Jump to content
The Education Forum

Zapruder Film Alteration


Pat Speer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Since David Healy insists on debating me on this point, I've created this thread so our discussion will no longer side-track the discussion between lone-nutters and conspiracists on Mel's thread.

Although I don't worship in the temple of expertise, I have respect for those who know of what they speak. For example, I trust professional snipers as to the difficulty of the purported shots from the sniper's nest (apparently quite difficult, but not impossible). Similarly, I trust film-makers as to the ability of the government in 1963 to add images into the Zapruder film. If those who believe the film was altered can get a number of prominent film-makers, or film-editors, or special effects men, who were working in 1963 and remember the technology available, to say that they believe the film was altered, I'll probably believe them.

I KNOW the FBI reversed the frames in the Warren Report. I know this was probably not a mistake. But, if anything, this argues to the film's bona fides. Why deliberately misrepresent images which you've already altered, or have the ability to alter? As I've stated, I DON'T BELIEVE the Zapruder film shows that Oswald acted alone. Why would someone alter something to show what they are trying to cover-up?

Probably half the people who believed the Warren Report, and then came to doubt it, did so after viewing the Zapruder film. Could a government so ingenious when it came to altering the film, be so stupid as to their perception of what the film shows?

To me this whole debate is a major distraction from the truth: the Zapruder film and the autopsy photos show convincing evidence for a conspiracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 143
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've waited for many years for a competent film analyst [with optical film printing expertise] to come forward. Thought we had one in, Roland Zavada. Best he can say is "he did NOT check the film for alteration...". He did however, have a problem when considering possible alteration, the time line, as does everyone without prior knowledgeof film compositing techniques.... He dealt with film properties and the camera primarily. Did he (Roland Zavada) have unpublished questions about the film? Perhaps! Now THAT, I suppose we can debate, but be careful, I know all Gary's lines :blink:

BTW, although you may be well versed regarding other JFK assassination related subjects, to the best of my knowledge your NOT up-to-speed discussing possible Z-film alteration, best I can see here is you've an "opinion", well, we know everyone has opinions, they're like... also, below is info regarding RFieldings book, you want expertise, might want to call him!

Below is my response to your post in another thread...should be enough to get you up-to-speed in the art of optical film printing -- might call Martin Shackelford for pointers, then again the best he can tell you about film effects is he went to the movies in 1963. Probably Tink Thompson or Gary Mack, maybe they can give you a few pointers.

Forget Craig Lansom, Jack White is keeping him busy (probably for 10 years) on NASA pics

______________

Pat wrote:

[...]

David, I was hoping this tread could be a spirited but respectful discussion between Mel and others over the single-bullet theory and other ideas prevalent in lone-nut country. If you wanna discuss film alteration let's do it on another thread.

dgh02: quite simply, Mel is a jerk, there are others on this board who have forgot more about the JFK assassination than Mel will ever know

P.S. I have read Dr. Mantik's work, and find him credible on certain issues. I respect the man. I also respect Dr. Fetzer. I've read Assassination Science and much of the Zapruder Film Hoax. I just don't agree with them on the alteration of the autopsy photos or the Zapruder film. I do suspect the lateral x-ray has been tainted or damaged in some way. While I don't worship expertise I do try and respect people who know what they are talking about , and I have yet to meet someone with a film background who believes the tecnology existed in 1963 to create a fake Zapruder film.

dgh02: "...find him credible on certain issues", LOL, tell you what Pat, are you qualified in reviewing then passing judgement on those conclusions? Simply reading Assassination Science and HOAX isn't enough when determining whether or not someone is qualified. Regarding film alteration, there was more than enough technology around to do the job?

How about, pickup and READ Raymond Fielding's The Technique of SpecialEffects Cinematography, First Published in 1965, reprinted in 1968, re-released in 198? Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 64-8116. If Raymond doesn't convince you of the FACT that the equipment, techniques, know-how AND personnel were available to do ANY optical printing deed late '63 early '64, hell, for that matter the early 40's, when optical printing really got underway; propoganda films for WW2 -- or you can always ask ME, LOL !! I been compositing for 30 years or so... Raymond still teachs film school in Florida someplace, reachout. You might take a peek at the INDEX in Raymond's book, review the SMPE [society of Motion Picture Engineers - which by the way was created in 1915, their first project was setting the film standards for 35mm film in 1915] footnotes dealing with film compositing *blackart* techniques, it's all there in black and white [pardon the pun]...

btw, Rollie Zavada, whom I've spoken to, on more than one occasion, regarding this subject, is/was (he may of retired recently) a long standing member of SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers)

My personal argument is that it is nonsensical to believe the government would fake the film, since the film.

dgh02: Who said the government 'faked' the film?( hell, even David Lifton doesn't think the government 'faked the film', that doesn't mean, they, the gov didn't think it was a good idea) Not I!

Ya see, there's problem with ANYONE deals with this film alteration issues. Simply, folks that don't know the craft of compositing, nor post assassination timelines, just jump in and muddy the waters, especially when dealing with: When and WHO saw what? How much relevance is currently placed on frames that were published, exmp'l: where frames cropped prior to publication? Did publications "touchup frames, transpose frames [out of sequence, just another word for ""alteration""] like the MPI folks did in their last DVD release, not to mention what the FBI did early on in the WC investigation...? There is precedence for "alteration" regarding the Z-film

as is, is convincing evidence that 1) Kennedy was hit before 224 from behind 2)Kennedy and Connally were both hit at 224 from behind, from a trajectory inconsistent with the TSBD, and 3) Kennedy was hit at 313 from behind. This makes at least three hits, which is inconsistent with Oswald's abilities. So why fake something that shows a conspiracy and then deny there's a conspiracy?

dgh:02 ahh, conspiracy is such a ""BROAD"" subject, isn't it? How about: create LHO as the sole, whacked out LONE assassin-patsy perhaps? That goes back to the Single Bullet Theory, doesn't it?

Anyway, when someone get's up to speed around here regarding optical film printing and motion picture compositing, well -- till then, I/we will just plug along waiting for the first opportunity to do a little film forensics

Hi GaryM, how are ya? Great NAB this year

David

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

dgh:02 ahh, conspiracy is such a ""BROAD"" subject, isn't it? How about: create LHO as the sole, whacked out LONE assassin-patsy perhaps? That goes back to the Single Bullet Theory, doesn't it?

Anyway, when someone get's up to speed around here regarding optical film printing and motion picture compositing, well -- till then, I/we will just plug along waiting for the first opportunity to do a little film forensics

Hi GaryM, how are ya? Great NAB this year

David

David, I must confess ignorance. What the heck are all your references to Gary M about? Are you accusing me of being Gary Mack? Or of Gary Mack lurking on this Forum?

As for the SBT, I believe it's possible there was one bullet that hit Kennedy and Connally at frame 224. I also believe the Zapruder film reveals Connally to be out of position for this bullet to have come from the sniper's nest, and that it most logically came from the roof of the Dal-Tex.

As I've said, why fake or alter evidence to show a conspiracy? I really don't understand the claims for alteration, of the autopsy photos or the Zapruder film, at all, except as an easy way out for those unwilling to really look at the evidence. I have stared at the photographs, the x-rays, and the Zapruder film, until they finally made sense to me. And they tell a story of more than one shooter from behind. When one studies the earwitness testimony, there is additional evidence for a shot or loud noise from somewhere west of the TSBD, but further back from Elm than the stockade fence. I believe I could beat Bugliosi in a court of law with this evidence. I am that certain. And yet, you'd wish for me to spend my time studying film alteration techniques so you can convince me that a conspiracy occurred, but that it was covered up. Sorry, but I would consider that a waste of time. Please read my seminar and we can discuss that, if you think I'm wrong.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Healy writes:

"or you can always ask ME, LOL !! I been compositing for 30 years or so... "

Really? How about posting a few frames David, done on film not digital. Give us a nice high rez scan, a drum will do say 1x141 600dpi. Give us one where you changed the background so we can check your cut lines and see how well your soft edge matts worked out.

And then give us the production specs.

Then...and only then can we judge if YOU have the skill set you say you do. Then perhaps we can talk man to man about compositing on film.

Might be nice to see if you have something to offer other than "I read this book...."

And oh about White and his Apollo drivel. He's toast David. You next?

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee Forman and I went through it frame by frame and there is a lot of questionable "art" in the Zapruder.

The Fuzzed Out upper right hand quadrant of frames 1-40 is very

suspicious, looks like a matte to cover the County Records/Jail buildings.

The on-again off-again left hand margin reference letters, that is fishy.

I think the back of Kennedy's head is darkened after the headshot,

and the BLOB, or parietal mass, is an addition to remove the front

to back trajectory that was originally visible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shanet Clark Posted Today, 04:22 AM

  Lee Forman and I went through it frame by frame and there is a lot of questionable "art" in the Zapruder.

The Fuzzed Out upper right hand quadrant of frames 1-40 is very

suspicious, looks like a matte to cover the County Records/Jail buildings.

The on-again off-again left hand margin reference letters, that is fishy.

I think the back of Kennedy's head is darkened after the headshot,

and the BLOB, or parietal mass, is an addition to remove the front

to back trajectory that was originally visible.

and the BLOB, or parietal mass, is an addition to remove the front

to back trajectory that was originally visible. Shanet Clark (from the above).

This particular section of the film is the part that has also struck me as possibly being fabricated. What I can see on the film is an exit wound roughly above the right ear, perhaps slightly bigger than a man's fist. Also a flap of skull seems to be dangling.

If I compare what I see on the film to what the Parkland staff said regarding the exit wound, there is a conflict of about 4-5 inches regarding the location (occipital-parietal vs. above right ear and toward the top of the head). Of course the quality of the Zapruder film is so poor, it is hard to make out detail. At any rate, this point is one that has stuck in my mind as being somewhat of a discrepancy between eye witness statements and physical evidence.

As there are so many of these discrepancies, it is hard not to acknowledge evidence manipulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Healy writes:

"or you can always ask ME, LOL !! I been compositing for 30 years or so... "

Really? How about posting a few frames David, done on film not digital. Give us a nice high rez scan, a drum will do say 1x141 600dpi. Give us one where you changed the background so we can check your cut lines and see how well your soft edge matts worked out.

dgh01: let's keep on point there Craig ole boy. The question isn't: did "I" have the technical skills, know-how, and was the equipment available to alter the Z-film in 1963-'64? You know that, don't you? Of course the answer is; there was abundant talent available to do that type of job -- I come a bit later, 7 years later....

So, lets see, you don't want something from me in digital format, then you tell me you want a digital scan of something, anything done on film? roflmfao! For what?

So, your telling me you can read a cut sheet, print logs, you can log frames, optical work orders -- that "mattes" as in soft-edge mattes, by-the-way.

Maybe you can show your expertise by telling us what the following means -- you'll find it on optical-effects charge orders: "Unless called for, fine grains used on this order will be disposed of in 3 months"

And then give us the production specs.

dgh01: pretty simple Craig, "make it believable", thats my job, make the effects believable... Tell you what, book a few hours with us on the DaVinci and I'll let you sit in my chair, how's that for benevolence, clocks ticking of course....

Then...and only then can we judge if YOU have the skill set you say you do. Then perhaps we can talk man to man about compositing on film.

dgh01:psst, I'm not on trial here Craig, yours and many others arrogance is. As to proving to you skill sets, doubt that'll ever happen, Craig. You see, NONE of you Lone Neuter's have taken the time to discuss, mattes, counter mattes, traveling mattes -- you're all sounding strangely like Tony Marsh these day's. A Tony Marsh that seems to be called a "xxxx" everytime he turns around. Now your a photog, a studio still shooter, (are you doing digital as opposed to shooting film these day's, btw? LOL) that doesn't quite cut it, certainly doesn't make you a expert in optical house matters...I suspect you haven't a clue about COSA/Adobe After Effects either.... damn software program closed up about 2/3rd's of the optical houses in the country....

Might be nice to see if you have something to offer other than "I read this book...."

dgh01: you'd be better off getting Joe Durnavich in here, maybe he needs a refresher in Pov-Ray... hell, send in Dale Myers... as to" I read this book...", hell, I helped write one too! THAT must kill you guy's.... roflmao!

And oh about White and his Apollo drivel. He's toast David. You next?

dgh01: I don't know about toast, Craig. Jack White? Well, Jack White posts and half the internet respond, I'd say he's got you loons on the short end of a string - So, I say; that's okay, many of us enjoy the show... Soon as taking pictures of trailers rates (not to say that it's unimportant) up there with compositing skills, we'll talk about toast, till then; why are you so sure the Z-film is unaltered? Tink, Gary told you so?....

Did I ever tell you about a few jobs way back when, '76-'77 at NASA-AMES...? We actually used CP-16's, you know what those are?

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

Pat wrote

I must confess ignorance. What the heck are all your references to Gary M about? Are you accusing me of being Gary Mack? Or of Gary Mack lurking on this Forum?

As for the SBT, I believe it's possible there was one bullet that hit Kennedy and Connally at frame 224. I also believe the Zapruder film reveals Connally to be out of position for this bullet to have come from the sniper's nest, and that it most logically came from the roof of the Dal-Tex.

As I've said, why fake or alter evidence to show a conspiracy?

[...]

________________

Pat, Do a google for Rober Harris on alt.conspiracy.jfk, you may be surprised... two hits one round [sBT] maybe truer than you think but, from the Dal-Tex bld'g -- only problem regarding that subject is the round delivered to authorities that first day, ISN'T the round currently at NARA these day's...

BTW, the SBT is a canard, why was the limo stop removed from the Z-film? That's the question!

Gary Mack doesn't post, not his job description these day's, so NO, I'm not accusing you of anything -- rest assured though he's lurking!

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

Healy writes:

"or you can always ask ME, LOL !! I been compositing for 30 years or so... "

Really? How about posting a few frames David, done on film not digital. Give us a nice high rez scan, a drum will do say 1x141 600dpi. Give us one where you changed the background so we can check your cut lines and see how well your soft edge matts worked out.

dgh01: let's keep on point there Craig ole boy. The question isn't: did "I" have the technical skills, know-how, and was the equipment available to alter the Z-film in 1963-'64? You know that, don't you? Of course the answer is; there was abundant talent available to do that type of job -- I come a bit later, 7 years later....

So, lets see, you don't want something from me in digital format, then you tell me you want a digital scan of something, anything done on film? roflmfao! For what?

So, your telling me you can read a cut sheet, print logs, you can log frames, optical work orders -- that "mattes" as in soft-edge mattes, by-the-way.

Maybe you can show your expertise by telling us what the following means -- you'll find it on optical-effects charge orders: "Unless called for, fine grains used on this order will be disposed of in 3 months"

And then give us the production specs.

dgh01: pretty simple Craig, "make it believable", thats my job, make the effects believable... Tell you what, book a few hours with us on the DaVinci and I'll let you sit in my chair, how's that for benevolence, clocks ticking of course....

Then...and only then can we judge if YOU have the skill set you say you do. Then perhaps we can talk man to man about compositing on film.

dgh01:psst, I'm not on trial here Craig, yours and many others arrogance is. As to proving to you skill sets, doubt that'll ever happen, Craig. You see, NONE of you Lone Neuter's have taken the time to discuss, mattes, counter mattes, traveling mattes -- you're all sounding strangely like Tony Marsh these day's. A Tony Marsh that seems to be called a "xxxx" everytime he turns around. Now your a photog, a studio still shooter, (are you doing digital as opposed to shooting film these day's, btw? LOL) that doesn't quite cut it, certainly doesn't make you a expert in optical house matters...I suspect you haven't a clue about COSA/Adobe After Effects either.... damn software program closed up about 2/3rd's of the optical houses in the country....

Might be nice to see if you have something to offer other than "I read this book...."

dgh01: you'd be better off getting Joe Durnavich in here, maybe he needs a refresher in Pov-Ray... hell, send in Dale Myers... as to" I read this book...", hell, I helped write one too! THAT must kill you guy's.... roflmao!

And oh about White and his Apollo drivel. He's toast David. You next?

dgh01: I don't know about toast, Craig. Jack White? Well, Jack White posts and half the internet respond, I'd say he's got you loons on the short end of a string - So, I say; that's okay, many of us enjoy the show... Soon as taking pictures of trailers rates (not to say that it's unimportant) up there with compositing skills, we'll talk about toast, till then; why are you so sure the Z-film is unaltered? Tink, Gary told you so?....

Did I ever tell you about a few jobs way back when, '76-'77 at NASA-AMES...? We actually used CP-16's, you know what those are?

Its not about equipment David you know that. Equipment is a red herring. No, its about art.

I live in a world thats far more critical than yours. Yours the frames with all the mistakes just roll on by the viewer, filled with action and sound, pulling the viewers attention away. Composited movie films dont stand up to critical viewing. Of course you know that. Is that why you are hesitant to post some of your film work? Or are you just obtuse?

No in my world of compositing it has to be more than just "believable". It has to be perfect. My images are high res and the single frame stares you in the face forever. They dont move. There is no sound track to distract you, just a single image that lasts forever. Critical art...and its never critical enough.

Thats the issue David. Not optical printers, and .004 accuracy. No, its about people making art. People are not accurate to .004 and thats the problem. I've produced thousands of comps and its always the art that causes the problem, not the equipment.

Lets face facts and throw this equipment red herring in the dustbin where it belongs.

Hell even in the digital age its still the art that is the problem. Was watching Independence Day the other night and there in the closing scene was Will Smith and his son standing motionless for about 10 seconds in front of a blue screen composite with a the burning alien spacecraft in the background....and a huge black cutline around thier heads..... They had the equipment and they had the budget, but here was the closing scene and the art sucked...as usual.

And you want to tell me that they fabricated the entire z film? Fabricated and composited it to such a high degree of perfection that the work is undetectable. Sheesh. Come on back to the real world.

So lets talk art David. Lets put your equipment red herring in the dustbin once and for all.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Eugene B. Connolly

I cannot imagine why anyone would even think about trying to alter the Zapruder film.

If those who allegedly altered the Zapruder film were so good - such brilliant

photographic whizz kids then why and how the hell did they make such a blatant hash and obvious mess of their so called alteration - like allegedly leaving out slits on the Pergola behind where Zapruder was standing. Yeah, leaving out - allegedly - the slits on the Pergola behind Zapruder. The same slits which are perhaps one of the Pergola's most distinctive and eye catching features.

How subtle can you get?

Presumably the advice given to these so called experts was something like:

"Do a good job now and whatever you do - don't make it too obvious."

What sort of photographic expert would make such a whopper of an alleged

alteration?

These 'experts' may have had all the state of the art equipment (for 1963) but one thing they most certainly lacked was the brains to use their alleged expertise to do their alleged alteration.

This whole Zapruder alteration is getting ridiculous and will probably get even more so.

These Zapruder film alteration claims are diversions.

We must concentrate on more important issues.

EBC

Edited by Eugene B. Connolly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Healy wrote "why are you so sure the Z-film is unaltered? Tink, Gary told you so?...."

Abraham Zapruder is the starting point of the analysis. He watched the assassination through the viewfinder of his camera. He testified under oath before the Warren Commission and again at the trial of Clay Shaw that the film in evidence is authentic.

Therefore at this point Josiah Thompson doesn't have to prove anything because the burden of proof is on those who claim that the film is altered.

Ray

"Do not block the way of inquiry" C. S. Peirce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JR Carroll wrote:

David Healy wrote "why are you so sure the Z-film is unaltered? Tink, Gary told you so?...."

Abraham Zapruder is the starting point of the analysis. He watched the assassination through the viewfinder of his camera. He testified under oath before the Warren Commission and again at the trial of Clay Shaw that the film in evidence is authentic.

dgh01: As he should be, the starting point. I suspect as case can be made as to whether he was atop the pedestal, filming that day. Based on DP photo evidence of the day, I certainly can't ID Abraham Zapruder as standing atop the pedestal... Personally, I could care less who took the film. I would like to know however, when the last time Abe Zapruder saw the **camera original** laced up on a projector and displayed...?

What film, Zapruder camera original or a Jamiseon optical print [which of the three] was used in the Clay Shaw trial? If it was a print of a print, how many generations down from the alledged camera original?

Therefore at this point Josiah Thompson doesn't have to prove anything because the burden of proof is on those who claim that the film is altered.

dgh01: no burden of proof falls here, Ray -- This isn't a courtroom -- Thompson doesn't have any burden, either... His story regarding the Z-film has been 'pat' since he worked for LIFE

Ray

"Do not block the way of inquiry" C. S. Peirce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot imagine why anyone would even think about trying to alter the Zapruder film.

dgh01: doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who might be the blame for this tragedy. The above attitude may be just what [for those that may of altered the film] what they want, perhaps?

If those who allegedly altered the Zapruder film were so good - such brilliant

photographic whizz kids then why and how the hell did they make such a blatant hash and obvious mess of their so called alteration - like allegedly leaving out slits on the Pergola behind where Zapruder was standing. Yeah, leaving out - allegedly - the slits on the Pergola behind Zapruder.

dgh01: whizz kids? basic everday opticla film effects techniques, nothing special about possible alteration at all, the film now, THAT'S special!

How subtle can you get?

Presumably the advice given to these so called experts was something like:

"Do a good job now and whatever you do - don't make it too obvious."

dgh01: Do a good job? Nah -- just make it believable!

What sort of photographic expert would make such a whopper of an alleged

alteration?

dgh01: maybe you've found an anamoly, can you give us a pedigree, tell us what generation image you spotted this on and WHERE? So, what's your take on these missing slits?

This whole Zapruder alteration is getting ridiculos and will probably get even more so.

dgh01: the broad daylight murder of the President of the United States is ridiculous, shot in the back and the back of the head, to die in his wifes' arms - now THAT's...

EBC

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

[Top Post]

I'll return to this later when I have the time. CRAIG you eluded to and suggest; I said the entire film was composited? Why would I have said THAT? Not necessary at ALL.

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

"or you can always ask ME, LOL !! I been compositing for 30 years or so... "

Really? How about posting a few frames David, done on film not digital. Give us a nice high rez scan, a drum will do say 1x141 600dpi. Give us one where you changed the background so we can check your cut lines and see how well your soft edge matts worked out.

dgh01: let's keep on point there Craig ole boy. The question isn't: did "I" have the technical skills, know-how, and was the equipment available to alter the Z-film in 1963-'64? You know that, don't you? Of course the answer is; there was abundant talent available to do that type of job -- I come a bit later, 7 years later....

So, lets see, you don't want something from me in digital format, then you tell me you want a digital scan of something, anything done on film? roflmfao! For what?

So, your telling me you can read a cut sheet, print logs, you can log frames, optical work orders -- that "mattes" as in soft-edge mattes, by-the-way.

Maybe you can show your expertise by telling us what the following means -- you'll find it on optical-effects charge orders: "Unless called for, fine grains used on this order will be disposed of in 3 months"

And then give us the production specs.

dgh01: pretty simple Craig, "make it believable", thats my job, make the effects believable... Tell you what, book a few hours with us on the DaVinci and I'll let you sit in my chair, how's that for benevolence, clocks ticking of course....

Then...and only then can we judge if YOU have the skill set you say you do. Then perhaps we can talk man to man about compositing on film.

dgh01:psst, I'm not on trial here Craig, yours and many others arrogance is. As to proving to you skill sets, doubt that'll ever happen, Craig. You see, NONE of you Lone Neuter's have taken the time to discuss, mattes, counter mattes, traveling mattes -- you're all sounding strangely like Tony Marsh these day's. A Tony Marsh that seems to be called a "xxxx" everytime he turns around. Now your a photog, a studio still shooter, (are you doing digital as opposed to shooting film these day's, btw? LOL) that doesn't quite cut it, certainly doesn't make you a expert in optical house matters...I suspect you haven't a clue about COSA/Adobe After Effects either.... damn software program closed up about 2/3rd's of the optical houses in the country....

Might be nice to see if you have something to offer other than "I read this book...."

dgh01: you'd be better off getting Joe Durnavich in here, maybe he needs a refresher in Pov-Ray... hell, send in Dale Myers... as to" I read this book...", hell, I helped write one too! THAT must kill you guy's.... roflmao!

And oh about White and his Apollo drivel. He's toast David. You next?

dgh01: I don't know about toast, Craig. Jack White? Well, Jack White posts and half the internet respond, I'd say he's got you loons on the short end of a string - So, I say; that's okay, many of us enjoy the show... Soon as taking pictures of trailers rates (not to say that it's unimportant) up there with compositing skills, we'll talk about toast, till then; why are you so sure the Z-film is unaltered? Tink, Gary told you so?....

Did I ever tell you about a few jobs way back when, '76-'77 at NASA-AMES...? We actually used CP-16's, you know what those are?

Its not about equipment David you know that. Equipment is a red herring. No, its about art.

I live in a world thats far more critical than yours. Yours the frames with all the mistakes just roll on by the viewer, filled with action and sound, pulling the viewers attention away. Composited movie films dont stand up to critical viewing. Of course you know that. Is that why you are hesitant to post some of your film work? Or are you just obtuse?

No in my world of compositing it has to be more than just "believable". It has to be perfect. My images are high res and the single frame stares you in the face forever. They dont move. There is no sound track to distract you, just a single image that lasts forever. Critical art...and its never critical enough.

Thats the issue David. Not optical printers, and .004 accuracy. No, its about people making art. People are not accurate to .004 and thats the problem. I've produced thousands of comps and its always the art that causes the problem, not the equipment.

Lets face facts and throw this equipment red herring in the dustbin where it belongs.

Hell even in the digital age its still the art that is the problem. Was watching Independence Day the other night and there in the closing scene was Will Smith and his son standing motionless for about 10 seconds in front of a blue screen composite with a the burning alien spacecraft in the background....and a huge black cutline around thier heads..... They had the equipment and they had the budget, but here was the closing scene and the art sucked...as usual.

And you want to tell me that they fabricated the entire z film? Fabricated and composited it to such a high degree of perfection that the work is undetectable. Sheesh. Come on back to the real world.

So lets talk art David. Lets put your equipment red herring in the dustbin once and for all.

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...