BLURRY PEOPLE WITH SHARP SHADOWS

[Kevin Balch]

38 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

Also -- just to confirm: you find an 11 degree FOV across the entirety of the Zapruder Film, correct?  Across all frames, that is, from beginning to end?

That might be difficult to do using Chris Bristow’s method which was done for a frame where a known reference length (the limo) was oriented almost perpendicular to the aim of Zapruder’s camera.

Objects of known length can be projected onto the plane of the film but the relative angles and distances would have to be estimated introducing error.

The camera was new to Zapruder. I think he was using the second half of the first roll of film he had ever used in the camera. And it was probably his last. So he had at most two minutes experience with its features. It’s an assumption, but a reasonable assumption that he wouldn’t dare change anything while filming a presidential motorcade.

Edited May 19 by Kevin Balch

[Matt Cloud]

11 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

That might be difficult to do using Chris Bristow’s method which was done for a frame where a known reference length (the limo) was oriented almost perpendicular to the aim of Zapruder’s camera.

Objects of known length can be projected onto the plane of the film but the relative angles and distances would have to be estimated introducing error.

The camera was new to Zapruder. I think he was using the second half of the first roll of film he had ever used in the camera. And it was probably his last. So he had at most two minutes experience with its features. It’s an assumption, but a reasonable assumption that he wouldn’t dare change anything while filming a presidential motorcade.

Thanks.  And I agree that he would probably not manipulate the zoom lever while shooting the motorcade and if he had, demonstrable shake would have been introduced into the footage.  

I have thought it curious that his film shows no "test footage," done prior to the actual motorcade's passing, to make sure his settings were acceptable.  Especially given how new he was to the equipment.

[Kevin Balch]

17 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

Thanks.  And I agree that he would probably not manipulate the zoom lever while shooting the motorcade and if he had, demonstrable shake would have been introduced into the footage.  

I have thought it curious that his film shows no "test footage," done prior to the actual motorcade's passing, to make sure his settings were acceptable.  Especially given how new he was to the equipment.

My understanding is that the first half of the reel was used to film family members and on the second half, just before filming the motorcade, he did take some footage of his assistant Marylyn Sitzman (who braced Zapruder to keep him steady as he filmed) and some of his surroundings in the plaza. But I’ve never seen this footage.

[Matt Cloud]

On 5/15/2024 at 11:09 PM, Chris Bristow said:

 

I'm glad you clarified that before I responded. The direction that photo is taken from is not going to give an accurate measurement of the distance in question. If the camera was directly above the sign we would get a correct measurement, but the camera is at about a 35 degree angle and cuts the visible distance down by more than half. 
  Since we can make out the vertical dimension of the Stemmons sign through the trees it can be used to find where the bottom of its poles meet the ground. As you can see in the color "Rickerby" photo the poles are about 1/3 longer than vertical dimension of the sign. Using that you can find where the poles meet the ground in the photo from the map.  The blue horizontal lines show the size of the sign and where the poles should meet the ground. I have done that on both the map photo and an FBI recreation film on the left.
That is a truer representation of where the sign is mounted into the grass but the distance from there to the lamppost along the sidewalk is still cut almost in half due to the 35 degree angle of the camera in the 6th floor window. We can't use the sign or the people standing there to help measure the distance along the sidewalk because they are vertical and the sidewalk lays on a horizontal surface. They have different angular perspectives
But we can use the Lincoln in the FBI photo on the left. The car lays on the same horizontal surface/angle as the sidewalk and is at a point in the road where the distance is very close to the sign and lamppost. You can see in that FBI image that the distance along the sidewalk from where the Stemmons poles meet the ground to the base of the lamppost is just slightly longer than the length of that Lincoln (It was not a stretch limo like JFKs car, it was jus 18 ft long.). That comparison takes all the perspective issues into account and shows the distance from the base of the sign to the lamppost was just over 18 ft.
   HERE IS A SIMPLER PROOF:
 You may disagree with my placement of the sign and poles but the Rickerby photo itself is proof the lamppost is almost 18 ft from the sign. Since that photo is almost perpendicular to the lamppost's length, you can use it to measure the distance along the sidewalk to the Stemmons sign. The line along the sidewalk from the lamppost to the sign is at a bit of an angle to the camera so its length is minified some. But even the 13 or 15 ft high lamppost length in the Rickerby photo is shorter than the minified gap between it and the sign. Two very solid proofs in the Rickerby photo alone that puts the lamppost about 18 ft west of the sign. I would say even before any measurements it  very evident by just looking at the rickerby photo that the lamppost is well west of the sign.

 

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. 

[Matt Cloud]

4 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

My understanding is that the first half of the reel was used to film family members and on the second half, just before filming the motorcade, he did take some footage of his assistant Marylyn Sitzman (who braced Zapruder to keep him steady as he filmed) and some of his surroundings in the plaza. But I’ve never seen this footage.

Right.  Okay.

[Chris Davidson]

4 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

What am I missing Chris?  The re-enactment frame looks zoomed in.

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

 

 

 

[Matt Cloud]

20 minutes 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

 

 

 

Good catch on the sign corner.  It's "supposed" to be rounded, but Zapruder shows squared-off (sort-of).  It's rather indistinct actually, the shape. 

But I think if you account for the "useable space" of the 8mm film, subtract the sprocket hole side that is, and account for the difference in vertical framing (WC a little high in its framing), we have essentially the same image, no?

The sign corner does suggest a conflict however.

[Matt Cloud]

19 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

Good catch on the sign corner.  It's "supposed" to be rounded, but Zapruder shows squared-off (sort-of).  It's rather indistinct actually, the shape. 

But I think if you account for the "useable space" of the 8mm film, subtract the sprocket hole side that is, and account for the difference in vertical framing (WC a little high in its framing), we have essentially the same image, no?

The sign corner does suggest a conflict however.

I overlaid the WC on top of the Z.  The WC frame appears indeed to be much smaller than the "usable portion" of Z frame.  

So, yes, seemingly cropped at least.

Edited May 19 by Matt Cloud

[Chris Davidson]

39 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

 

But I think if you account for the "useable space" of the 8mm film, subtract the sprocket hole side that is, and account for the difference in vertical framing (WC a little high in its framing), we have essentially the same image, no?

 

Yes.

 

[Matt Cloud]

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

Yes.

 

A man of few words.  But your agreement with me there would seem to contradict your previous statement about "zoom and strangely cropped," yes?  

[Matt Cloud]

14 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Ok, we now see eye to eye on the FOV. I can't see any reason to consider that Z may not have been zoomed in. If you can test the stability of a hand held 11 FOV and it isn't  stable,  then there is something to consider.  
 To speculate that the film may have been cut down to 11 degrees I would need something more than "presumably to crop out incriminating imagery".  That is your hypothesis and to make it into a theory you will need to bring some possible evidence of alteration in that vein.

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 think it would.

[Matt Cloud]

Process described somewhat (the enlargement side, anyway) here:

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

 

Also, for ARRB's investigation of NPIC and its capabilities in 1963, and Homer McMahon, see here, pp, 4-5 esp., and 13-14:

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/104-10336-10024.pdf

 

 

[Chris Bristow]

9 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

Thanks.  And I agree that he would probably not manipulate the zoom lever while shooting the motorcade and if he had, demonstrable shake would have been introduced into the footage.  

I have thought it curious that his film shows no "test footage," done prior to the actual motorcade's passing, to make sure his settings were acceptable.  Especially given how new he was to the equipment.

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.

[Chris Davidson]

9 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

A man of few words.  But your agreement with me there would seem to contradict your previous statement about "zoom and strangely cropped," yes?  

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

 

11 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

I overlaid the WC on top of the Z.  The WC frame appears indeed to be much smaller than the "usable portion" of Z frame.  

So, yes, seemingly cropped at least.

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

 

12 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

But I think if you account for the "useable space" of the 8mm film, subtract the sprocket hole side that is, and account for the difference in vertical framing (WC a little high in its framing), we have essentially the same image, no?

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.

[Paul Bacon]

18 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

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

 

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