sprocket holes not actually shown.

My programs automagically "pasted" the frames back together into a continuous film as best as they could. The result is a sequence of rectangles with horizontal gaps between them.

After "cookie-cutting" out around the "ghost panel" areas, the black gaps through the sprocket holes were visually distracting, so I got my program to fill in the interior part that is generally guaranteed to be within the hole (i.e. I didn't want to destroy any hole edge pixels, so avoided the edges).

Hope that helps clear up the confusion.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I look thru each and every frame of the Z film I see the black lines that separates the intersprocket images from the "above and below the sprocket hole" images...

These "holes" are the sprocket holes themselves and should not contain any photographic information - they're holes, right?

So why do these black separation lines change size as well as appear to extend INTO the sprocket holes...

this shouldn't be, should it?

DJ

David

It may have been part of the punching process when I enlarge it shows a colour running right into the black stripe right along the edge not seen on a small copy and certainly not at speed.The blackstripe does not extend into the hole.

sprockethole.png

Sorry was typing at the same time as John, I think I will go with Johns explanation

Ian

Edited by Ian Kingsbury
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi David,

I sent John your post link and images about 15 minutes ago and I see he has already replied. Thanks John.

No worries mate. Makes it easier when I'm only a few hours' time zone difference from you, instead of the wrong side of the planet. ;)

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi David,

As I put together those "ghost panel" images, I have the answer for you. (From New York, of all places!)

The MPI images that were my source material did not extend far beyond the top and bottom of each frame. Consequently, there are parts of the sprocket holes not actually shown.

My programs automagically "pasted" the frames back together into a continuous film as best as they could. The result is a sequence of rectangles with horizontal gaps between them.

After "cookie-cutting" out around the "ghost panel" areas, the black gaps through the sprocket holes were visually distracting, so I got my program to fill in the interior part that is generally guaranteed to be within the hole (i.e. I didn't want to destroy any hole edge pixels, so avoided the edges).

Hope that helps clear up the confusion.

John

Indeed that does John, thanks...

Is that also why we have such a difference between the BLACK bordered frames and the BLUE where the image in the upper and lower sprocket areas is triangular rather than full flush left?

One other question/comment... in one of your presentations you repeatedly mention the bystanders not moving or reacting to the limo as it passes Frames 133-220 - do you still feel the same way about that?

After I stabilized the sequence there are a number of "changes" that occur including clapping, head movements, leg movements that seem perfectly consistent - I am not saying that these people could not have been made into a matte that allowed the limo to be put in the correct positions as it needed to be... but I got the impression from your presentation that you assumed they were a static image...

Thanks so much for your work on these frames and your assistance to us struggling part-time researchers...

Finally, the idea of manipulating the original into an acceptable copy via addition/deletion of frames and matte processes before it goes to LIFE saturday - with the 3 copies made at NPIC - and the mathematics of the frames as proved by Chris' MATH threads - seems the most plausible of scenarios. So not so much a second film as much as the original made into what it needed to be.

Thoughts?

DJ

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi David,

Not much time to answer all your questions right now, but in brief:

the stabilised bystanders can be seen on one of the clips on my website. They move slightly but their bodies don't move as the President passes -- unlike the photos we have. There's animation going on but it's very minimal.

The blue (2002) frames had a mask overlaid. I removed it for the 2006 version ("black border").

John

Indeed that does John, thanks...

Is that also why we have such a difference between the BLACK bordered frames and the BLUE where the image in the upper and lower sprocket areas is triangular rather than full flush left?

One other question/comment... in one of your presentations you repeatedly mention the bystanders not moving or reacting to the limo as it passes Frames 133-220 - do you still feel the same way about that?

After I stabilized the sequence there are a number of "changes" that occur including clapping, head movements, leg movements that seem perfectly consistent - I am not saying that these people could not have been made into a matte that allowed the limo to be put in the correct positions as it needed to be... but I got the impression from your presentation that you assumed they were a static image...

Thanks so much for your work on these frames and your assistance to us struggling part-time researchers...

Finally, the idea of manipulating the original into an acceptable copy via addition/deletion of frames and matte processes before it goes to LIFE saturday - with the 3 copies made at NPIC - and the mathematics of the frames as proved by Chris' MATH threads - seems the most plausible of scenarios. So not so much a second film as much as the original made into what it needed to be.

Thoughts?

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, thanks John...

The bodies don't move very much at all, you are correct... yet there is movement and it does appear random

I hope we agree that it does not appear we are looking at a static image - just one with very little movement

I'd venture to say that there was not much movement along Houston either as the limo passed... some clapping, slight head movements and little else... so I was never really sure what you were trying to reinterate when you mention these people hardly moving...

I had another question about the film as well... when you can get to it...

please excuse me if we've been over this before... there is a periodic flash of a white identification type stripe along the left side of the film...

How is it that the intersprocket image can be seen either behind or on top of this white area?

Wouldn't that ID stamped into the white area preclude an image from being seen there?

thanks

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No worries David. Yes, I've been adamant from the time I started processing the bystanders in 2002 or so and Jack White noted the "frozen" bystanders that it is definitely not a static image, just that many of them don't react or move their bodies much when the President passes. It's almost like the pilot film bystanders were just pasted in and their hands animated. (I.e. it's not physical proof of anything, only circumstantial)

The light from the edge printer will be superposed with that of the exposures, so there's no reason why they can't both be shown as you describe.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi David,

As I put together those "ghost panel" images, I have the answer for you. (From New York, of all places!)

The MPI images that were my source material did not extend far beyond the top and bottom of each frame. Consequently, there are parts of the sprocket holes not actually shown.

My programs automagically "pasted" the frames back together into a continuous film as best as they could. The result is a sequence of rectangles with horizontal gaps between them.

After "cookie-cutting" out around the "ghost panel" areas, the black gaps through the sprocket holes were visually distracting, so I got my program to fill in the interior part that is generally guaranteed to be within the hole (i.e. I didn't want to destroy any hole edge pixels, so avoided the edges).

Hope that helps clear up the confusion.

John

Indeed that does John, thanks...

Is that also why we have such a difference between the BLACK bordered frames and the BLUE where the image in the upper and lower sprocket areas is triangular rather than full flush left?

One other question/comment... in one of your presentations you repeatedly mention the bystanders not moving or reacting to the limo as it passes Frames 133-220 - do you still feel the same way about that?

After I stabilized the sequence there are a number of "changes" that occur including clapping, head movements, leg movements that seem perfectly consistent - I am not saying that these people could not have been made into a matte that allowed the limo to be put in the correct positions as it needed to be... but I got the impression from your presentation that you assumed they were a static image...

Thanks so much for your work on these frames and your assistance to us struggling part-time researchers...

Finally, the idea of manipulating the original into an acceptable copy via addition/deletion of frames and matte processes before it goes to LIFE saturday - with the 3 copies made at NPIC - and the mathematics of the frames as proved by Chris' MATH threads - seems the most plausible of scenarios. So not so much a second film as much as the original made into what it needed to be.

Thoughts?

DJ

David,

Throw the 06-17fps file onto Firefox and it should play at 17 FPS.

Take a look at the clapping speed in the foreground.

Also, notice the american flag on the limo and why it doesn't move from 133 to approx 166.

chris

P.S. Starting at approx frame 161, the bottom ghost image is most distinguishable.

06-17fps.gif

161-184-Stabilized.gif

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had another question about the film as well... when you can get to it...

please excuse me if we've been over this before... there is a periodic flash of a white identification type stripe along the left side of the film...

How is it that the intersprocket image can be seen either behind or on top of this white area?

Wouldn't that ID stamped into the white area preclude an image from being seen there?

thanks

DJ

That strip along the left edge is "edge print" which tells the type of film it is along with other identifying data. That was exposed on the film at the factory before being shipped out for sale. During exposure in the user's camera, anything spilling onto that edge from the scene being filmed becomes a double-exposure with the edge print. There's no "behind" when you double-expose film. The light falling on the film is cumulative, whether it's in the normal image area or in the edge print area. A double-exposure is the same no matter where it happens on a piece of film. The images are mixed together. Only an exposure to almost white or fully white would keep any other image from possibly appearing. In other words, if enough light from any exposure blows out all further ability to show detail, no other exposures will create an image - the film has accepted all the light it can for that spot on the film. Each exposure makes the spot on the film whiter/lighter until it can't change any more.

There are some slight oddities in the way the edge print appears on that film compared to the few thousand feet of 8mm Kodachrome film I own going back in time much before 1963. Possibly the most important one is that none of my Kodachrome film (which was developed by Kodak, of course, and most if not all in Dallas) has any edge print from processing to show the plant location (such as "D" for Dallas as Zavada claims was done).

I hope that helps clear some of this up for you.

-----------------------------------------------------

Greg, let me know if I can add anything more. I haven't rec'd any email notices of replies here on the forum before even though I tried to set my preferences to send them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had another question about the film as well... when you can get to it...

please excuse me if we've been over this before... there is a periodic flash of a white identification type stripe along the left side of the film...

How is it that the intersprocket image can be seen either behind or on top of this white area?

Wouldn't that ID stamped into the white area preclude an image from being seen there?

thanks

DJ

That strip along the left edge is "edge print" which tells the type of film it is along with other identifying data. That was exposed on the film at the factory before being shipped out for sale. During exposure in the user's camera, anything spilling onto that edge from the scene being filmed becomes a double-exposure with the edge print. There's no "behind" when you double-expose film. The light falling on the film is cumulative, whether it's in the normal image area or in the edge print area. A double-exposure is the same no matter where it happens on a piece of film. The images are mixed together. Only an exposure to almost white or fully white would keep any other image from possibly appearing. In other words, if enough light from any exposure blows out all further ability to show detail, no other exposures will create an image - the film has accepted all the light it can for that spot on the film. Each exposure makes the spot on the film whiter/lighter until it can't change any more.

There are some slight oddities in the way the edge print appears on that film compared to the few thousand feet of 8mm Kodachrome film I own going back in time much before 1963. Possibly the most important one is that none of my Kodachrome film (which was developed by Kodak, of course, and most if not all in Dallas) has any edge print from processing to show the plant location (such as "D" for Dallas as Zavada claims was done).

I hope that helps clear some of this up for you.

-----------------------------------------------------

Greg, let me know if I can add anything more. I haven't rec'd any email notices of replies here on the forum before even though I tried to set my preferences to send them.

I asked Roland Zavada a few years back if KODAK could manufacture double 8mm film with NO edge data. His answer, YES.

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, here's a fun question for you all:

What's going up the back of the woman in the short dark grey skirt about four to the right of the lamp post before frame 100 in the following?

John

(in Silicon Valley this fine evening)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, here's a fun question for you all:

What's going up the back of the woman in the short dark grey skirt about four to the right of the lamp post before frame 100 in the following?

John

(in Silicon Valley this fine evening)

John...I give up. You will have to tell us.

Jack

post-667-061420700 1300765559_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...