Jump to content
The Education Forum

Swan-Song -- Math Rules


Chris Davidson
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Let's add Charles Brehm for help with some of the distance.

Tim's average true speed(2.33mph + 2.06 + 2.13) for the limo from extant z291-z317 = .174ft per frame

Starting with Z291 to z313 = 22frames

I'll use 48 frames(the reason in next post) as my real total frame count between z291-z313

.174ft per frame x 48 frames = 8.35ft

8.35ft + 2.379ft(plotting of headshot farther West down Elm, until Specter moves it that distance farther East and it's labeled as extant z313) = 10.729ft

LIsten to Brehm and count the shots starting slightly before z291.

BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paul Mandel from Life magazine Dec6, 1963 will give you an idea of the version he was viewing.

Mandel.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 842
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 8/7/2020 at 4:32 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Sorry If I wasn't more clear on what the gifs represent.

The previous two gifs concern only Glover and her jogging cohort in the background. Comparison purposes only, for what's coming up.

That which relates to the current excision of frames discussion.

 

 

Look for her running cohort among the branches:

BronsonRunningManLoop.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Paul Mandel from Life magazine Dec6, 1963 will give you an idea of the version he was viewing.

Mandel.png

 

z313 - 48 = 265 - 74 = 191 = 170 feet from ??? (Zap or TSBD?) seem slike the "from TSBD measurements"

313 - 191 = 122 frames = 90 feet (260 shot 3 minus 170 shot 2) = .738 feet/frame x 18.3 = 13.5 feet per second = 9.2 mph

What is not mentioned are the numerous other locations on which shots possibly occur. You'll see on the bottom page of notes that NPIC was just as confused as to how LIFE determined the starting frames for shots #1, & #2...  Offered are 190, 206, 213, 242, & 264... appears Mandel is describing LIFE's conclusions... 

More importantly NPIC asks:... WHY 18 FPS AND NOT 16 FPS.... the actual speed setting on the camera... which can easily switch to 48fps while filming
(see images at bottom of post)
 

The 2nd page of the NPIC notes I added gives you some idea of the "working backward to find a solution that fits" approach to FBI work which in turn directly matches the new PLAT with the Shaneyfelt frame numbers next to dots.... in a standard move... the board starts at frame 188 despite them having made such a big deal of Position A, Z161, 166, 168 & 171...

 

 

1975445619_AllNPICshots-withNPICpageshowingLIFEframesandNPICframes.thumb.jpg.c237c50a372a9059a02345cc12da8279.jpg

 

1214283210_CIA450NPICpage6-framesandphotos.jpg.34d26a812378a2882a3c173dd4b8bfaa.jpg1557143623_NPICshotlocations-howdidlifeplacethefirst2shots-18insteadof16fps.thumb.jpg.6653fc1dadaade2d3090aa3d40277e48.jpg

 

1362293339_bh-11.jpg.226de274c174299426bc1cf18ee8d6e6.jpg

355757370_bh-17.jpg.7535ecc7e2bb390862811f90388ff7ec.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/7/2020 at 4:32 PM, Chris Davidson said:

That which relates to the current excision of frames discussion

 

Did something based on what you said.....  and the results were very interesting...

I superimposed upon 298-312 / 313-327 & 328-343....  and below that I removed the last layer

Initially Toni is walking alone in the background but as you showed, adding 313 over 298 and those 2 people are in exactly the same spot

131905767_298-328superimpsed15framesatatime-Gloverandmanmeld.thumb.jpg.dafb73495db80741aec345ea9ad2a8ea.jpg

 

Here is the same scene without 313 and after....   are either of these telling you anything to solidify you ongoing work?

 

1051055222_298-312superimpsed15framesatatime-Walkingwomansameplaceasjogginman.thumb.jpg.8d3efd1dd73541f61c64d7482b7406ec.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

z313 - 48 = 265 - 74 = 191 = 170 feet from ??? (Zap or TSBD?) seem slike the "from TSBD measurements"

313 - 191 = 122 frames = 90 feet (260 shot 3 minus 170 shot 2) = .738 feet/frame x 18.3 = 13.5 feet per second = 9.2 mph

What is not mentioned are the numerous other locations on which shots possibly occur. You'll see on the bottom page of notes that NPIC was just as confused as to how LIFE determined the starting frames for shots #1, & #2...  Offered are 190, 206, 213, 242, & 264... appears Mandel is describing LIFE's conclusions... 

More importantly NPIC asks:... WHY 18 FPS AND NOT 16 FPS.... the actual speed setting on the camera... which can easily switch to 48fps while filming
(see images at bottom of post)
 

The 2nd page of the NPIC notes I added gives you some idea of the "working backward to find a solution that fits" approach to FBI work which in turn directly matches the new PLAT with the Shaneyfelt frame numbers next to dots.... in a standard move... the board starts at frame 188 despite them having made such a big deal of Position A, Z161, 166, 168 & 171...

 

 

1975445619_AllNPICshots-withNPICpageshowingLIFEframesandNPICframes.thumb.jpg.c237c50a372a9059a02345cc12da8279.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Agree that Mandel was supporting the TSBD scenario.

Even with that said, go back to the early SS/FBI plat of Dec5, 1963.

Run the 74 frames forward from where I determined Station# 3+81.3 lands and where do you end up:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22692-swan-song-math-rules/?do=findComment&comment=392129

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22692-swan-song-math-rules/?do=findComment&comment=330783

Now continue on with the 48 frames that fill approx z291-z313.

It's not necessary(imo) to implement 48fps slo-mo into the equation anymore.

The same (extra frames) result was the limo slowing down/instantaneous stopping and extra frames created by its limited speed.

Tim has shown with the mere removal of those excess frames the headturns are impossible.

"Based on 18fps as reported in Life Magazine" from graphic above has to be based on Mandel's article.

Anytime someone quotes specific frame totals, I'm all ears.

I believe it was in 1959 that the changeover from 16fps to 18fps was approved.

So, even though the 16fps designation remained on the camera's, it wasn't necessarily a reflection of it's stock speed.

P.S. "All ears" has more frame sync's to add to this recent revealation that I'm sure you'll enjoy, just hang in there.

 

 

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Here is the same scene without 313 and after....   are either of these telling you anything to solidify you ongoing work?

 

 

 

That's not what I was geting at.

If  Z, Muchmore? , Nix and Bronson were all running at the same frame rate, then the same frame removal sequence would have been in order.

But, if there was a film that was shot at a different frame rate, that would be a more difficult task to complete especially with moving objects in relationship to other moving objects.

Compare speeds of our jogging man.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22692-swan-song-math-rules/?do=findComment&comment=426317

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22692-swan-song-math-rules/?do=findComment&comment=426644

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

That's not what I was geting at.

If  Z, Muchmore? , Nix and Bronson were all running at the same frame rate, then the same frame removal sequence would have been in order.

But, if there was a film that was shot at a different frame rate, that would be a more difficult task to complete especially with moving objects in relationship to other moving objects.

Compare speeds of our jogging man.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22692-swan-song-math-rules/?do=findComment&comment=426317

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22692-swan-song-math-rules/?do=findComment&comment=426644

 

 

Now compare his jogging speed to Z's version when this is played at the correct frame rate.

A closer look will also reveal he is bringing his right leg forward initally, followed by left and back to right.

When you view Z, notice what leg is moving forward when he first enters the frame.

Besides that problem, it's a hint on what will lead to a more keyed sync point among the two films if you don't figure it out beforehand.

BronsonPedestal-Stab.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2020 at 2:16 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Itek-2.24-3.74-Comp.png

 A 18.3fps film with frames removed via a slowdown by the limo.

The following insight provided:

.3ft (3.74mph) per frame /.18ft(2.24mph) per frame = 1.66… / 1 ratio

1.66 - 1 = .66frames

4frames + .66 = 4.66 frames

3.5ft / 4.66 frames = .751ft per frame

.751 x 18.3 = 13.744ft per sec /1.47(1mph) = 9.35mph

9.35mph x (18/18.3) = 9.2mph

9.2mph = ITEK = PAYDIRT

.3 / 1.666... = .18

.66... x 1.5 =1

 

2.24mph / 7.47mph = .3 x (3.33…) = 1 whole frame

3.33 frames - 1frame = 2.33frames

18.3-2.33 frames = 16fps = PAYDIRT - Premature to assume that the speed reduction ratio translates as the same fps reduced ratio, at this time.

 

 

Let me account for the total of 1.66 frames that so prominently shows up at the ITEK bump using what's been presented so far.

Remember, I started the frame removal at extant z291 = 22 frames short of extant z313.

22 real frames x 3.3333 limo slowed frames = 73.3333 total frames

22.5 real frames x 3.333 limo slowed frames = 74.999 total frames

74.999-73.333 = 1.66.. frames = Itek match.

It's important to understand this as it will help you realize the ratio being used for frame removal along with real total frames for a specific span.

Here's further proof of this from Tim's paper in the form of total time.

4.1sec x 18.3fps = 75.03 frames

Added on edit: This is all based on +/- 1frame

Tim-4.1-Sec..png

 

 

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, David Josephs said:

 

1975445619_AllNPICshots-withNPICpageshowingLIFEframesandNPICframes.thumb.jpg.c237c50a372a9059a02345cc12da8279.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

David,

 Using the previous post and real frame count,  transpose Mandel's frame count description of his last two shots and work backwards from extant z313.

Tim's overall average of .174ft per frame x 74 frames = 12.876ft is still close enough to fulfill Brehm's distance estimate.

74 frames +/- 1 frame is an important aspect of this. More to come on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Now compare his jogging speed to Z's version when this is played at the correct frame rate.

A closer look will also reveal he is bringing his right leg forward initally, followed by left and back to right.

When you view Z, notice what leg is moving forward when he first enters the frame.

Besides that problem, it's a hint on what will lead to a more keyed sync point among the two films if you don't figure it out beforehand.

 

Glover-Z-Bronson3.gif 

 

 

 

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...