Jack White Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 "Miller" says this statement shows an "error" on my part... "Jack White: I have absolutely no experince with movie cameras and film; all my photo exprience is with still cameras” This statement is not an error. I have never owned nor operated a movie camera. However, I have read extensively about the "Zapruder" camera. I stand behind all of my statements. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 (edited) "Miller" says this statement shows an "error" on my part..."Jack White: I have absolutely no experince with movie cameras and film; all my photo exprience is with still cameras” This statement is not an error. I have never owned nor operated a movie camera. However, I have read extensively about the "Zapruder" camera. I stand behind all of my statements. Jack Jack, you (yourself) has said that one cannot merely paint onto a 8MM film frame to do alterations. Groden and Healy both agree what happens to the image when even a first generation copy is made. You say that you 'have no experience in movie film' and maybe that is why you do not see where you keep missing the points they made. So your position that all someone needs to do is retouch some 8 x 10s and make a copy film using those altered images runs into trouble for the reasons previously stated, which then the alterations would be detectable, especially by experts looking at the film under close scrutiny. It's the process of getting those alterfe images back onto film (that you claim not to know anything about) that would leave the tell tales signs of it not being the original, b ut rather at least a first generation copy. The frames that were not altered would then take on the appearence of a second generation copy ... maybe even a third like MPI's version. Bill Edited January 4, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 "Miller" says this statement shows an "error" on my part..."Jack White: I have absolutely no experince with movie cameras and film; all my photo exprience is with still cameras” This statement is not an error. I have never owned nor operated a movie camera. However, I have read extensively about the "Zapruder" camera. I stand behind all of my statements. Jack Jack, you (yourself) has said that one cannot merely paint onto a 8MM film frame to do alterations. Groden and Healy both agree what happens to the image when even a first generation copy is made. You say that you 'have no experience in movie film' and maybe that is why you do not see where you keep missing the points they made. So your position that all someone needs to do is retouch some 8 x 10s and make a copy film using those altered images runs into trouble for the reasons previously stated, which then the alterations would be detectable, especially by experts looking at the film under close scrutiny. It's the process of getting those alterfe images back onto film (that you claim not to know anything about) that would leave the tell tales signs of it not being the original, b ut rather at least a first generation copy. The frames that were not altered would then take on the appearence of a second generation copy ... maybe even a third like MPI's version. Bill "Miller" has a total lack of comprehension of what he reads. Only an imbecile would say that an 8mm film could be altered by painting directly on the tiny filmstrip. Only someone uninformed would say that a film can be determined to be a copy merely by looking at it WITHOUT COMPARING IT TO AN ORIGINAL. I have shot thousands of slide copies using both Kodachrome and Ektachrome. I defy "Miller" or any of his experts to identify them as copies WITHOUT COMPARING THEM TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE. There is nothing on the film emulsion that identifies a transparency as "an original" or "a copy". More often than not, MY COPIES WERE SUPERIOR IN QUALITY to the originals, because I could correct exposure deficiencies and poor cropping. There is no automatic DEGRADING of copies as "Miller" assumes. When you go to a theater to see a movie YOU ARE NEVER LOOKING AT AN ORIGINAL...you are always looking at multi-generational copies, and you cannot tell the difference. No editing is done with originals; it is all done with "rushes", "work prints," "release prints", " composite prints" etc. "Miller" is quick to ascribe his own ignorance to others. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 (edited) "Miller" has a total lack of comprehension of what he reads. Only an imbecile would say that an 8mm film could be altered by painting directly on the tiny filmstrip. Only someone uninformed would say that a film can be determined to be a copy merely by looking at it WITHOUT COMPARING IT TO AN ORIGINAL. I have shot thousands of slide copies using both Kodachrome and Ektachrome. I defy "Miller" or any of his experts to identify them as copies WITHOUT COMPARING THEM TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE. There is nothing on the film emulsion that identifies a transparency as "an original" or "a copy". More often than not, MY COPIES WERE SUPERIOR IN QUALITY to the originals, because I could correct exposure deficiencies and poor cropping. There is no automatic DEGRADING of copies as "Miller" assumes. When you go to a theater to see a movie YOU ARE NEVER LOOKING AT AN ORIGINAL...you are always looking at multi-generational copies, and you cannot tell the difference. No editing is done with originals; it is all done with "rushes", "work prints," "release prints", " composite prints" etc. "Miller" is quick to ascribe his own ignorance to others. Jack Jack, I did not say one could merely paint on 8MM film and have it go undetected ... I agree with you on that point. That means that the copying process back onto film has to be done. You say you don't know anything about movie film in one breath and you are trying to talk with film expertise in the next breath ... which is it?Go read the following ... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=45 Post #57 David Healy said, “In short, if the in-camera Z-8mm film frames are 'in focus' the BEST (1st generation) 35mm prints/copies of same 8mm frame will be slightly fuzzy -- as 35mm's go down in generation (3rd, 4th, 5th, etc) they DO get worse...” What David has said is that if you look at a film and the best frames are slightly fuzzy, then it is a copy and the further away from the original it is - the fuzzier those best frames will be. Now go to the archives and ask to see the original film so you can come back and describe their sharpness or fuzziness - what ever you find the case to be. Groden has done this - Zavada has done this ... I suspect that Jack White has not done this. The point David made is valid and it is what Groden has been saying all along. The only one who doesn't seem to know it is the guy who claims to have no experience with Movie cameras and film. Bill Miller Edited January 7, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 4, 2007 Author Share Posted January 4, 2007 (edited) "Miller" has a total lack of comprehension of what he reads. Only an imbecile would say that an 8mm film could be altered by painting directly on the tiny filmstrip. Only someone uninformed would say that a film can be determined to be a copy merely by looking at it WITHOUT COMPARING IT TO AN ORIGINAL. I have shot thousands of slide copies using both Kodachrome and Ektachrome. I defy "Miller" or any of his experts to identify them as copies WITHOUT COMPARING THEM TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE. There is nothing on the film emulsion that identifies a transparency as "an original" or "a copy". More often than not, MY COPIES WERE SUPERIOR IN QUALITY to the originals, because I could correct exposure deficiencies and poor cropping. There is no automatic DEGRADING of copies as "Miller" assumes. When you go to a theater to see a movie YOU ARE NEVER LOOKING AT AN ORIGINAL...you are always looking at multi-generational copies, and you cannot tell the difference. No editing is done with originals; it is all done with "rushes", "work prints," "release prints", " composite prints" etc. "Miller" is quick to ascribe his own ignorance to others. Jack Jack, I did not say one could merely paint on 8MM film and have it go undetected ... I agree with you on that point. That means that the copying process back onto film has to be done. You say you don't know anything about movie film in one breath and you are trying to talk with film expertise in the next breath ... which is it?Go read the following ... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=45 Post #57 David Healy said, “In short, if the in-camera Z-8mm film frames are 'in focus' the BEST (1st generation) 35mm prints/copies of same 8mm frame will be slightly fuzzy -- as 35mm's go down in generation (3rd, 4th, 5th, etc) they DO get worse...” What david has said is that if you look at a film and the best frames are slightly fuzzy, then it is a copy and the further away from the original it is - the fuzzier those best frames will be. Now go to the archives and ask to see the original film so you can come back and describe their sharpness or fuzziness - what ever you find the case to be. Groden has done this - Zavada has done this ... I suspect that Jack White has not done this. The point David made is valid and it is what Groden has been saying all along. The only one who doesn't seem to know it is the guy who claims to have no experience with Movie cameras and film. Bill Miller dgh: of course they'll be fuzzy at the 35mm level, the in-camera 8mm film is inherently SOFT, get the dupe back to 8mm you won't see any more or less "fuzziness-softness" than the original. The 35mm to 8mm version will be much sharper than what we see on the MPI DVD... (8mm - 35mm neg - 35mm pos - 8mm on a good system with a good tech/printer, you can't measure the changes, nor can Groden or Zavada and Zavada knows it) What has Groden done? Post a few frames so we can determine what he's done! Edited January 4, 2007 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 (edited) "Miller" has a total lack of comprehension of what he reads. Only an imbecile would say that an 8mm film could be altered by painting directly on the tiny filmstrip. Only someone uninformed would say that a film can be determined to be a copy merely by looking at it WITHOUT COMPARING IT TO AN ORIGINAL. I have shot thousands of slide copies using both Kodachrome and Ektachrome. I defy "Miller" or any of his experts to identify them as copies WITHOUT COMPARING THEM TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE. There is nothing on the film emulsion that identifies a transparency as "an original" or "a copy". More often than not, MY COPIES WERE SUPERIOR IN QUALITY to the originals, because I could correct exposure deficiencies and poor cropping. There is no automatic DEGRADING of copies as "Miller" assumes. When you go to a theater to see a movie YOU ARE NEVER LOOKING AT AN ORIGINAL...you are always looking at multi-generational copies, and you cannot tell the difference. No editing is done with originals; it is all done with "rushes", "work prints," "release prints", " composite prints" etc. "Miller" is quick to ascribe his own ignorance to others. Jack Jack, I did not say one could merely paint on 8MM film and have it go undetected ... I agree with you on that point. That means that the copying process back onto film has to be done. You say you don't know anything about movie film in one breath and you are trying to talk with film expertise in the next breath ... which is it?Go read the following ... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=45 Post #57 David Healy said, “In short, if the in-camera Z-8mm film frames are 'in focus' the BEST (1st generation) 35mm prints/copies of same 8mm frame will be slightly fuzzy -- as 35mm's go down in generation (3rd, 4th, 5th, etc) they DO get worse...” What david has said is that if you look at a film and the best frames are slightly fuzzy, then it is a copy and the further away from the original it is - the fuzzier those best frames will be. Now go to the archives and ask to see the original film so you can come back and describe their sharpness or fuzziness - what ever you find the case to be. Groden has done this - Zavada has done this ... I suspect that Jack White has not done this. The point David made is valid and it is what Groden has been saying all along. The only one who doesn't seem to know it is the guy who claims to have no experience with Movie cameras and film. Bill Miller Stick to subjects you know. There is no such thing as special "movie film"; Kodachrome is Kodachrome whether in 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, 4x5, or whatever...regardless of the camera format. I have shot THOUSANDS of Ektachrome and Kodachrome exposures...JUST NEVER IN A MOVIE CAMERA. The film is identical. The camera format makes no difference. You continue to show your ignorance about film. SHARPNESS is a function of the lens and focus...NOT THE FILM. Kodachrome is said to be virtually grainless. Ektachrome has a slight grain at huge HUGE enlargements. You should leave discussion of photography to those who know what they are talking about. Have Zavada come here and discuss film. You cannot even understand what he says. Jack Edited January 4, 2007 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Stick to subjects you know. There is no such thing as special "movie film"; Kodachrome is Kodachromewhether in 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, 4x5, or whatever...regardless of the camera format. I have shot THOUSANDS of Ektachrome and Kodachrome exposures...JUST NEVER IN A MOVIE CAMERA. The film is identical. The camera format makes no difference. You continue to show your ignorance about film. SHARPNESS is a function of the lens and focus...NOT THE FILM. Kodachrome is said to be virtually grainless. Ektachrome has a slight grain at huge HUGE enlargements. You should leave discussion of photography to those who know what they are talking about. Have Zavada come here and discuss film. You cannot even understand what he says. Jack Jack - I think I'll stick with Zavada and Groden on this over some senile old man who has never bothered to go view the film or have the knowledge of the scientist who invented it. I'll leave you to finding the Elm Street Midget, the parking meters who are taller than the street witnesses. Like I have said ... you claim all these world shaking finds and can't even get one tabloid to put that crap into print. Bill Miller Robert Groden: "I have been a close friend of Jack's for thirty years ...................... In the matter of the Zapruder films authenticity and many of the other issues such as foreshortening, and other technical issues, you have been 100% right and Jack has been 100% wrong ........ The record must remain straight ......... This Zapruder film alteration foolishness has done so much harm, that it can not be measured. It is now spilling over into other areas of the photographic evidence in the Kennedy case. I am extremely frustrated by it all ............ Jack knows how disappointed I am about the damage that has been done by the irresponsible crap that has misled so many people in this case." From: (Ray Fielding) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:53:52 EST Suject: Zavada To: (Len Colby) Mr. Colby: I apologize for my delay in responding to your e-nail. I have been out of the city for the last couple weeks and am only now catching up with my correspondence. I agree with Rollie Zavada that the Zapruda film could not have been successfully manipulated in 1963 with the technology then available, and had it been attempted, could not possibly have survived scrutiny. You may quote me. Raymond Fielding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 "Miller" says this statement shows an "error" on my part..."Jack White: I have absolutely no experince with movie cameras and film; all my photo exprience is with still cameras” This statement is not an error. I have never owned nor operated a movie camera. However, I have read extensively about the "Zapruder" camera. I stand behind all of my statements. Jack Jack, you (yourself) has said that one cannot merely paint onto a 8MM film frame to do alterations. Groden and Healy both agree what happens to the image when even a first generation copy is made. You say that you 'have no experience in movie film' and maybe that is why you do not see where you keep missing the points they made. So your position that all someone needs to do is retouch some 8 x 10s and make a copy film using those altered images runs into trouble for the reasons previously stated, which then the alterations would be detectable, especially by experts looking at the film under close scrutiny. It's the process of getting those alterfe images back onto film (that you claim not to know anything about) that would leave the tell tales signs of it not being the original, b ut rather at least a first generation copy. The frames that were not altered would then take on the appearence of a second generation copy ... maybe even a third like MPI's version. Bill "Miller" has a total lack of comprehension of what he reads. Only an imbecile would say that an 8mm film could be altered by painting directly on the tiny filmstrip. Only someone uninformed would say that a film can be determined to be a copy merely by looking at it WITHOUT COMPARING IT TO AN ORIGINAL. I have shot thousands of slide copies using both Kodachrome and Ektachrome. I defy "Miller" or any of his experts to identify them as copies WITHOUT COMPARING THEM TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE. There is nothing on the film emulsion that identifies a transparency as "an original" or "a copy". More often than not, MY COPIES WERE SUPERIOR IN QUALITY to the originals, because I could correct exposure deficiencies and poor cropping. There is no automatic DEGRADING of copies as "Miller" assumes. When you go to a theater to see a movie YOU ARE NEVER LOOKING AT AN ORIGINAL...you are always looking at multi-generational copies, and you cannot tell the difference. No editing is done with originals; it is all done with "rushes", "work prints," "release prints", " composite prints" etc. "Miller" is quick to ascribe his own ignorance to others. Jack Please BRING ON YOUR SLIDE COPIES! I'll have NO PROBLEM telling a second or third generation WITHOUT SEEING THE ORIGINAL. Jack White is simply throwing BULLCRAP around as usual. Again Jack posts MORE disinformation...when he says there is no automatic dedgradation when duping or making copies of slides or prints. THERE IS ALWAYS GENERATIONAL LOSS! Crawl back into your shed Jack, you don't have a clue about this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 "Miller" has a total lack of comprehension of what he reads. Only an imbecile would say that an 8mm film could be altered by painting directly on the tiny filmstrip. Only someone uninformed would say that a film can be determined to be a copy merely by looking at it WITHOUT COMPARING IT TO AN ORIGINAL. I have shot thousands of slide copies using both Kodachrome and Ektachrome. I defy "Miller" or any of his experts to identify them as copies WITHOUT COMPARING THEM TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE. There is nothing on the film emulsion that identifies a transparency as "an original" or "a copy". More often than not, MY COPIES WERE SUPERIOR IN QUALITY to the originals, because I could correct exposure deficiencies and poor cropping. There is no automatic DEGRADING of copies as "Miller" assumes. When you go to a theater to see a movie YOU ARE NEVER LOOKING AT AN ORIGINAL...you are always looking at multi-generational copies, and you cannot tell the difference. No editing is done with originals; it is all done with "rushes", "work prints," "release prints", " composite prints" etc. "Miller" is quick to ascribe his own ignorance to others. Jack Jack, I did not say one could merely paint on 8MM film and have it go undetected ... I agree with you on that point. That means that the copying process back onto film has to be done. You say you don't know anything about movie film in one breath and you are trying to talk with film expertise in the next breath ... which is it?Go read the following ... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=45 Post #57 David Healy said, “In short, if the in-camera Z-8mm film frames are 'in focus' the BEST (1st generation) 35mm prints/copies of same 8mm frame will be slightly fuzzy -- as 35mm's go down in generation (3rd, 4th, 5th, etc) they DO get worse...” What david has said is that if you look at a film and the best frames are slightly fuzzy, then it is a copy and the further away from the original it is - the fuzzier those best frames will be. Now go to the archives and ask to see the original film so you can come back and describe their sharpness or fuzziness - what ever you find the case to be. Groden has done this - Zavada has done this ... I suspect that Jack White has not done this. The point David made is valid and it is what Groden has been saying all along. The only one who doesn't seem to know it is the guy who claims to have no experience with Movie cameras and film. Bill Miller Stick to subjects you know. There is no such thing as special "movie film"; Kodachrome is Kodachrome whether in 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, 4x5, or whatever...regardless of the camera format. I have shot THOUSANDS of Ektachrome and Kodachrome exposures...JUST NEVER IN A MOVIE CAMERA. The film is identical. The camera format makes no difference. You continue to show your ignorance about film. SHARPNESS is a function of the lens and focus...NOT THE FILM. Kodachrome is said to be virtually grainless. Ektachrome has a slight grain at huge HUGE enlargements. You should leave discussion of photography to those who know what they are talking about. Have Zavada come here and discuss film. You cannot even understand what he says. Jack Again EVEN MORE BULLCRAP Jack. One of the main reasons for the sharpness of Kodachrome is the extremely thin emulsion comparied to a film like Ektachrome. Kodachrome also has a distinctive 'relief pattern" on the emulsion side. Ektachrome nor any of the e3 or e6 procesws films have this relief pattern. Also a thin based film like a 120 or 220 roll film is SHARPER than the same emulsion of film coated on the thicker based film like 35mm or 4x5. In addition, the overall shaprness of a photograph (in other words depth of field) DECREASES as the size of the film gets larger. For example an 8mm frame exposed with an f-stop of 8 will have more DOF that a 35mm frame at f8, which in turn will have more DOF than a 120 frame at f8, which in turn will have more DOF than a 4x5 frame at f8, which in turn will have more DOF than a 8x10 frame at f8....all considering the a lens on each camera with the same FOV. You are SIMPLY WRONG to claim that sharpness is a function of lens and focus and not the film. As usual you don't have a clue.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 5, 2007 Author Share Posted January 5, 2007 (edited) "Miller" has a total lack of comprehension of what he reads. Only an imbecile would say that an 8mm film could be altered by painting directly on the tiny filmstrip. Only someone uninformed would say that a film can be determined to be a copy merely by looking at it WITHOUT COMPARING IT TO AN ORIGINAL. I have shot thousands of slide copies using both Kodachrome and Ektachrome. I defy "Miller" or any of his experts to identify them as copies WITHOUT COMPARING THEM TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE. There is nothing on the film emulsion that identifies a transparency as "an original" or "a copy". More often than not, MY COPIES WERE SUPERIOR IN QUALITY to the originals, because I could correct exposure deficiencies and poor cropping. There is no automatic DEGRADING of copies as "Miller" assumes. When you go to a theater to see a movie YOU ARE NEVER LOOKING AT AN ORIGINAL...you are always looking at multi-generational copies, and you cannot tell the difference. No editing is done with originals; it is all done with "rushes", "work prints," "release prints", " composite prints" etc. "Miller" is quick to ascribe his own ignorance to others. Jack Jack, I did not say one could merely paint on 8MM film and have it go undetected ... I agree with you on that point. That means that the copying process back onto film has to be done. You say you don't know anything about movie film in one breath and you are trying to talk with film expertise in the next breath ... which is it?Go read the following ... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=45 Post #57 David Healy said, “In short, if the in-camera Z-8mm film frames are 'in focus' the BEST (1st generation) 35mm prints/copies of same 8mm frame will be slightly fuzzy -- as 35mm's go down in generation (3rd, 4th, 5th, etc) they DO get worse...” What david has said is that if you look at a film and the best frames are slightly fuzzy, then it is a copy and the further away from the original it is - the fuzzier those best frames will be. Now go to the archives and ask to see the original film so you can come back and describe their sharpness or fuzziness - what ever you find the case to be. Groden has done this - Zavada has done this ... I suspect that Jack White has not done this. The point David made is valid and it is what Groden has been saying all along. The only one who doesn't seem to know it is the guy who claims to have no experience with Movie cameras and film. Bill Miller Stick to subjects you know. There is no such thing as special "movie film"; Kodachrome is Kodachrome whether in 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, 4x5, or whatever...regardless of the camera format. I have shot THOUSANDS of Ektachrome and Kodachrome exposures...JUST NEVER IN A MOVIE CAMERA. The film is identical. The camera format makes no difference. You continue to show your ignorance about film. SHARPNESS is a function of the lens and focus...NOT THE FILM. Kodachrome is said to be virtually grainless. Ektachrome has a slight grain at huge HUGE enlargements. You should leave discussion of photography to those who know what they are talking about. Have Zavada come here and discuss film. You cannot even understand what he says. Jack Again EVEN MORE BULLCRAP Jack. One of the main reasons for the sharpness of Kodachrome is the extremely thin emulsion comparied to a film like Ektachrome. Kodachrome also has a distinctive 'relief pattern" on the emulsion side. Ektachrome nor any of the e3 or e6 procesws films have this relief pattern. Also a thin based film like a 120 or 220 roll film is SHARPER than the same emulsion of film coated on the thicker based film like 35mm or 4x5. In addition, the overall shaprness of a photograph (in other words depth of field) DECREASES as the size of the film gets larger. For example an 8mm frame exposed with an f-stop of 8 will have more DOF that a 35mm frame at f8, which in turn will have more DOF than a 120 frame at f8, which in turn will have more DOF than a 4x5 frame at f8, which in turn will have more DOF than a 8x10 frame at f8....all considering the a lens on each camera with the same FOV. You are SIMPLY WRONG to claim that sharpness is a function of lens and focus and not the film. As usual you don't have a clue.... *********** dgh: "...wrong to claim sharpness is NOT a function of a lens, nor focus..." -- I suspect that's true for a pin-hole camera ... can you provide an image of this emulsion side "relief pattern", and show the differences of same between 8mm and 35mm Kodachrome? Edited January 5, 2007 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 "Miller" has a total lack of comprehension of what he reads. Only an imbecile would say that an 8mm film could be altered by painting directly on the tiny filmstrip. Only someone uninformed would say that a film can be determined to be a copy merely by looking at it WITHOUT COMPARING IT TO AN ORIGINAL. I have shot thousands of slide copies using both Kodachrome and Ektachrome. I defy "Miller" or any of his experts to identify them as copies WITHOUT COMPARING THEM TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE. There is nothing on the film emulsion that identifies a transparency as "an original" or "a copy". More often than not, MY COPIES WERE SUPERIOR IN QUALITY to the originals, because I could correct exposure deficiencies and poor cropping. There is no automatic DEGRADING of copies as "Miller" assumes. When you go to a theater to see a movie YOU ARE NEVER LOOKING AT AN ORIGINAL...you are always looking at multi-generational copies, and you cannot tell the difference. No editing is done with originals; it is all done with "rushes", "work prints," "release prints", " composite prints" etc. "Miller" is quick to ascribe his own ignorance to others. Jack Jack, I did not say one could merely paint on 8MM film and have it go undetected ... I agree with you on that point. That means that the copying process back onto film has to be done. You say you don't know anything about movie film in one breath and you are trying to talk with film expertise in the next breath ... which is it?Go read the following ... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=45 Post #57 David Healy said, “In short, if the in-camera Z-8mm film frames are 'in focus' the BEST (1st generation) 35mm prints/copies of same 8mm frame will be slightly fuzzy -- as 35mm's go down in generation (3rd, 4th, 5th, etc) they DO get worse...” What david has said is that if you look at a film and the best frames are slightly fuzzy, then it is a copy and the further away from the original it is - the fuzzier those best frames will be. Now go to the archives and ask to see the original film so you can come back and describe their sharpness or fuzziness - what ever you find the case to be. Groden has done this - Zavada has done this ... I suspect that Jack White has not done this. The point David made is valid and it is what Groden has been saying all along. The only one who doesn't seem to know it is the guy who claims to have no experience with Movie cameras and film. Bill Miller Stick to subjects you know. There is no such thing as special "movie film"; Kodachrome is Kodachrome whether in 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, 4x5, or whatever...regardless of the camera format. I have shot THOUSANDS of Ektachrome and Kodachrome exposures...JUST NEVER IN A MOVIE CAMERA. The film is identical. The camera format makes no difference. You continue to show your ignorance about film. SHARPNESS is a function of the lens and focus...NOT THE FILM. Kodachrome is said to be virtually grainless. Ektachrome has a slight grain at huge HUGE enlargements. You should leave discussion of photography to those who know what they are talking about. Have Zavada come here and discuss film. You cannot even understand what he says. Jack Again EVEN MORE BULLCRAP Jack. One of the main reasons for the sharpness of Kodachrome is the extremely thin emulsion comparied to a film like Ektachrome. Kodachrome also has a distinctive 'relief pattern" on the emulsion side. Ektachrome nor any of the e3 or e6 procesws films have this relief pattern. Also a thin based film like a 120 or 220 roll film is SHARPER than the same emulsion of film coated on the thicker based film like 35mm or 4x5. In addition, the overall shaprness of a photograph (in other words depth of field) DECREASES as the size of the film gets larger. For example an 8mm frame exposed with an f-stop of 8 will have more DOF that a 35mm frame at f8, which in turn will have more DOF than a 120 frame at f8, which in turn will have more DOF than a 4x5 frame at f8, which in turn will have more DOF than a 8x10 frame at f8....all considering the a lens on each camera with the same FOV. You are SIMPLY WRONG to claim that sharpness is a function of lens and focus and not the film. As usual you don't have a clue.... *********** dgh: wrong to claim sharpness is NOT a function of a lens, nor focus -- I suspect that's true for a pin-hole camera ... can you provide an image of this emulsion side "relief pattern", and show the differences of same between 8mm and 35mm Kodachrome? No, its WRONG to claim that FILM has nothing to do with sharpness...Learn to read davie. As for the Kodachrome relief pattern...DO SOME RESEARCH FOR A CHANGE!, then I'll continue your lesson davie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 5, 2007 Author Share Posted January 5, 2007 (edited) "Miller" has a total lack of comprehension of what he reads. Only an imbecile would say that an 8mm film could be altered by painting directly on the tiny filmstrip. Only someone uninformed would say that a film can be determined to be a copy merely by looking at it WITHOUT COMPARING IT TO AN ORIGINAL. I have shot thousands of slide copies using both Kodachrome and Ektachrome. I defy "Miller" or any of his experts to identify them as copies WITHOUT COMPARING THEM TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE. There is nothing on the film emulsion that identifies a transparency as "an original" or "a copy". More often than not, MY COPIES WERE SUPERIOR IN QUALITY to the originals, because I could correct exposure deficiencies and poor cropping. There is no automatic DEGRADING of copies as "Miller" assumes. When you go to a theater to see a movie YOU ARE NEVER LOOKING AT AN ORIGINAL...you are always looking at multi-generational copies, and you cannot tell the difference. No editing is done with originals; it is all done with "rushes", "work prints," "release prints", " composite prints" etc. "Miller" is quick to ascribe his own ignorance to others. Jack Jack, I did not say one could merely paint on 8MM film and have it go undetected ... I agree with you on that point. That means that the copying process back onto film has to be done. You say you don't know anything about movie film in one breath and you are trying to talk with film expertise in the next breath ... which is it?Go read the following ... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=45 Post #57 David Healy said, “In short, if the in-camera Z-8mm film frames are 'in focus' the BEST (1st generation) 35mm prints/copies of same 8mm frame will be slightly fuzzy -- as 35mm's go down in generation (3rd, 4th, 5th, etc) they DO get worse...” What david has said is that if you look at a film and the best frames are slightly fuzzy, then it is a copy and the further away from the original it is - the fuzzier those best frames will be. Now go to the archives and ask to see the original film so you can come back and describe their sharpness or fuzziness - what ever you find the case to be. Groden has done this - Zavada has done this ... I suspect that Jack White has not done this. The point David made is valid and it is what Groden has been saying all along. The only one who doesn't seem to know it is the guy who claims to have no experience with Movie cameras and film. Bill Miller Stick to subjects you know. There is no such thing as special "movie film"; Kodachrome is Kodachrome whether in 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, 4x5, or whatever...regardless of the camera format. I have shot THOUSANDS of Ektachrome and Kodachrome exposures...JUST NEVER IN A MOVIE CAMERA. The film is identical. The camera format makes no difference. You continue to show your ignorance about film. SHARPNESS is a function of the lens and focus...NOT THE FILM. Kodachrome is said to be virtually grainless. Ektachrome has a slight grain at huge HUGE enlargements. You should leave discussion of photography to those who know what they are talking about. Have Zavada come here and discuss film. You cannot even understand what he says. Jack Again EVEN MORE BULLCRAP Jack. One of the main reasons for the sharpness of Kodachrome is the extremely thin emulsion comparied to a film like Ektachrome. Kodachrome also has a distinctive 'relief pattern" on the emulsion side. Ektachrome nor any of the e3 or e6 procesws films have this relief pattern. Also a thin based film like a 120 or 220 roll film is SHARPER than the same emulsion of film coated on the thicker based film like 35mm or 4x5. In addition, the overall shaprness of a photograph (in other words depth of field) DECREASES as the size of the film gets larger. For example an 8mm frame exposed with an f-stop of 8 will have more DOF that a 35mm frame at f8, which in turn will have more DOF than a 120 frame at f8, which in turn will have more DOF than a 4x5 frame at f8, which in turn will have more DOF than a 8x10 frame at f8....all considering the a lens on each camera with the same FOV. You are SIMPLY WRONG to claim that sharpness is a function of lens and focus and not the film. As usual you don't have a clue.... *********** dgh: wrong to claim sharpness is NOT a function of a lens, nor focus -- I suspect that's true for a pin-hole camera ... can you provide an image of this emulsion side "relief pattern", and show the differences of same between 8mm and 35mm Kodachrome? No, its WRONG to claim that FILM has nothing to do with sharpness...Learn to read davie. As for the Kodachrome relief pattern...DO SOME RESEARCH FOR A CHANGE!, then I'll continue your lesson davie. LMAO, Craigster what's a old trailer photog gonna show me? How to devolpe pan-X? LMAO! School's been out for a long, LONG time, Craigster! You ought to know better.... can't provide any examples Craig, what is one suppose to think of your research capabilities? Edited January 5, 2007 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 (edited) "Miller" has a total lack of comprehension of what he reads. Only an imbecile would say that an 8mm film could be altered by painting directly on the tiny filmstrip. Only someone uninformed would say that a film can be determined to be a copy merely by looking at it WITHOUT COMPARING IT TO AN ORIGINAL. I have shot thousands of slide copies using both Kodachrome and Ektachrome. I defy "Miller" or any of his experts to identify them as copies WITHOUT COMPARING THEM TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE. There is nothing on the film emulsion that identifies a transparency as "an original" or "a copy". More often than not, MY COPIES WERE SUPERIOR IN QUALITY to the originals, because I could correct exposure deficiencies and poor cropping. There is no automatic DEGRADING of copies as "Miller" assumes. When you go to a theater to see a movie YOU ARE NEVER LOOKING AT AN ORIGINAL...you are always looking at multi-generational copies, and you cannot tell the difference. No editing is done with originals; it is all done with "rushes", "work prints," "release prints", " composite prints" etc. "Miller" is quick to ascribe his own ignorance to others. Jack Jack, I did not say one could merely paint on 8MM film and have it go undetected ... I agree with you on that point. That means that the copying process back onto film has to be done. You say you don't know anything about movie film in one breath and you are trying to talk with film expertise in the next breath ... which is it?Go read the following ... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=45 Post #57 David Healy said, “In short, if the in-camera Z-8mm film frames are 'in focus' the BEST (1st generation) 35mm prints/copies of same 8mm frame will be slightly fuzzy -- as 35mm's go down in generation (3rd, 4th, 5th, etc) they DO get worse...” What david has said is that if you look at a film and the best frames are slightly fuzzy, then it is a copy and the further away from the original it is - the fuzzier those best frames will be. Now go to the archives and ask to see the original film so you can come back and describe their sharpness or fuzziness - what ever you find the case to be. Groden has done this - Zavada has done this ... I suspect that Jack White has not done this. The point David made is valid and it is what Groden has been saying all along. The only one who doesn't seem to know it is the guy who claims to have no experience with Movie cameras and film. Bill Miller Stick to subjects you know. There is no such thing as special "movie film"; Kodachrome is Kodachrome whether in 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, 4x5, or whatever...regardless of the camera format. I have shot THOUSANDS of Ektachrome and Kodachrome exposures...JUST NEVER IN A MOVIE CAMERA. The film is identical. The camera format makes no difference. You continue to show your ignorance about film. SHARPNESS is a function of the lens and focus...NOT THE FILM. Kodachrome is said to be virtually grainless. Ektachrome has a slight grain at huge HUGE enlargements. You should leave discussion of photography to those who know what they are talking about. Have Zavada come here and discuss film. You cannot even understand what he says. Jack Again EVEN MORE BULLCRAP Jack. One of the main reasons for the sharpness of Kodachrome is the extremely thin emulsion comparied to a film like Ektachrome. Kodachrome also has a distinctive 'relief pattern" on the emulsion side. Ektachrome nor any of the e3 or e6 procesws films have this relief pattern. Also a thin based film like a 120 or 220 roll film is SHARPER than the same emulsion of film coated on the thicker based film like 35mm or 4x5. In addition, the overall shaprness of a photograph (in other words depth of field) DECREASES as the size of the film gets larger. For example an 8mm frame exposed with an f-stop of 8 will have more DOF that a 35mm frame at f8, which in turn will have more DOF than a 120 frame at f8, which in turn will have more DOF than a 4x5 frame at f8, which in turn will have more DOF than a 8x10 frame at f8....all considering the a lens on each camera with the same FOV. You are SIMPLY WRONG to claim that sharpness is a function of lens and focus and not the film. As usual you don't have a clue.... *********** dgh: wrong to claim sharpness is NOT a function of a lens, nor focus -- I suspect that's true for a pin-hole camera ... can you provide an image of this emulsion side "relief pattern", and show the differences of same between 8mm and 35mm Kodachrome? No, its WRONG to claim that FILM has nothing to do with sharpness...Learn to read davie. As for the Kodachrome relief pattern...DO SOME RESEARCH FOR A CHANGE!, then I'll continue your lesson davie. LMAO, Craigster what's a old trailer photog gonna show me? How to devolpe pan-X? LMAO! School's been out for a long, LONG time, Craigster! You ought to know better.... can't provide any examples Craig, what is one suppose to think of your research capabilities? Well it seems you simply don't have a CLUE about the properties of Kodachrome film, and it seems you are not capable of learning either. Whats the matter, too many kicks to the head while shooting cowboys? So why not get back to me when you DO have a clue davie... Edited January 5, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 (edited) dgh: "...wrong to claim sharpness is NOT a function of a lens, nor focus..." -- I suspect that's true for a pin-hole camera ...can you provide an image of this emulsion side "relief pattern", and show the differences of same between 8mm and 35mm Kodachrome? I think I posted Kodac's link on that very issue and you wanted to argue rather than to read it. Look it up in the archives. Seeing how you, David, like to cite how only experts are qualified to talk about something ... enjoy this link .... http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...comments-r1.pdf Bill Miller Edited January 5, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 (edited) dgh: roflmao, now WHY is Len whose taken a few photos during his lifetime talking about this technical subject for. Even by his (Len's) own admission, he knows nada about the subject matter. Hey David ... you forgot to mention this to Jack when he said and I quote: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8939&st=30 Post #41 “I have absolutely no experince with movie cameras and film; all my photo exprience is with still cameras” Bill thanks for pointing that out but you missed the greater irony. Healy has never clarified what his experience regarding movie film and cameras and more importantly post production techniques is. Yes we all know he knows his stuff regarding VIDEO cameras, tape and post production but they're hardly the same thing.I never claim such expertise which is why I normally avoid technical issues other than to quote people who (unlike Jack and David) have proven expertise. Len Edit –typos fixed Edited January 5, 2007 by Len Colby 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