Chris Bristow Posted September 16, 2021 Author Share Posted September 16, 2021 14 hours ago, Chris Davidson said: Besides the same frame with/without the flower: The Life frame should have a small part of the lower sprocket hole showing even with the crop used, unless they manually filled it in. Just compare it to the layered matching frame(without the flower)beneath it, in the gif previously provided. The crop at the top of Bothun's head in Life is going to eliminate the couple's legs so no determination on that aspect. My use of the phrase "composite of two consecutive frames" doesn't exclude the removal of frames in between. It's just a description of what I'm showing at the present time. Another interesting observation. They did do something to the eliminate the sprocket hole. The ghost sprocket that sits on top of the lower sprocket hole is still slightly visible in the MPI frame. I wonder if the printer could be set to not process objects above a certain brightness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted September 17, 2021 Share Posted September 17, 2021 LIFE vs LIFE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bristow Posted September 17, 2021 Author Share Posted September 17, 2021 2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said: LIFE vs LIFE A little bit of rotation difference and a fair amount of distortion. When the flower disappears a darkening of Jackie's right arm occurs. That may be related to the disappearing flower. Nothing else is affected but her arm and the single flower. I guess it could be due to some error in the printing but it is very weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bristow Posted September 18, 2021 Author Share Posted September 18, 2021 4 hours ago, Chris Davidson said: LIFE vs LIFE Are both versions of frame 347(with and without the flower) printed in the same issue? I find no flower in the MPI version on Lightbox and no flower in the Official Archives copy. I find no similar image of that flower anywhere in the Z film. Did you take the flower image from a photo of the magazine image? I know many versions of the cover photo of 133a are taken from photographing the magazine laying on a table and that distorts it because they don't have the magazine pressed flat. Still a distortion may erase a flower but it sure isn't going to add a flower! So where that fr 347 with the flower originated from is very important. Very very strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted September 18, 2021 Share Posted September 18, 2021 5 hours ago, Chris Davidson said: LIFE vs LIFE Kudos on that. How in the world were you able to spot that tiny detail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted September 18, 2021 Share Posted September 18, 2021 1 hour ago, Chris Bristow said: Are both versions of frame 347(with and without the flower) printed in the same issue? I find no flower in the MPI version on Lightbox and no flower in the Official Archives copy. I find no similar image of that flower anywhere in the Z film. Did you take the flower image from a photo of the magazine image? I know many versions of the cover photo of 133a are taken from photographing the magazine laying on a table and that distorts it because they don't have the magazine pressed flat. Still a distortion may erase a flower but it sure isn't going to add a flower! So where that fr 347 with the flower originated from is very important. Very very strange. Yet, the MPI version is touted as the original Zapruder film. They also say/state that specifically. It wasn't on the 3rd generation National Archives edition scanned at 6K either. Why? Because none of these are original or close enough to the original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted September 18, 2021 Share Posted September 18, 2021 Try this one: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted September 18, 2021 Share Posted September 18, 2021 44 minutes ago, John Butler said: Kudos on that. How in the world were you able to spot that tiny detail? All related to research on my limo stop thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted September 18, 2021 Share Posted September 18, 2021 6 hours ago, Chris Davidson said: LIFE vs LIFE Kudos on that. How in the world were you able to spot that tiny detail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted September 18, 2021 Share Posted September 18, 2021 The editor or software is playing with me again. It or someone erased the post I was working on and replaced it with a duplicate post. I'll start again and hopefully without interference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted September 18, 2021 Share Posted September 18, 2021 (edited) I'm still trying to figure out shadows in Dealey Plaza. As nearest one can get to instantaneous is the speed of light. Sunlight strikes an object on earth and casts a shadow at the speed of light. If similar or other objects are in the same area they too should cast a shadow the same as the first object. The degree of the shadows off the object or objects from the sun should be the same. Perspective in a film or photo could change that angle, but in a group of objects the shadows should be consistent with each other. A short distance shouldn't have that much to due with changing the angles of the objects. So, consider the shadows in 3 different film frames: Consider the shadow in Z 347. The shadows have differing angles cast from the sun. In the Weigman or Couch frame from Unger the shadows of he two people walking forward are the same. In the Dorman frame below the shadows are consistent at 47°. Ignore my artwork on changing the colors of the black coats of the two ladies. Jean Hill, in WC Exhibit Hill No. 5, the one Arlen Specter classified as Top Secret, said she was across from the SW corner of the TSBD. Which would put her in this position. So, I repainted the coats of the two ladies to see what that looked like. Let's go back to the shadows. In Z frame 347 the shadows are at different degrees of angle. The people are also highlighted differently in the same landscape. You need a bright highlight in this rather dull film. You need a stronger light to reveal the President's head wound, flapping scalp fragment and all. This means you have to darken the left hand side of the figures and brighten the right hand side of the figures to make that work. That's what's evident in Chris D's example. And, that's why non-essential characters like Bothun are not lit up brightly. If you observe the Couch? and Dorman frames the shadows and highlights are consistent. Edited September 18, 2021 by John Butler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted September 18, 2021 Share Posted September 18, 2021 4 hours ago, John Butler said: I'm still trying to figure out shadows in Dealey Plaza. As nearest one can get to instantaneous is the speed of light. Sunlight strikes an object on earth and casts a shadow at the speed of light. If similar or other objects are in the same area they too should cast a shadow the same as the first object. The degree of the shadows off the object or objects from the sun should be the same. Perspective in a film or photo could change that angle, but in a group of objects the shadows should be consistent with each other. A short distance shouldn't have that much to due with changing the angles of the objects. So, consider the shadows in 3 different film frames: Consider the shadow in Z 347. The shadows have differing angles cast from the sun. In the Weigman or Couch frame from Unger the shadows of he two people walking forward are the same. In the Dorman frame below the shadows are consistent at 47°. .........omitted Let's go back to the shadows. In Z frame 347 the shadows are at different degrees of angle. The people are also highlighted differently in the same landscape. Once again shadows seem to confuse you. The three people on the left and top are all vertical. Therefore their shadows will converge in the direction of the sun. (already proven several years ago) So the shadow of the guy at the top is shallower in angle than the two guys lower down on the right. The angle of the shadow of the lower man on the left is greater than the shadow of the man just above him whose shadow angle is again greater than that of the guy who's legs we can just see at the top of the photo, proving my point. Ignore the shadow of Jackie and the guy falling over on the right. They are not necessarily vertical. p.s. it is impossible to compare photo shadows of different scenes, You would need an overall composition showing all three scenes for comparison. I omitted comments inside the quote as they do not concern the shadows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted September 18, 2021 Share Posted September 18, 2021 4 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said: Once again shadows seem to confuse you. The three people on the left and top are all vertical. Therefore their shadows will converge in the direction of the sun. (already proven several years ago) So the shadow of the guy at the top is shallower in angle than the two guys lower down on the right. The angle of the shadow of the lower man on the left is greater than the shadow of the man just above him whose shadow angle is again greater than that of the guy who's legs we can just see at the top of the photo, proving my point. Ignore the shadow of Jackie and the guy falling over on the right. They are not necessarily vertical. p.s. it is impossible to compare photo shadows of different scenes, You would need an overall composition showing all three scenes for comparison. I omitted comments inside the quote as they do not concern the shadows. Ray, I do find shadows in Dealey Plaza confusing. But, not for the reasons you mention. I rejected your notion of converging shadows back then and still do now. I can't see any converging shadows in any of the frames I used. I don't think being vertical or non-vertical has anything to do with how the sun casts shadows. We can't dismiss Jackie's arm shadow when it should be a body shadow with the greatest angle difference. And, we can't reject different angles in different films simply because they are not a panoramic. The 3 frames/films were all taken within a minute of the JFKA. The angle of the sun changed minutely in that time period. Different places, different perspectives didn't change the shadows being parallel and at the same angle in each frame except Z 347. It is not impossible to measure that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted September 18, 2021 Share Posted September 18, 2021 15 hours ago, Chris Bristow said: A little bit of rotation difference and a fair amount of distortion. When the flower disappears a darkening of Jackie's right arm occurs. That may be related to the disappearing flower. Nothing else is affected but her arm and the single flower. I guess it could be due to some error in the printing but it is very weird. Here's a different way of looking at it. Why was the same frame from two publications of Life Magazine printed at 2 different angles? In this case, a 1.3° difference. The misalignment of two curbs(red arrow)shows the difficulties involved when merging/compositing/slicing /dicing/matting/optical printing multiple frames. The bottom composite(non-Life) just confirms it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted September 18, 2021 Share Posted September 18, 2021 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said: Why was the same frame from two publications of Life Magazine printed at 2 different angles? In this case, a 1.3° difference. So, a small change in angle is significant in a photo? Thanks Chris. I think many of the graphic errors seen in the Zapruder film is due to the graphic artists being hurried in their preparations of the various films. Particularly, in the early film frames shown from LIfe. Edited September 18, 2021 by John Butler 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