Jack White Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 (edited) John Costella announced today that newer technology has permitted him to make several improvements on his great Zframes: "I have updated the 'combined edit' frames at http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/?. They have been reprocessed completely from scratch, from the MPI DVD images, using better tools than I used back in '02." For complete details, go to Rich DellaRosa's JFK site... http://www.jfkresearch.com/forum3/index.php Jack Edited September 23, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 John Costella announced today that newer technology has permittedhim to make several improvements on his great Zframes: "I have updated the 'combined edit' frames at http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/?. They have been reprocessed completely from scratch, from the MPI DVD images, using better tools than I used back in '02." For complete details, go to Rich DellaRosa's JFK site... http://www.jfkresearch.com/forum3/index.php Jack Question for Jack, Lee, Robin, James and DGH Is the appearance of 132 and 133 consistent with Zapruder actually stopping and re-starting the camera? I have read that if he had really paused and re started the camera their would have been a fouled frame or two........ opinions? has anyone tested this angle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 26, 2006 Author Share Posted September 26, 2006 John Costella announced today that newer technology has permitted him to make several improvements on his great Zframes: "I have updated the 'combined edit' frames at http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/?. They have been reprocessed completely from scratch, from the MPI DVD images, using better tools than I used back in '02." For complete details, go to Rich DellaRosa's JFK site... http://www.jfkresearch.com/forum3/index.php Jack Question for Jack, Lee, Robin, James and DGH Is the appearance of 132 and 133 consistent with Zapruder actually stopping and re-starting the camera? I have read that if he had really paused and re started the camera their would have been a fouled frame or two........ opinions? has anyone tested this angle? I have no valid opinion on this since I never operated a movie camera. The experts on this are David Healy, John Costella, Rick Janowitz, and Scott Meyer. My personal opinion is that the first frame after a stop should be lighter because of the inertia of the shutter starting from a standstill...but that is only a guess. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 John Costella announced today that newer technology has permitted him to make several improvements on his great Zframes: "I have updated the 'combined edit' frames at http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/?. They have been reprocessed completely from scratch, from the MPI DVD images, using better tools than I used back in '02." For complete details, go to Rich DellaRosa's JFK site... http://www.jfkresearch.com/forum3/index.php Jack Question for Jack, Lee, Robin, James and DGH Is the appearance of 132 and 133 consistent with Zapruder actually stopping and re-starting the camera? I have read that if he had really paused and re started the camera their would have been a fouled frame or two........ opinions? has anyone tested this angle? Hello Shanet, Roland Zavada was well aware of and pretty clear on this issue, for whatever reason at onset of filming with the B&H414, "light leakage" is apparent in the first-second frame. I believe he cooresponded with (then commented on in his report) a few engineering members from Bell & Howell that worked on the design of this particular camera. Evidently they could NOT correct the problem. I beleive Harry Livingstone's near recent book on the Zapruder Film went into considerable detail concering the subject and Zapruder frames 132-133. DHealy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Espy Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 From looking at frames 315-320, it does not appear to me the President had a "hole" in the back of his skull after receving the fatal head shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 From looking at frames 315-320, it does not appear to me the President had a "hole" in the back of his skull after receving the fatal head shot. Alan, the discrepancy between the Parkland Hospital medical observers who said they saw the major wound at the back of the head and the Z-film showing a side temple wound is the main reason so many JFK researchers believe the film was altered. Welcome to the FORUM .................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 (edited) John Costella announced today that newer technology has permitted him to make several improvements on his great Zframes: "I have updated the 'combined edit' frames at http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/?. They have been reprocessed completely from scratch, from the MPI DVD images, using better tools than I used back in '02." For complete details, go to Rich DellaRosa's JFK site... http://www.jfkresearch.com/forum3/index.php Jack Question for Jack, Lee, Robin, James and DGH Is the appearance of 132 and 133 consistent with Zapruder actually stopping and re-starting the camera? I have read that if he had really paused and re started the camera their would have been a fouled frame or two........ opinions? has anyone tested this angle? Don't know Shanet. As to opinions, there are some who claim that the film they saw never stopped. The only film to capture the turn on to Elm was Tina Towner - right? I stand corrected, thanks to Gary - the turn is visible distantly in Hughes and partially in Dorman. There is also the photo taken by Betzner and Willis of the turn. It would have been much better to have seen the turn in the Zapruder film - however that appears to be wishful thinking. And in the Towner, it still has the appearance that frames are missing in the turn. Perhaps it is the version of the film that I was using? - lee Edited September 27, 2006 by Lee Forman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 But would the break be so clean? If he stopped that would have a "wind down" and the re-start would have a "gear up" ..........so it looks more like an edit than a mechanical 'stop and start'................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Lee, I spent a bit of time looking a that some time ago and decided that the sun reflection for the one or two frames missing is so bright that the frames were over exposed and cut out. I never asked if there is a splice there...so whoever has the original:: is it spliced at that point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 But would the break be so clean? If he stopped that would have a "wind down" and the re-start would have a "gear up" ..........so it looks more like an edit than a mechanical 'stop and start'................... You would think that would be the case Shanet. I have been looking at it from a different perspective - which is that Phil Willis was located closer to Main and Houston, took his 2 photos and then runs ahead of the crowd and his little daughter Rosemary - along with Linda, his elder daughter, and arrives in time for where we see him when the Zapruder film continues to roll. A bit odd - was he sprinting? They seem to suddenly appear as if they have been there awhile, which could not have been the case [i know that I wouldn't leave my daughter on her own in a crowd]. Someone might object here - she was with her Mother, the lady in blue, who is running along in front of her - but then that creates more problems, since the woman clearly has a serious camera in her hands - and as per Mr and Mrs - she watched from the North Peristyle garden, through one of the openings there. So it isn't her that later approaches the corner, where Rosemary is looking on as a man [whom we have to guess wouldn't be Phil Willis] approaches the corner and seems to be kicking someone - as we see in the Dorman - directly following the headshot. Anyway - you make a good point. It would be great to be able to shoot some recreation footage using the same camera - but I think that's simply not feasible. John - Gary Mack may be able to answer that? From the Towner and the Betzner, I would agree with you. Seems to be an enormous amount of glare at one point. - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 caution: The Z film alteration by Costella may be useful for some things, but the grouping of data, or compression particularly at the periphery (which includes the limousine) is considerable, resulting in data loss and renders it nearly useless in analysing detail. (gif) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 7, 2006 Author Share Posted October 7, 2006 caution: The Z film alteration by Costella may be useful for some things, but the grouping of data, or compression particularly at the periphery (which includes the limousine) is considerable, resulting in data loss and renders it nearly useless in analysing detail.(gif) John...It is the MPI frame you are using for reference which IS USELESS, except for correction. You forget that Dr. Costella is an expert on LENSES, and what he has done is CORRECT FOR THE PINCUSHION DISTORTION IN THE ZAPRUDER LENS. I questioned him about the difference in the sprocket holes between his version and the MPI version, which has the sprocket holes perfectly rectangular. Here is his reply: Regarding the 'extra distortion' in the sprocket holes, it's actually less distortion than was left last time. Let me explain. The pincushion distortion of the lens adds "second order" effects, "fourth order" effects, etc. The main pincushioning (that I demonstrated with a graphic in Duluth; also on my intro website I think) is the "second order" effect. This is what I corrected for back in 2001, and was all that I thought I could do up until a few weeks ago. When I started to put together these clips, I realised that, way out in the intersprocket region, the images would tend to "bulge", compared to other (second-order-corrected) images of the same real stuff shown in the middle of the frame. It was only noticeable using the magic program that I use to flip between frames to align and rotate them. It only amounts to a couple of pixels of 'bulge' outwards, but when you get down to this precision, it can be seen. Originally, back in 2001, I estimated that the "fourth order effect" would at most cause a couple of pixels worth of distortion right out in the sprocket hole area. Inside the main frame area, it would be negligible. Back then, in 2001, when the main pincushion effect hadn't even been corrected, I took 'a couple of pixels way out there' to be as good as negligible. It is a very small effect compared to the main warping of the frames due to the "second order" effects. When I saw the "bulge" a few weeks ago, I realised that I was finally (five years on) seeing the fourth-order effect for the first time. It's the "leftovers" you get after correctly removing the second-order effects. I realised that, since I was reprocessing all the frames anyway (and since I had corrected the aspect ratio by a couple of percent based on real Kodachrome II film from 1961 that a trusted researcher had sent me), I might as well use the opportunity to correct for the fourth-order effect at the same time. Since it's only a few pixels worth maximum, it's not difficult to get a good estimate of it by overlaying frames with similar backgrounds but with one shifted about 1/4 of a frame to the right. It was then simple enough to add that extra bit in to the equation that corrected the distortion. The result is the following. The original pincushion-corrected frames "pulled in" the corners of the image. On top of that, I have now "pulled in" the outer edges (essentially the sprocket area) a little bit more. It gives you the "flattest" image (ie closest to what you would get with an ideal camera) that I am likely to ever be able to give you. What it means, in practice, is that when I use my magic program to overlay different frames, they match up everywhere. If there was still distortion, they could match at some places and not at others. (The program also alters the perspective automagically to make sure that everything lines up as well.) Having said that ... there are occasional frames that don't quite fit the mold. For example, I think it is Z-112 that is wider than the others: everything seems to have been stretched horizontally. The problem is that that idiot Todd whathisname allegedly fiddled with all the frames (according to the MPI DVD he did, anyway), which probably explains the occasional gross weird stuff like that. .................. It is a mistake to consider the MPI frames correct and Costella wrong. What he has done is get the image within the frame correct without regard to the sprocket holes. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard J. Smith Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 From looking at frames 315-320, it does not appear to me the President had a "hole" in the back of his skull after receving the fatal head shot. Alan, Actually the hole was an "avulsion", seen here in Z337. Since Zapruder took his film from the side, you would have a tough time seeing the back of the head. Shanet, If your proof of Z film alteration is the film doesn't show a rear of head hole, you're on shaky ground. RJS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 But would the break be so clean? If he stopped that would have a "wind down" and the re-start would have a "gear up" ..........so it looks more like an edit than a mechanical 'stop and start'................... The original Zapruder film shows the "start-up frame". That frame is exposed a bit longer because the camera takes a frame or so to get up to full running speed, thus the start-up frame will be brighter than the following frames. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 From looking at frames 315-320, it does not appear to me the President had a "hole" in the back of his skull after receving the fatal head shot. Alan, Actually the hole was an "avulsion", seen here in Z337. Since Zapruder took his film from the side, you would have a tough time seeing the back of the head. Shanet, If your proof of Z film alteration is the film doesn't show a rear of head hole, you're on shaky ground. RJS _________________________________________________________ Ya know, I wish John Dolva or somebody would make a drawing showing exactly what we are looking at (regarding Kennedy's head wound/wounds) in Z337... --Thomas _________________________________________________________ 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