Jack White Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 ...discovered by researcher Chris Davidson. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 ...discovered by researcher Chris Davidson.Jack Hi Jack! What does that title sheet say - "Massachussets Academy?" - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 21, 2006 Author Share Posted July 21, 2006 (edited) ...discovered by researcher Chris Davidson. Jack Hi Jack! What does that title sheet say - "Massachussets Academy?" - lee Lee...Chris thinks it says: SMPTE ACADEMY I enlarged it very large and added contrast, and all I could read was ACADEMY. But I think it could be very important. See what you can do with it. Also note a VERSION NUMBER. I WISH WE COULD MAKE IT OUT! Jack Edited July 21, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 (edited) Lee...Chris thinks it says:SMPTE ACADEMY I enlarged it very large and added contrast, and all I could read was ACADEMY. But I think it could be very important. See what you can do with it. Also note a VERSION NUMBER. I WISH WE COULD MAKE IT OUT! Jack "SMPTE Academy" is almost certainly correct, with version number and date. FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_projector 35 mm and 16 mm each are sometimes run in sync with a separate reel of magnetic sound (known as double head projection because two reels are running on one projector in sync); the image goes through a gate while the magnetic reel passes over a sound head. Since the sound is on a separate reel, it does not need to be offset from the image. This system is usually used only for very low-budget or student productions, or for screening rough cuts of films before the creation of a final married print. Sync between the two reels is checked with SMPTE Academy leader, also known as countdown leader.It looks like version 05 (?), with a date of 4/15/?? or 4/19/?? The versions of the SMPTE Academy leader shouldn't be too difficult to track down for someone who does that kind of work. Ashton Edited July 21, 2006 by Ashton Gray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 21, 2006 Author Share Posted July 21, 2006 Lee...Chris thinks it says:SMPTE ACADEMY I enlarged it very large and added contrast, and all I could read was ACADEMY. But I think it could be very important. See what you can do with it. Also note a VERSION NUMBER. I WISH WE COULD MAKE IT OUT! Jack "SMPTE Academy" is almost certainly correct, with version number and date. FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_projector 35 mm and 16 mm each are sometimes run in sync with a separate reel of magnetic sound (known as double head projection because two reels are running on one projector in sync); the image goes through a gate while the magnetic reel passes over a sound head. Since the sound is on a separate reel, it does not need to be offset from the image. This system is usually used only for very low-budget or student productions, or for screening rough cuts of films before the creation of a final married print. Sync between the two reels is checked with SMPTE Academy leader, also known as countdown leader.It looks like version 05 (?), with a date of 4/15/?? or 4/19/?? The versions of the SMPTE Academy leader shouldn't be too difficult to track down for someone who does that kind of work. Ashton Thanks, Ashton! valuable info for us non-movie types! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 21, 2006 Author Share Posted July 21, 2006 Not a peep from the anti-alterationists. Wonder why? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Not a peep from the anti-alterationists. Wonder why?Jack Why? Because its simply another copy of the film... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 (edited) Not a peep from the anti-alterationists. Wonder why?Jack Jack, I think some of us were waiting to see just how much paranoid propaganda you'd spew out over this piece of film without bothering to investigate it further. I mean, did you even ask Chris Davidson where he got the film ... did he find it on a bus, in an alley, in a garbage can, where??? This would be the first thing I would want to know if someone told me of a discovery. But that's OK, I'll tell you where it came from, Jack! It's the NARA preservation copy, which is the cleaned version, has some extraneous film attached before the Zapruder footage. Chris or someone just ordered a tape dub from NARA and the version they supply has what is known as film leader spliced onto the front of the reel. Leader is normally blank film, sometimes with an identification slate (or slide), that provides protection for the rest of the reel. It's standard film procedure to attach extra leader before the beginning of a film. Monaco Film Laboratory was the name of the company that did the work. They are based in San Francisco and I am sure they wouldn't mind telling you what is written on the leader film. I believe this stuff is mentioned in the Richard Trask book (National Nightmare) that's been out for a few years now. Gary Mack told me of these things some time ago .... maybe you might want to use the Museum sometimes for an educational tool to learn things if you are not going to bother ever reading Trask's book concerning the latest data on the Zapruder film. Bill Miller Edited July 21, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 21, 2006 Author Share Posted July 21, 2006 Not a peep from the anti-alterationists. Wonder why? Jack Jack, I think some of us were waiting to see just how much paranoid propaganda you'd spew out over this piece of film without bothering to investigate it further. I mean, did you even ask Chris Davidson where he got the film ... did he find it on a bus, in an alley, in a garbage can, where??? This would be the first thing I would want to know if someone told me of a discovery. But that's OK, I'll tell you where it came from, Jack! It's the NARA preservation copy, which is the cleaned version, has some extraneous film attached before the Zapruder footage. Chris or someone just ordered a tape dub from NARA and the version they supply has what is known as film leader spliced onto the front of the reel. Leader is normally blank film, sometimes with an identification slate (or slide), that provides protection for the rest of the reel. It's standard film procedure to attach extra leader before the beginning of a film. Monaco Film Laboratory was the name of the company that did the work. They are based in San Francisco and I am sure they wouldn't mind telling you what is written on the leader film. I believe this stuff is mentioned in the Richard Trask book (National Nightmare) that's been out for a few years now. Gary Mack told me of these things some time ago .... maybe you might want to use the Museum sometimes for an educational tool to learn things if you are not going to bother ever reading Trask's book concerning the latest data on the Zapruder film. Bill Miller You have not been paying attention. I previously told you the source of the film. You can look it up if you want. You can even buy a copy. It is in a commercially available DVD. You MISSED THE POINT, which is...why would anyone be converting 16mm to 8mm for broadcast? Clearly the target in the copy frame is 16 and the finished duplicate is 8mm. For broadcast it would likely be the other way around. This is an unlikely scenario for ANYBODY to do. Understand? 16 to 8. Get it? Not 8 to 16. 16 to 8. Why would ANYONE want an 8mm copy? Did you note on the header the word VERSION followed by numbers? Why several versions of 16mm CONVERTED to 8mm? The only reason I can think of is that ORIGINAL Z FILM COMPOSITE HAD TO BE REDUCED DOWN TO 8 MM! I can think of no other reason for REDUCTION to 8mm, can you? There are also the matters of sprocket holes, aspect ratios, and ghost images. If Costella is correct about the ghost images and sprocket holes being manipulated, then various VERSIONS might have been manipulated on 16mm, composited, and reduced to 8mm to achieve the extant film. Is there ANY OTHER REASON TO GO FROM 16 TO 8? The film came from SOMEONE WHO HAD CONVERTED 16 TO 8MM... and WHO would have done that? Why would NARA or ANYONE want to convert 16mm to 8mm? That is clearly what has been done here. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 (edited) Why would NARA or ANYONE want to convert 16mm to 8mm? Thatis clearly what has been done here. Jack How about these reasons xxxx xxxxx. Maybe to VIEW it on an 8mm machine? Maybe thats the format they had available to shoot at the time? Out of 16mm stock? Maybe copy version one was created on 16mm, copy version two was created in 8mm? Lots of posibilities, one being you have no imagination? Why shoot an 8x10 chrome and then reduce it down to a 4x5 dupe? Its done all the time. Edited July 21, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Not a peep from the anti-alterationists. Wonder why? Jack Jack, I think some of us were waiting to see just how much paranoid propaganda you'd spew out over this piece of film without bothering to investigate it further. I mean, did you even ask Chris Davidson where he got the film ... did he find it on a bus, in an alley, in a garbage can, where??? This would be the first thing I would want to know if someone told me of a discovery. But that's OK, I'll tell you where it came from, Jack! It's the NARA preservation copy, which is the cleaned version, has some extraneous film attached before the Zapruder footage. Chris or someone just ordered a tape dub from NARA and the version they supply has what is known as film leader spliced onto the front of the reel. Leader is normally blank film, sometimes with an identification slate (or slide), that provides protection for the rest of the reel. It's standard film procedure to attach extra leader before the beginning of a film. Monaco Film Laboratory was the name of the company that did the work. They are based in San Francisco and I am sure they wouldn't mind telling you what is written on the leader film. I believe this stuff is mentioned in the Richard Trask book (National Nightmare) that's been out for a few years now. Gary Mack told me of these things some time ago .... maybe you might want to use the Museum sometimes for an educational tool to learn things if you are not going to bother ever reading Trask's book concerning the latest data on the Zapruder film. Bill Miller I've heard this film called something else.... it's OLD news, we know what it is. Having said that, the quality, even a severly compressed internet QT version, beats the hell out of the "good quality" MPI DVD version! But let's not make the quality of same THE issue... a good question, and yes, to stay on point; the necessity to reduce ANY Zapruder film blowup 16mm (or 35mm) film to 8mm? Explain please.... Lest I forget, how'd this Z-film clip get to a blowup status, and who approved same, and of course WHEN? Seems as though you were discussing at a earlier time, a specific problem, that being, alterationists being able to deliver a reasonable, good quality altered 8mm Zapruder film. Your position: the film would be instantly recognized as a fraud by non-alterationist "photo experts" some on the Lone Nut side of the equation. why? (To fool all those non-suspecting believers in the WCR ) Specifically: CONTRAST and GRAIN and film properties issues... Looks like another issue Roland Zavada and Ray Fielding will need to address in their new and improved Zavada report. Quite familiar with Monaco Film Labs, I worked for a few TV stations in the "CITY" San Francisco bayarea, film of course was the king in those day's... Why would NARA or ANYONE want to convert 16mm to 8mm? That is clearly what has been done here. Jack How about these reasons xxxx xxxxx. Maybe to VIEW it on an 8mm machine? Maybe thats the format they had available to shoot at the time? Out of 16mm stock? Maybe copy version one was created on 16mm, copy version two was created in 8mm? Lots of posibilities, one being you have no imagination? Why shoot an 8x10 chrome and then reduce it down to a 4x5 dupe? Its done all the time. you ALWAYS want your source imagery at the best resolution possible, 16mm has problems, take it direct to 35mm exactly as Moe Weitzman did in the 60's -- dumb it down to whatever the market will accept/buy -- done ALL the time. Ask MPI! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 You have not been paying attention.I previously told you the source of the film. You can look it up if you want. You can even buy a copy. It is in a commercially available DVD. First of all ... you only said that a Chris Davidson discovered it - that does not tell us the source. In fact, you went on to ask questions in your previous posted illustration as if you didn't know where it came from or why was there a 16MM print on the leader .... THE SOURCE WOULD KNOW THE ANSWER. Also, you stated above that the film copy in question is available in DVD, but you didn't say where it is available? The NARA has not released that particular copy on DVD, so tell us who released it and where it can be found??? You MISSED THE POINT, which is...why would anyone be converting16mm to 8mm for broadcast? Clearly the target in the copy frame is 16 and the finished duplicate is 8mm. For broadcast it would likely be the other way around. This is an unlikely scenario for ANYBODY to do. Understand? 16 to 8. Get it? Not 8 to 16. 16 to 8. Why would ANYONE want an 8mm copy? It is a 16mm copy of the 8mm camera original Z film, showing the entire film from edge to edge. Did you note on the header the word VERSION followed by numbers? Why several versions of 16mm CONVERTED to 8mm? The only reason I can think of is that ORIGINAL Z FILM COMPOSITE HAD TO BE REDUCED DOWN TO 8 MM! I can think of no other reason for REDUCTION to 8mm, can you? When I spoke with Gary Mack about that particular copy, he said that the 'NARA made two versions: one AS IS, the other "DESCRATCHED' which means, in their terms, cleaned with much of the dust and debris carefully removed from the film surface.' There are also the matters of sprocket holes, aspect ratios, andghost images. If Costella is correct about the ghost images and sprocket holes being manipulated, then various VERSIONS might have been manipulated on 16mm, composited, and reduced to 8mm to achieve the extant film. Is there ANY OTHER REASON TO GO FROM 16 TO 8? The film came from SOMEONE WHO HAD CONVERTED 16 TO 8MM... and WHO would have done that? Why would NARA or ANYONE want to convert 16mm to 8mm? That is clearly what has been done here. The way I understand it is that 'the NARA made two versions: one as it was, the other "DESCRATCHED' which means, in their terms, cleaned with much of the dust and debris carefully removed from the film surface.' Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 (edited) You have not been paying attention.I previously told you the source of the film. You can look it up if you want. You can even buy a copy. It is in a commercially available DVD. First of all ... you only said that a Chris Davidson discovered it - that does not tell us the source. In fact, you went on to ask questions in your previous posted illustration as if you didn't know where it came from or why was there a 16MM print on the leader .... THE SOURCE WOULD KNOW THE ANSWER. Also, you stated above that the film copy in question is available in DVD, but you didn't say where it is available? The NARA has not released that particular copy on DVD, so tell us who released it and where it can be found??? You MISSED THE POINT, which is...why would anyone be converting16mm to 8mm for broadcast? Clearly the target in the copy frame is 16 and the finished duplicate is 8mm. For broadcast it would likely be the other way around. This is an unlikely scenario for ANYBODY to do. Understand? 16 to 8. Get it? Not 8 to 16. 16 to 8. Why would ANYONE want an 8mm copy? It is a 16mm copy of the 8mm camera original Z film, showing the entire film from edge to edge. Did you note on the header the word VERSION followed by numbers? Why several versions of 16mm CONVERTED to 8mm? The only reason I can think of is that ORIGINAL Z FILM COMPOSITE HAD TO BE REDUCED DOWN TO 8 MM! I can think of no other reason for REDUCTION to 8mm, can you? When I spoke with Gary Mack about that particular copy, he said that the 'NARA made two versions: one AS IS, the other "DESCRATCHED' which means, in their terms, cleaned with much of the dust and debris carefully removed from the film surface.' There are also the matters of sprocket holes, aspect ratios, andghost images. If Costella is correct about the ghost images and sprocket holes being manipulated, then various VERSIONS might have been manipulated on 16mm, composited, and reduced to 8mm to achieve the extant film. Is there ANY OTHER REASON TO GO FROM 16 TO 8? The film came from SOMEONE WHO HAD CONVERTED 16 TO 8MM... and WHO would have done that? Why would NARA or ANYONE want to convert 16mm to 8mm? That is clearly what has been done here. The way I understand it is that 'the NARA made two versions: one as it was, the other "DESCRATCHED' which means, in their terms, cleaned with much of the dust and debris carefully removed from the film surface.' Bill Miller uh-hmmm quote on The way I understand it is that 'the NARA made two versions: one as it was, the other "DESCRATCHED' which means, in their terms, cleaned with much of the dust and debris carefully removed from the film surface. quote off can the above be understood as a "altered" (improved) version of the camera original Zapruder film? Done carefully of course! I think we all understand there are many more Z-film versions than the two you or Gary speak of at NARA. Edited July 21, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 21, 2006 Author Share Posted July 21, 2006 You have not been paying attention.I previously told you the source of the film. You can look it up if you want. You can even buy a copy. It is in a commercially available DVD. First of all ... you only said that a Chris Davidson discovered it - that does not tell us the source. In fact, you went on to ask questions in your previous posted illustration as if you didn't know where it came from or why was there a 16MM print on the leader .... THE SOURCE WOULD KNOW THE ANSWER. Also, you stated above that the film copy in question is available in DVD, but you didn't say where it is available? The NARA has not released that particular copy on DVD, so tell us who released it and where it can be found??? You MISSED THE POINT, which is...why would anyone be converting16mm to 8mm for broadcast? Clearly the target in the copy frame is 16 and the finished duplicate is 8mm. For broadcast it would likely be the other way around. This is an unlikely scenario for ANYBODY to do. Understand? 16 to 8. Get it? Not 8 to 16. 16 to 8. Why would ANYONE want an 8mm copy? It is a 16mm copy of the 8mm camera original Z film, showing the entire film from edge to edge. Did you note on the header the word VERSION followed by numbers? Why several versions of 16mm CONVERTED to 8mm? The only reason I can think of is that ORIGINAL Z FILM COMPOSITE HAD TO BE REDUCED DOWN TO 8 MM! I can think of no other reason for REDUCTION to 8mm, can you? When I spoke with Gary Mack about that particular copy, he said that the 'NARA made two versions: one AS IS, the other "DESCRATCHED' which means, in their terms, cleaned with much of the dust and debris carefully removed from the film surface.' There are also the matters of sprocket holes, aspect ratios, andghost images. If Costella is correct about the ghost images and sprocket holes being manipulated, then various VERSIONS might have been manipulated on 16mm, composited, and reduced to 8mm to achieve the extant film. Is there ANY OTHER REASON TO GO FROM 16 TO 8? The film came from SOMEONE WHO HAD CONVERTED 16 TO 8MM... and WHO would have done that? Why would NARA or ANYONE want to convert 16mm to 8mm? That is clearly what has been done here. The way I understand it is that 'the NARA made two versions: one as it was, the other "DESCRATCHED' which means, in their terms, cleaned with much of the dust and debris carefully removed from the film surface.' Bill Miller uh-hmmm quote on The way I understand it is that 'the NARA made two versions: one as it was, the other "DESCRATCHED' which means, in their terms, cleaned with much of the dust and debris carefully removed from the film surface. quote off can the above be understood as a "altered" (improved) version of the camera original Zapruder film? Done carefully of course! I think we all understand there are many more Z-film versions than the two you or Gary speak of at NARA. Why should I repeat myself? If you have been paying attention, this was mentioned in a previous post. I guess the DVD is available at video stores or by mail. I do not have a copy. I only know of it because Chris has been sending me images captured from the DVD. Chris lives in San Diego. The point is that THE IMAGE SHOWS AN 8 MM COPY BEING MADE FROM 16 MM. Please explain who would do that and why. The camera being used apparently is like Zapruder's. It is doing a frame by frame capture from 16 MM. Figure it out and let us know. Jack 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