John Dolva Posted January 9, 2007 Author Share Posted January 9, 2007 (edited) Frank, I think that is an excellent point. What I see is MM 20 as the last of the static position of Jackie and Z 289 the last on Z. I don't see a pause. As the limo is traversing the scene the localised parallax would show a shift if she was (realatiely to John) stationary. As she may appear to be stationary it means she is moving in the rate of parallax shift. Ashton, I think that's the missing piece. Thank you for that. So we need to know the true frame rate (which we may be able to calculate soon) and the relevant specifics of the cameras. The shutter speed can change a lot depending on the frame rate. So that's good to know in calculating fragment speeds once one has a correct distance the fragments have travelled by understanding the direction they have taken. Perhaps:: We can begin to understand some of the mechanics of the wound ballistics. standard formulae like a=v f - v i /t, v= d / t, and F= ma can be used to get an understanding of the original impulse and what created it, and with the vector analysis derive a bullet rajectory and hence the location of the assassin. I wonder if we can amass sufficient data by tringulating the various headshot images to build a transparent 3D model of the split second they represent. Edited January 9, 2007 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 ...The shutter speed can change a lot depending on the frame rate. So that's good to know in calculating fragment speeds once one has a correct distance the fragments have travelled by understanding the direction they have taken. John, I'm not sure how accurate this statement is. Obviously, the shutter has to close before the frame is advanced, however I'm not sure how much it varies (if at all). I *do* agree, though, that understanding how long the shutter is open can be helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 9, 2007 Author Share Posted January 9, 2007 Frank, follow the link that Ashton posted. This will tell what I mean. We have a view of the fragment direction from N and Z, possibly also it can be seen in M and B as well. This should give a true direction. If we know the shutter speed of the various cameras we can the know the velocity of the fragments. Knowing the velocity of the fragments we can then see where the fragments are in the film and from that derive the moment the fragment started travelling along that trajectory and hence time the various photos. Then having other sync points we can know relative frame rates. One then simply has to accept any cameras frame rate to get a benchamrk from which all syncs can be derived. I know I'm leaping ahead of the data here, but I think this is where this could go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 If we know the shutter speed of the various cameras we can the know the velocity of the fragments. John, That is possible, but not simple. The blurring of objects may be due to their own motion or the motion of the camera. The camera motion would have to be factored out. I'm still thinking about how that might be done, as there are three actual dimensions of possible movement, but they are projected onto two (the film). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 9, 2007 Author Share Posted January 9, 2007 Well, there would be an error margin that may be reduced by exact blur analysis. This is not necessarily as difficult as it initially may seem. There are beginnings and ends of a blur and a true size of the object. Then there are some factors that are relative. And may therefore cancel out. Still, the point you make I agree with. With growing understanding quite possibly it will end up a simple process. To sme extent one needs to set an error margin which in itself negates deep preciscion. ie nothing can be more precise than the most imprecice factor. However, until that is set one should maximise preciscion except in formulating hypothesis. Any calculation can be checked with that of other frames, which will give a correlation, and from that a level of 'trust'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Considering sync again for a moment: Here is a loop comparing Z289-Z298 and M19-28. To my eye, Z289 is the last of a series of frames where Jackie's head is in a stable position. Z290 begins a move that completes at Z298 (where she moves into what I call the "loosen the tie" position). The move that, to me, establishes some degree of sync is Z290-292 matched to M20-22. The following is a repeating sequence of those frames. Note additionally the motion of Jackie's left shoulder. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 9, 2007 Author Share Posted January 9, 2007 methinks... Excellent. Seeing as we at different times, after you initially mentioned a sync in this area, shift the sync to just these frames I think we can proceed with confidence from there. This then would place M01 as I suggested earlier. What does this then mean as far as stretching across to the previous sync at M63? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 (edited) methinks... Excellent.Seeing as we at different times, after you initially mentioned a sync in this area, shift the sync to just these frames I think we can proceed with confidence from there. This then would place M01 as I suggested earlier. What does this then mean as far as stretching across to the previous sync at M63? I have not computed a timebase using this sync point yet. By the time I found this candidate last night, I was so tired that I couldn't have counted to ten even with well-labeled fingers and a school teacher there to help me... I'll try to get an idea of the time ramifications and post something soon. EDIT: M-01 *has* to be very close to N-21. If they are not exactly lined up, the are within a fractional frame of each other, with Nix slightly preceding Muchmore. (Edit of the edit... corrected typo) Edited January 10, 2007 by Frank Agbat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 10, 2007 Author Share Posted January 10, 2007 Could you clarify/correct please Frank? (MM 01 - Z 270-271 is my suggestion) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Well, the Muchmore film is doing it to us again!! If the tested frame rate is accurate (18.5 frames per second, from Trask's book) then Z291 = M21 CANNOT be correct... Why, you ask? Well, the math of frames and frame rates, this match point ends up placing M42 before Z312, which does not pass the sanity check (M42 is the start of the head shot, and splatter is visible). So either the sync point needs to move slightly, or the frame rate of the Muchmore camera is not accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 10, 2007 Author Share Posted January 10, 2007 (edited) or... M42 may not be M42 at all from post #384 N-46 is M-64 N-35 is Z-325 M-01 is Z-270 M-64 is Z-336 ie 66 Z frames for 63 M-frames 3.6065 seconds for 63 M-frames 17.4681 fps for M-camera Interestingly this is about the rate of the fully wound Z-camera. So if right calculations, she must have fully wound her camera before starting filming this sequence. M42 as we have it does appear to show that. Z207 costalla version shows the ease of hiding a splice. This may mean that the true number of Z313 should be 314. This is why I've persisted in a detailed analysis of the headshot sequence for MM. There appears to be no new info in the disco-MM. In fact info is lost with the saturation changes, and the frames are even more cropped. They just look prettier, like the Costalla frames. Apart from having a reference towork from I try to ignore frame numberings as ehere are so many examples of them being wrong in different ways. A determination of fragment trajectory may give the shutter speed of the MM camera and hence its frame rate according to the formulae Ashton directed to. Edited January 10, 2007 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 10, 2007 Author Share Posted January 10, 2007 revisiting the Nix film : a panorama of all frames (in this version) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 or... M42 may not be M42 at all Apart from having a reference towork from I try to ignore frame numberings as ehere are so many examples of them being wrong in different ways. John, I understand the reluctance to fixate on frame numbers. However, from my perspective, I have 66 frames of Muchmore film that I'm looking at, and the headshot becomes obvious in the 42nd one. Assuming for a moment that none have been removed or otherwise tampered with, then there is a limited (very limited) window of time in which M42 *had* to have occurred. I realize that framerates are relative, too. They don't remain steady throughout a run (although they do a fairly good job of being mechanically governed to be within a certain range). Nevertheless, I am trying to remain consistent and work with an established average frame rate. I'll have to re-run the numbers with a 17.5 fps framerate to see what they look like. However, my postulate remains that I've missed the sync by a frame (or so) rather than the stated rate of the camera being off by a full frame per second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 revisiting the Nix film : a panorama of all frames (in this version) Terrific work, John. Of all the figures, most of them show some (understandable) degree of motion blur... except one... The Babushka lady appears to be in two places. Is this a side-effect of the process used to create the panorama? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 revisiting the Nix film : a panorama of all frames (in this version) Terrific work, John. Of all the figures, most of them show some (understandable) degree of motion blur... except one... The Babushka lady appears to be in two places. Is this a side-effect of the process used to create the panorama? That is Toni Foster, the running lady...not the Babushka lady. 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