Ed O'Hagan Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 (edited) Here is Z. Frame # 416 Zooming in: ...and on the side of the van Edited November 30, 2006 by Ed O'Hagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 (edited) in the big leagues, Bill -- we post cites and references regarding claims we or others make, something you're completly unaware of not to mention, DEVOID of.... again, where did you find those Mary Poppin s frames you have such a love affair with....? Then we'll discuss those same Poppins frames, we'll see then, just how much you know about film compositing... BIG LEAGUES? Are you telling me that YOU are in the big leagues ... in your own mind possibly. For months you were admitting that you have not seen any proof of alteration, which was about the only truthful thing that you have said. (All coming long after "Hoax" was out in print) Not only do you act like you don't know where to find a copy of the Mary Poppins movie, which any idiot could do quite easily, you went as far as to pretend not to understand what was possibly wrong with the images within. This leaves any serious researcher to think that you are either really stupid or you are just a xxxxx with his mouse in one hand and something else in the other! I believe it to be the latter and that it's the reason that you cannot ever address the issues before you - it's why you only give back moronic replies about the 'big leagues' rather than to counter with facts - and its why you clowns cannot get even the most reckless of tabloid journals to print your alleged ground breaking news. Let the record to date stand as a testimonial to the things I have said. Oh, regarding your above to Charles: "...Kodachrome film DOES NOT copy accurately. No filters can compensate for the shift in color when dealing with Kodachrome II film. ..." what kind of nonesense is THAT? Better run that one by Roland Zavada or Lamson they'll appreciate your humor.... take the golf shoes off Bill, AGAIN! <sigh> It is from Zavada that these things can be learned. Case in point - the copy prints Zapruder had made the day of the assassination have differences in sharpness and color shifts when examined against the original. Groden says the same thing and Gary Mack, who has spoken to many photographic experts, has found them all to mirror the same information pertaining to Kodachrome II film. If you just happen to know the one expert in all the world who says differently, feel free to share his or her name with the forum members. Bill Miller "Miller" has no idea what he is talking about. The light's color temperature is whatmatters, not the kind of light. Name the experts you refer to. Show us examples. Jack I think you are talking about the photo and film experts I have spoken with, not to mention those who other researchers have spoken to. Coming from a guy who thought a white woman was black because he couldn't see the difference - I don't take your remarks to seriously. I can tell you however, you are in error as usual. Please keep in mind that we are discussing Kodachrome II film here. Bill Miller Edited November 30, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 ......and on the side of the van Honestly, I don't see anything other than a reasonably good example of MPEG2 macroblocks and JPEG artifacting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed O'Hagan Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 Set monitor screen at 800X 600. Crop and enlarge the area to the left of 'Purse' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 "Miller" has no idea what he is talking about. The light's color temperature is whatmatters, not the kind of light. Name the experts you refer to. Show us examples. Jack I think you are talking about the photo and film experts I have spoken with, not to mention those who other researchers have spoken to. Coming from a guy who thought a white woman was black because he couldn't see the difference - I don't take your remarks to seriously. I can tell you however, you are in error as usual. Please keep in mind that we are discussing Kodachrome II film here. Bill Miller Jack, I got this information from several independent sources - Mack and Groden being two of them. Below is part of a message that Gary Mack sent me on the matter. "You asked about copying Kodachrome II film in regard to the Zapruder film alteration theory. Here is what I learned a few years ago from Roland Zavada, who was part of Kodak's team of scientists that invented Kodachrome II movie film in 1961. Regular 8mm Kodachrome II movie film (the Zapruder film) was designed to be used by amateurs, not professionals, and it's characteristics are noticeably different from professional film stock such as that used by television stations in the pre-tape days. While Kodachrome II film can be copied, it cannot be copied as accurately as professionals require. The reason is that the film is balanced for natural sunlight, not the artificial light used in mechanical copying processes like optical printers. According to Zavada, with Kodachrome II film, no filters can properly compensate for the shift in color tones caused by using artificial light. The resulting change would be easily detectable by anyone who knows what to look for. This is not a color temperature problem, according to Zavada, it is a well-known design characteristic of Kodachrome II film. In those days, Kodak manufactured special film for copying 8mm Kodachrome II movie film, but even that film stock could not copy accurately. It was good enough for most amateurs, but not for professionals. Let me explain the problem this way: we've all visited someone's house and noticed their TV picture in which faces appear a little too green or too pink. It's the same problem with duplicating Kodachrome II film - the colors will be noticeably inaccurate (though not to that degree) In short, alteration of Kodachrome II movie film cannot be accomplished without the results being detectable by those who know what to look for." If you have information to the contrary, Jack ... by all means share it with us. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 ... In short, alteration of Kodachrome II movie film cannot be accomplished without the results being detectable by those who know what to look for." ... Bill Miller[/b] Bill, I'm not, by any means, an expert on copying Kodachrome II, so I'm asking this for my edification, not as a challenge to what you've written. If I understand the sequence of events, several copies of the Z-film were made essentially at the same time it was developed in the lab. What was used to make these copies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 1, 2006 Author Share Posted December 1, 2006 (edited) 'Bill Miller' wrote/dreamed.... [...] In short, alteration of Kodachrome II movie film cannot be accomplished without the results being detectable by those who know what to look for." dgh: roflmfao -- ROFLMFAO -- those that know what to look for, geesh! Think Mary Poppins, btw, where'd those frames come from, AGAIN? [...] Edited December 1, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Set monitor screen at 800X 600.Crop and enlarge the area to the left of 'Purse' Why should I change my monitor to 800x600? Also, it might help if you gave what Z-frame this image is from, so I can use one that is a little larger and a little less lossy than the one provided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 ...and here is my regular rant about digital vs. optical zooming/enlarging... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 "Miller" has no idea what he is talking about. The light's color temperature is what matters, not the kind of light. Name the experts you refer to. Show us examples. Jack I think you are talking about the photo and film experts I have spoken with, not to mention those who other researchers have spoken to. Coming from a guy who thought a white woman was black because he couldn't see the difference - I don't take your remarks to seriously. I can tell you however, you are in error as usual. Please keep in mind that we are discussing Kodachrome II film here. Bill Miller Jack, I got this information from several independent sources - Mack and Groden being two of them. Below is part of a message that Gary Mack sent me on the matter. "You asked about copying Kodachrome II film in regard to the Zapruder film alteration theory. Here is what I learned a few years ago from Roland Zavada, who was part of Kodak's team of scientists that invented Kodachrome II movie film in 1961. Regular 8mm Kodachrome II movie film (the Zapruder film) was designed to be used by amateurs, not professionals, and it's characteristics are noticeably different from professional film stock such as that used by television stations in the pre-tape days. While Kodachrome II film can be copied, it cannot be copied as accurately as professionals require. The reason is that the film is balanced for natural sunlight, not the artificial light used in mechanical copying processes like optical printers. According to Zavada, with Kodachrome II film, no filters can properly compensate for the shift in color tones caused by using artificial light. The resulting change would be easily detectable by anyone who knows what to look for. This is not a color temperature problem, according to Zavada, it is a well-known design characteristic of Kodachrome II film. In those days, Kodak manufactured special film for copying 8mm Kodachrome II movie film, but even that film stock could not copy accurately. It was good enough for most amateurs, but not for professionals. Let me explain the problem this way: we've all visited someone's house and noticed their TV picture in which faces appear a little too green or too pink. It's the same problem with duplicating Kodachrome II film - the colors will be noticeably inaccurate (though not to that degree) In short, alteration of Kodachrome II movie film cannot be accomplished without the results being detectable by those who know what to look for." If you have information to the contrary, Jack ... by all means share it with us. Bill Miller So Mack and Groden relayed to you INFORMATION FROM ZAVADA! So you are just quoting a single expert, not many. And Zavada's quotes are entirely in terms meant for a layman...nothing technical. Kodachrome was a very excellent fine grain film, tending to capture very well color tones in the magenta/yellow range, but sacrificing a tiny bit in the cyan area. The reason for this, I think Zavada would agree, was that the amateur market demanded THAT FLESH TONES reproduce perfectly, since most amateur photos included people. Thus all Kodachrome photos I ever took were very saturated in reds and yellows, with perfect flesh tones, but dark greens and blues tended to become "blocked up", that is, much darker than the original. The introduction of Ektachrome partially solved the "cyan blockup" problem, since Ecktachrome reproduced blues and greens with good color saturation without sacrificing reds and yellows, yet achieving a very good compromise on flesh tones. So Ektachrome, with better overall color and higher ASA rating, became the amateur film of choice, even though slightly grainier. Pro photographers like Lamson knew these qualities very well and could compensate for them with excellent results with either film. Inexperienced amateurs could not. Pros chose Kodachrome for its fine grain and indoor work generally, but better results outdoors were usually a job for Ektachrome, with its better scenic rendition. Pro photographers were very careful with light source COLOR TEMPERATURE (degrees Kelvin, as I recall) and used meters pointed directly at the source to read color temperature. I never had the need for such exact reading of color temperature. Regardless of the subject, IF THE COLOR TEMPERATURE IS MATCHED TO THE KODACHROME EXPOSURE, a good photographer using correct equipment and procedures, should be able to make perfect copies. I believe Zavada would not disagree with this. I myself have made many slide copies which I would defy Zavada to distinguish from originals without examining the edge markings, regardless of what the original film image was. An alternative.... Now condsider that a fake film is being produced. We must consider that IT MIGHT NOT BE COPIED ON KODACHROME STOCK JUST BECAUSE THE EDGE MARKINGS SAY "KODACHROME"...because it would be elementary and simple to introduce FAKED EDGE MARKINGS just like the fake images within the frames. Just because the edge markings say "Kodachrome", it should not be assumed that it is. You will have to do much better than Mack quoting Zavada's generalities. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Jack, Very interesting information on Kodachrome II film. I've not shot it in a movie format, but I have used both Kodachrome and Ektachrome for color transparency work. I'm certainly not an expert in the subtleties of the chemistry of various films, and don't pretend to be, but my experience with both products is consistent with what you have written. The question that I have is this: If I recall correctly, there were some immediate duplicates of the z-film made on 11/22. I keep hearing about how difficult/impossible it is to accurately copy Kodachrome... How were these duplicates made and what would they have looked like when they were new? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Jack,Very interesting information on Kodachrome II film. I've not shot it in a movie format, but I have used both Kodachrome and Ektachrome for color transparency work. I'm certainly not an expert in the subtleties of the chemistry of various films, and don't pretend to be, but my experience with both products is consistent with what you have written. The question that I have is this: If I recall correctly, there were some immediate duplicates of the z-film made on 11/22. I keep hearing about how difficult/impossible it is to accurately copy Kodachrome... How were these duplicates made and what would they have looked like when they were new? Frank...What I related is my personal experience with the two films. I am by no means an expert on the technical properties of the films and what they did. And all my experience is with 35mm slides; all I know about movie film is stuff I have read. So my experience is similar to yours. Having shot an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 slides, mostly Ektachrome, I do have some knowledge of resulting images, especially in duplication work, since I knew to always shoot 3 bracketed shots of each copy and choose the best exposure, because film is cheap and reshooting is expensive. As for the alleged development of the Z film, I recall that David Lifton has an excellent analysis of it in TGZFH; as I recall it is a chapter called Pig on a Leash. Check it out and see if it answers your questions. Lifton knows more about this aspect than most, and goes into great detail. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 1, 2006 Author Share Posted December 1, 2006 (edited) Jack,Very interesting information on Kodachrome II film. I've not shot it in a movie format, but I have used both Kodachrome and Ektachrome for color transparency work. I'm certainly not an expert in the subtleties of the chemistry of various films, and don't pretend to be, but my experience with both products is consistent with what you have written. The question that I have is this: If I recall correctly, there were some immediate duplicates of the z-film made on 11/22. I keep hearing about how difficult/impossible it is to accurately copy Kodachrome... How were these duplicates made and what would they have looked like when they were new? KODAK-Dallas provided 3 rolls of Kodachrome 11A film rated at 40ASA 3200K for the printing of Zapruders film, the story goes: they, KODAK had no 'print' film on hand (tough to believe for the film of the century). The prints were made at Jamieson-Dallas via contact printing and bracketed; best copy - 1/2 stop up - 1/2 stop down, developed at Kodak-Dallas and returned to Zapruder the same day. note: Trask in his latest offering concerning the Zapruder film covers the process much better than Zavada, which really gives me pause tp wonder about the formal Zavada report. Supposedly, the double 8 films were split that day. Well, that is until a double8mm UN-SPLIT B&W copy turned up in material donated to the 6th floor via the Zapruder family (after we spent 16 million bucks for it), best guess is the original in-camera film #0183 was the father of that b&w dupe - which means the in-camera original was NOT split immediately and PROBABLY means (though NOT confirmed) the Z-frame images appearing in the first editions of LIFE were not derived from the Zapruder's in-camera original... Most of the above is covered in Roland Zavada's detailed report (which has been severly criticized) -- and then there's the mysterious "cock the printer" - #0184, which is another bone of contention... Expect a email from Gary Mack, Frank.... Edited December 1, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 (edited) Bill,I'm not, by any means, an expert on copying Kodachrome II, so I'm asking this for my edification, not as a challenge to what you've written. If I understand the sequence of events, several copies of the Z-film were made essentially at the same time it was developed in the lab. What was used to make these copies? The camera original was used to make the copies. Bill Miller Edited December 1, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 KODAK-Dallas provided 3 rolls of Kodachrome 11A film It is Kodachrome IIA, not "11A". Supposedly, the double 8 films were split that day. Well, that is until a double8mm UN-SPLIT B&W copy turned up in material donated to the 6th floor via the Zapruder family (after we spent 16 million bucks for it), best guess is the original in-camera film #0183 was the father of that b&w dupe - which means the in-camera original was NOT split immediately and PROBABLY means (though NOT confirmed) the Z-frame images appearing in the first editions of LIFE were not derived from the Zapruder's in-camera original... The only film Life obtained on Saturday was the original film and their prints for the Magazine were being made and ready for shipping by Sunday. t that point the Feds had two lesser quality prints and Zapruder still had the best print in his possesion. http://www.jfk.org/Research/Zapruder/Zapru...Film_Chrono.htm Bill Miller 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