BLURRY PEOPLE WITH SHARP SHADOWS

[Matt Cloud]

14 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I tested a couple frames around frame 200, frame 312, and around frame 403. There is a few feet of footage Z took prior to the motorcade of the Chism's standing at the east pergola. But test footage would have to done on a day with similar light on a separate film roll and then developed before he could use it as a test.

"QUERY: Would such enlargement process and then reduction at crop result in "blurry people with sharp shadows," the original topic, after all, that this thread is to address?"

 I see no reason for that process to blur some objects but not others like a shadow.

You're taking "test footage" in the case of Zapruder too literally.  All I meant was that he might have done a practice shot moments before the actual shot.  Not some elaborate procedure of days before requiring similar light and then development.  

 

Where is this footage of the Chisms by Z that you refer to?

 

Enlargement blurring some objects such as people but not others such as shadows is exactly what you would expect to happen.  This is because the tonal variations in people -- skin color, clothing, etc -- are less distinct from their backgrounds than a shadow's are.  Shadows hide details after all, and therefore have less "material" in them to become blurred.  A hard edge of a shadow line remains the same whether blown up or not.  A person's face however will become fuzzy especially when/if the film stock is magnified (blow-up) past it's generally accepted limits.   If you enlarge an 8mm frame as though you were enlarging a 35mm frame, let alone a large format frame, the more prevalent grain in the smaller film is going to be magnified.  That grain is going to be most visible in lighter areas -- like faces -- and less visible in darker areas -- like shadows.  

 

There's an image here, which was from 8mm film but massively blown up.  You can see the shadow lines stay sharp. 

 

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/using-8mm-movie-camera-lens-in-enlarger.185187/

 

 

Edited May 20 by Matt Cloud

[Kevin Balch]

22 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Paul,

You're absolutely correct.

Zoomed and strangely cropped.

That's an odd shape for the StemmonsSign corner, especially since both frames were shot with the same camera, from the same location, within months of each other.

It's as if some splicing has occurred, based on the black cut lines in that area. imo

 

 

 

This photo taken within a few minutes of the assassination clearly shows the corners of the Stemmons Freeway sign were rounded.

What process could account for this and what would be gained from doing so? Was it sloppiness?

[Matt Cloud]

9 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Strangely cropped similar to what is seen in the extant Z film around the headshot.

 

Sorry, but this is what I meant to respond with a "yes" to. It was the immediate previous post to my "yes" response.

 

Which would mean the same FOV at the beginning of both films, correct?

I think you had asked me for footage up the street, so it's unnecessary.

This question & answer series seems completely confused now.  I think your position is that the WC test does not align with the Z film.  Is that correct?  In any cases, your responses seem contradictory when combined together.  

 

And what is "it" that you say is"unnecessary?"

 

 

[Matt Cloud]

3 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

This photo taken within a few minutes of the assassination clearly shows the corners of the Stemmons Freeway sign were rounded.

What process could account for this and what would be gained from doing so? Was it sloppiness?

What process and what would be gained?  Again, presumably something is being hidden from the FOV, possibly both through post-production narrowing of the FOV and possibly post-production manipulation of the Stemmons sign to conceal that which couldn't be concealed from the FOV narrowing.  

[Matt Cloud]

8 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

You're taking "test footage" in the case of Zapruder too literally.  All I meant was that he might have done a practice shot moments before the actual shot.  Not some elaborate procedure of days before requiring similar light and then development.  

 

Where is this footage of the Chisms by Z that you refer to?

 

Enlargement blurring some objects such as people but not others such as shadows is exactly what you would expect to happen.  This is because the tonal variations in people -- skin color, clothing, etc -- are less distinct from theur background than a shadow is.  Shadows hide details after all, and therefore have less "material" in them to become blurred.  A hard edge of a shadow line remains the same whether blown up or not.  A person's face however will become fuzzy especially when/if the film stock is magnified (blow-up) past it's generally accepted limits.   If you enlarge an 8mm frame as though you were enlarging a 35mm frame, let alone a large format frame, the more prevalent grain in the smaller film is going to be magnified.  That grain is going to be most visible in lighter areas -- like faces -- and less visible in darker areas -- like shadows.  

 

There's an image here, which was from 8mm film but massively blown up.  You can see the shadow lines stay sharp. 

 

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/using-8mm-movie-camera-lens-in-enlarger.185187/

 

 

Let me give a simple example that makes the point.  Imagine I have an 8x10 piece of paper where the bottom half is black and the top half is white.  If I take a picture of that, I can blow that image up to pretty much any size and have no loss of detail.  No loss.  

But if I have a 8x10 piece of paper with a labrador retriever's face on it, I cannot blow-up a photograph of that image to the same unlimited degree.  Quite quickly as I enlarge the details will fall apart.  Not so with the simple half black and half white image.

[Matt Cloud]

14 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

Let me give a simple example that makes the point.  Imagine I have an 8x10 piece of paper where the bottom half is black and the top half is white.  If I take a picture of that, I can blow that image up to pretty much any size and have no loss of detail.  No loss.  

But if I have a 8x10 piece of paper with a labrador retriever's face on it, I cannot blow-up a photograph of that image to the same unlimited degree.  Quite quickly as I enlarge the details will fall apart.  Not so with the simple half black and half white image.

What is more, if the shadows DID fall apart let's say on Z-film enlargement, those could rather more easily be corrected with essentially re-drawing the shadows with a black pen.  Hence perhaps why there are seemingly crushed-black shadows with sharp edges.  But you can't very well re-draw the image of a person, say Mary Moorman. Hence perhaps why she and Jean Hill among others look like bloated blobs in the extant Z-film.

[Chris Davidson]

4 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

What cut lines are you referring to Chris?  Would you point them out to me?

 

Besides those.

Look at the top edge of the sign.

The splice comes in at a different height.

 

[Matt Cloud]

30 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

What process and what would be gained?  Again, presumably something is being hidden from the FOV, possibly both through post-production narrowing of the FOV and possibly post-production manipulation of the Stemmons sign to conceal that which couldn't be concealed from the FOV narrowing.  

Also to be fair -- notwithstanding that still image from that frame of the Z film, other images from the Z film show that corner as rounded.  

[Matt Cloud]

Excuse me for interjecting here, too, but worthwhile perhaps would be to see this version, which I do not attest as being "best evidence," but does indicate some sort of "transformation" for lack of a better word occurring between frames 214 approx and 279.  At about 279 for instance, the lamp post "jumps." 

 

 

[Kevin Balch]

8 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

Excuse me for interjecting here, too, but worthwhile perhaps would be to see this version, which I do not attest as being "best evidence," but does indicate some sort of "transformation" for lack of a better word occurring between frames 214 approx and 279.  At about 279 for instance, the lamp post "jumps." 

 

 

That version has obviously been extensively processed. And it might, like probably all versions that are available online, been based on a copy several times removed. Each time losing information. It’s risky to make definitive pronouncements based on them.

I wonder what the frames published in Life magazine or the drawings in Six Seconds in Dallas show.

[Matt Cloud]

Just now, Kevin Balch said:

That version has obviously been extensively processed. And it might, like probably all versions that are available online, been based on a copy several times removed. Each time losing information. It’s risky to make definitive pronouncements based on them.

I wonder what the frames published in Life magazine or the drawings in Six Seconds in Dallas show.

I fully appreciate that.

 

NoTrueFlags has a video showing the LIFE frames.  I do NOT endorse the conclusions in that video however.  I merely point you to it, so that you can see which frames were included in the LIFE spread.

[Paul Bacon]

27 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Besides those.

Look at the top edge of the sign.

The splice comes in at a different height.

 

I see it Chris, thanks.  What a mess this all is!

[Matt Cloud]

On 5/19/2024 at 11:30 AM, Matt Cloud said:

And just to return to his, but only as an aside for the moment at least, the lamp post appears to me, based off the color photo bottom left, to be separated along one axis from the sign by a little less then two expansion joints of sidewalk if you get my meaning.  The stemmons sign is on the west side of one expansion joint, and the lamp post is on the east side of another expansion joint.  Between them is a third expansion joint. Those joints are essentially still there, today.  Find the distance between these joints and we have the distance basically between the sign and the post, along one axis at least.  Of course, the two objects are separated by distance along the other axis as well. 

Good picture of the sidewalk and the expansion joints here.  It's three joints evidently in between the lamp post and the sign, not one.  Could well be 18 feet.  Again find the measurements of those squares on the sidewalk and we should have a pretty good idea of the distance along one axis.  And it could be outside of an 11 degree FOV, from Zapruder's POV, as between the post and the Stemmons sign, yes.  (The limo was 21 feet, and evidently not all of its width could be captured at a distance of 65 feet.)  But it still seems unusual that it would take approx two seconds of run time from the Stemmons sign leaving the frame to get the lamp post in the frame.  

 

https://ar.europeanwriterstour.com/images-2023/kennedy-assassination-grassy-knoll

 

And just to reiterate, I think, where we are is this 

The Zapruder film shows an 11 degree FOV.  An 11 degree FOV was within the technical limits of his equipment -- the camera and lens.  What we don't know was whether an 11 degree FOV was within the technical limits of the human operator, Zapruder, whether at that focal length (a 200mm full-frame equivalent more or less), obtaining as stable footage as he did was possible.  

 

In addition, does the presence of "blurry people with sharp shadows" possibly indicate post-acquisition film manipulation as in say, narrowing the FOV some time after Zapruder shot the film through an enlargement and then crop and reinsertion procedure?  This would assume that Zapruder had shot his film at a focal length setting of something less than 27 degrees.  A normal setting, which wold have had a wider FOV, for instance, would be easier for the operator to shoot and achieve stable footage.

 

Finally, there are indications of possible film editing (splicing and cut and paste marks) and possible conflicts in imagery relating to the sign and the lamp post both in the extant Zapruder film, as well as some still photographs of the area, some which of which have been pointed out in this thread.

Edited May 20 by Matt Cloud

[Chris Bristow]

9 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

You're taking "test footage" in the case of Zapruder too literally.  All I meant was that he might have done a practice shot moments before the actual shot.  Not some elaborate procedure of days before requiring similar light and then development.  

 

Where is this footage of the Chisms by Z that you refer to?

 

Enlargement blurring some objects such as people but not others such as shadows is exactly what you would expect to happen.  This is because the tonal variations in people -- skin color, clothing, etc -- are less distinct from their backgrounds than a shadow's are.  Shadows hide details after all, and therefore have less "material" in them to become blurred.  A hard edge of a shadow line remains the same whether blown up or not.  A person's face however will become fuzzy especially when/if the film stock is magnified (blow-up) past it's generally accepted limits.   If you enlarge an 8mm frame as though you were enlarging a 35mm frame, let alone a large format frame, the more prevalent grain in the smaller film is going to be magnified.  That grain is going to be most visible in lighter areas -- like faces -- and less visible in darker areas -- like shadows.  

 

There's an image here, which was from 8mm film but massively blown up.  You can see the shadow lines stay sharp. 

 

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/using-8mm-movie-camera-lens-in-enlarger.185187/

 

 

"You're taking "test footage" in the case of Zapruder too literally.  All I meant was that he might have done a practice shot moments before the actual shot.  Not some elaborate procedure of days before requiring similar light and then development."

Ok so he could look through the viewfinder and maybe practice his pivot while maintaining a smooth pan. Imagine having to change your stance on a 4 ft high 2 ft wide pedestal top without being able to look away from the viewfinder to make sure you don't step off the edge and fall 4 ft. In addition much of our balance is linked to vision. All he had to look at was a tiny image and the closest object viewable is the sign 50 ft away. Precarious! 

I see the Chism footage once in a while but I don't know where to find it.

A sharper more defined shadow has less visible blur after enlarging but I don't know if it explains the Z film shadows. My original post addresses most of the the discrepancy seen in Z. Beyond that you would need to test it.

[Matt Cloud]

8 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

"You're taking "test footage" in the case of Zapruder too literally.  All I meant was that he might have done a practice shot moments before the actual shot.  Not some elaborate procedure of days before requiring similar light and then development."

Ok so he could look through the viewfinder and maybe practice his pivot while maintaining a smooth pan. Imagine having to change your stance on a 4 ft high 2 ft wide pedestal top without being able to look away from the viewfinder to make sure you don't step off the edge and fall 4 ft. In addition much of our balance is linked to vision. All he had to look at was a tiny image and the closest object viewable is the sign 50 ft away. Precarious! 

I see the Chism footage once in a while but I don't know where to find it.

A sharper more defined shadow has less visible blur after enlarging but I don't know if it explains the Z film shadows. My original post addresses most of the the discrepancy seen in Z. Beyond that you would need to test it.

Well, we've certainly left the technical now but that's okay.  I don't quite understand what you're on about with respect to Zapruder's precarious position.  But I will say that the footage of the Chisms and/or his secretary as Kevin Balch says, might be valuable here because whatever he shot just before he shot the motorcade might tell us what his actual zoom settings were.  That is, if he shot the Chisms at normal and that's the last thing before the motorcade, that might be what he shot the motorcade at.  And not at the tele setting, at the 27 mm focal length.  

Anyway, would be great to see that, as well as to hear from anyone here -- hint, hint, Chris Davidson -- who actually has first-hand experience with using the camera at the tele setting, just whether they could get stable footage with that.  Thanks.  

Edited May 20 by Matt Cloud