Muchmore film headshot sequence

[John Dolva]

That one's for Frank, or someone else who also has the expertise to answer that technical aspect, Chris.

Here's anther more precise visualisation of the frame size changes. The first rectangle to the left represents the full frame. The rest in order to M66. (the red dot is the conventional M42.)

Again a dramatic discontinuity around the headshot, which is shifted out of frame without the blue splice. (lower version without the splice).

Before this is another smoother shift. I suggest the shift caused by the two composites is compensated for before and after the headshot. Perhaps there is something else going on there as well. Either way it appears there a a number of ways to highlight a significant discontinuity in the film at the headshot.

Just speculating: perhaps the frame compositing was done and the need to create the pan effect by shifting the mask occurred.

This was found to be insufficient and the film was simply sliced there, shifted and then spliced. The obviousness of this splice and an apparent explanation that it's just a splice, which is what it looks like, causes a kind of intentional blindness on subsequent examinations of the film, and it's just tooo complex (which it isn't once a few mirrors are smashed) and M42, despite the obviousness of it not being the headshot frame (see Nix topic), becomes another of those sleights of hand that's strewn throughout the case.

Edited January 3, 2007 by John Dolva

[Ashton Gray]

What has been accomplished here is that the original frame 2 is gone completely, replaced with a blurred version of frame 1 (it could even be slightly panned depending on available frame space). The original frame 4 is moved one frame later, with a blurred version of itself replacing it. I've removed the data from frame 2, yet managed to add time to the film. The question is -- how possible is it using optical technology to intentionally create motion blur?

I can't respond narrowly to the exact question, and the information I have that may or may not have relevance is from the mid-late 1970s, but I worked with a retoucher in L.A. who for some projects would have very large transparencies made from any original (I believe Ektachrome—8x10 and bigger) and retouch directly on those with transparent dyes. John Dolva's blur creation process in this thread reminded me of it.

It seems that such large transparencies could be made from film frames, even introducing blur in an enlarger, retouched, and possibly overlaid to create a variety of effects if re-shot one frame at a time as film on a pin-registered light table.

At one shop where I worked we did very elaborate photo composites for movie posters by getting color prints made of the various elements (backgrounds, heads, bodies, buildings, whatever), carefully cutting them out and assembling them any way we saw fit, having a photo lab make a large continuous print—or, more rarely, transparency, depending—from that assemblage, then sending it out to a retoucher to eliminate the seams. This was business as usual.

All of these techniques might have some application to methods of fudging, but each would introduce generational loss and color shifts, so I think every frame, fudged or unfudged, would have to be subjected to the same process to create the "new, improved" version of a film for continuity.

Ashton

Edited January 3, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Frank Agbat]

John/Frank,

Would this have been to replicate the interlacing/deinterlacing method/effect?

thanks

chris

Hi Chris,

You posted two animations previously -- one of which had some ghosting effects, the other one was clear.

The ghosting effects were almost certainly not on the original film. They are the result of the process necessary to convert them to a format that is playable on Televisions. Film is originally a progressive source -- nothing but a series of complete and sequential pictures one after another. Traditional televisions don't work quite that way, so film sources must be modified (processes to make frame rate corrections and a concept called interlacing) to be viewable. Essentially, duplicate frames (to correct frame rate) and "special" frames (interlaced) frames are added. This process is called "Telecining." The result is a film that is playable on a television, yet runs at the correct frame-rate.

When a DVD is ripped (or frames are advanced one-by-one in DVD player software and captured), if the added frames are not removed (a process known as inverse Telecine, or IVTC), they will show up when you frame-advance on a computer (which is a progressive device). That is why one must be careful to work with only the purely progressive frames when making computer animations from DVD frames of a film source (gasp!).

To answer your question -- one would not want to, nor would it be necessary to, create ghosting or interlace effects on a film source (unless you were doing something intentionally for special effects, etc).

[Jack White]

What has been accomplished here is that the original frame 2 is gone completely, replaced with a blurred version of frame 1 (it could even be slightly panned depending on available frame space). The original frame 4 is moved one frame later, with a blurred version of itself replacing it. I've removed the data from frame 2, yet managed to add time to the film. The question is -- how possible is it using optical technology to intentionally create motion blur?

I can't respond narrowly to the exact question, and the information I have that may or may not have relevance and is from the mid-late 1970s, but I worked with a retoucher in L.A. who for some projects would have very large transparencies made from any original (I believe Ektachrome—8x10 and bigger) and retouch directly on those with transparent dyes. John Dolva's blur creation process in this thread reminded me of it.

It seems that such large transparencies could be made from film frames, even introducing blur in an enlarger, retouched, and possibly overlaid to create a variety of effects if re-shot one frame at a time as film on a pin-registered light table.

At one shop where I worked we did very elaborate photo composites for movie posters by getting color prints made of the various elements (backgrounds, heads, bodies, buildings, whatever), carefully cutting them out and assembling them any way we saw fit, having a photo lab make a large continuous print—or, more rarely, transparency, depending—from that assemblage, then sending it out to a retoucher to eliminate the seams. This was business as usual.

All of these techniques might have some application to methods of fudging, but each would introduce generational loss and color shifts, so I think every frame, fudged or unfudged, would have to be subjected to the same process to create the "new, improved" version of a film for continuity.

Ashton

Ashton's experiences are similar to mine. Several times we sent 4x5 or 8x10 transparencies

to a Dallas or New York TRANSPARENCY RETOUCHER. Working with dyes, airbrush, tiny

sable brushes etc, the retoucher FIXED color images which could not be reshot, with colors changes,

things removed, etc. I always marveled at the results. We probably did this fewer than ten

times, and it was quite expensive. It was undetectable.

Jack

[David G. Healy]

What has been accomplished here is that the original frame 2 is gone completely, replaced with a blurred version of frame 1 (it could even be slightly panned depending on available frame space). The original frame 4 is moved one frame later, with a blurred version of itself replacing it. I've removed the data from frame 2, yet managed to add time to the film. The question is -- how possible is it using optical technology to intentionally create motion blur?

I can't respond narrowly to the exact question, and the information I have that may or may not have relevance is from the mid-late 1970s, but I worked with a retoucher in L.A. who for some projects would have very large transparencies made from any original (I believe Ektachrome—8x10 and bigger) and retouch directly on those with transparent dyes. John Dolva's blur creation process in this thread reminded me of it.

It seems that such large transparencies could be made from film frames, even introducing blur in an enlarger, retouched, and possibly overlaid to create a variety of effects if re-shot one frame at a time as film on a pin-registered light table.

At one shop where I worked we did very elaborate photo composites for movie posters by getting color prints made of the various elements (backgrounds, heads, bodies, buildings, whatever), carefully cutting them out and assembling them any way we saw fit, having a photo lab make a large continuous print—or, more rarely, transparency, depending—from that assemblage, then sending it out to a retoucher to eliminate the seams. This was business as usual.

All of these techniques might have some application to methods of fudging, but each would introduce generational loss and color shifts, so I think every frame, fudged or unfudged, would have to be subjected to the same process to create the "new, improved" version of a film for continuity.

Ashton

film matte painting, glass painting and pin-registered rotoscoping are covered extensively in The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography, Raymond Fielding, 1964-65. The techniques date back to the early 1930's

[Chris Davidson]

John/Frank,

Would this have been to replicate the interlacing/deinterlacing method/effect?

thanks

chris

Hi Chris,

You posted two animations previously -- one of which had some ghosting effects, the other one was clear.

The ghosting effects were almost certainly not on the original film. They are the result of the process necessary to convert them to a format that is playable on Televisions. Film is originally a progressive source -- nothing but a series of complete and sequential pictures one after another. Traditional televisions don't work quite that way, so film sources must be modified (processes to make frame rate corrections and a concept called interlacing) to be viewable. Essentially, duplicate frames (to correct frame rate) and "special" frames (interlaced) frames are added. This process is called "Telecining." The result is a film that is playable on a television, yet runs at the correct frame-rate.

When a DVD is ripped (or frames are advanced one-by-one in DVD player software and captured), if the added frames are not removed (a process known as inverse Telecine, or IVTC), they will show up when you frame-advance on a computer (which is a progressive device). That is why one must be careful to work with only the purely progressive frames when making computer animations from DVD frames of a film source (gasp!).

To answer your question -- one would not want to, nor would it be necessary to, create ghosting or interlace effects on a film source (unless you were doing something intentionally for special effects, etc).

Frank, thank you for the information on Telecining. Give's me a better understanding of the process.

The last paragraph of your response is what I'll ask about.

What if someone was trying to hide the hack job they did on the film. Wouldn't you want to use a similar method which mirrors the

telecining process, but is a reasonable explanation for the film imperfections?

The Discovery DVD and Groden's version, have similar (telecining) problems pertaining to the gif's I posted earlier.

Coincindental, or does this possibly occur where some of the film slicing and dicing occurs.

Groden's version appears to have x-acto knife marks at these frames. The Discovery DVD hides these marks.

thanks

chris

[Ashton Gray]

film matte painting, glass painting and pin-registered rotoscoping are covered extensively in The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography, Raymond Fielding, 1964-65. The techniques date back to the early 1930's

Yes. And in my eclectic collection I have a useful little trade paperback, copyright 1966, that describes some similar techniques in a chapter on optical effects. The book is "Special Effects in Motion Pictures—Some Methods for Producing Mechanical Special Effects," by Frank P. Clark, "Reviewed by the Advisory Committee on Special Effects in Motion Pictures of the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers." Their names are listed, so I may as well add them in the unlikely event that a name hit might someday emerge:

Herbert Meyer, Chairman

Russell Brown

Thomas G. Fisher

Jack Froehlich

Max Hankins

Ub Iwerks

Ivan Martin

Bob Mattey

Frederic L. Ponedel

John Roche

J. Edward Stembridge

Edward Stones

Virgil Summers

If, f'r'instance, CIA had films manipulated, I somehow doubt they would have gone to the local college film school to pluck out a candidate.

Ashton

[Jack White]

Good ole UB IWERKS. I remember him from my childhood as

Walt Disney's right hand man in movie credits, because of the

odd name. For more, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ub_Iwerks

Jack

Edited January 3, 2007 by Jack White

[David G. Healy]

[...]

If, f'r'instance, CIA had films manipulated, I somehow doubt they would have gone to the local college film school to pluck out a candidate.

Ashton

Agreed! The US government and LBJ's whitehouse had more than enough contacts with the film industry, starting with Jack Valenti

[Bill Miller]

What if someone was trying to hide the hack job they did on the film. Wouldn't you want to use a similar method which mirrors the

telecining process, but is a reasonable explanation for the film imperfections?

The Discovery DVD and Groden's version, have similar (telecining) problems pertaining to the gif's I posted earlier.

The Discovery DVD doesn't hide anything. It contains a first-generation print that was made long before the Muchmore film was damaged. The only thing being seen is a pitiful attempt by UPI to cellophane tape the original broken film back together.

[Frank Agbat]

...

The last paragraph of your response is what I'll ask about.

What if someone was trying to hide the hack job they did on the film. Wouldn't you want to use a similar method which mirrors the

telecining process, but is a reasonable explanation for the film imperfections?

The Discovery DVD and Groden's version, have similar (telecining) problems pertaining to the gif's I posted earlier.

...

thanks

chris

Chris,

Telecining adds a duplicate frame (or frames) to compensate for different frame rates. A purely duplicated frame (or frames) would be quite easy to detect -- even when watching a film, and most certainly so when looking at it frame-by-frame. Missing frames are harder to detect, but as we have shown on the "Missing Nix Frames" thread, not impossible. This is why I was theorizing about the clever use of blur to allow the insertion and removal of frames.

Just about every DVD will have the issue that you ran in to. In general, extracting purely progressive frames isn't too difficult, especially once you know what to look for and have the right software handy. Most, if not all, software DVD players de-interlace frames using some combination of filters known as "Bob and Weave". This de-interlaces the video before displaying it on your monitor (computers are progressive scan devices). If you have one that allows you to single-step through frames, you'll notice some have the ghost images. These are the result of the bob & weave filters and aren't on the original film.

For example, here are two frames from the Hughes film:

However, on the DVD (in this case, the discovery channel show) there is a "frame" in between these two "real" frames. This frame is interlaced -- portions from A and B are on alternating lines (see the example below -- left picture).

When you play a DVD on your computer, it applies the filter(s) mentioned above so that you don't see the annoying horizontal lines on your monitor. On the right side of the lower picture is the result of such a filter:

The "Field Bob" frame is less displeasing to the eye than the horizontal lines when played on a computer. However, neither frame is actually on the Hughes film.

[David G. Healy]

Bill Miller' wrote:

[...]

The Discovery DVD doesn't hide anything. It contains a first-generation print that was made long before the Muchmore film was damaged. The only thing being seen is a pitiful attempt by UPI to cellophane tape the original broken film back together.[/b]

Not to be combative of course.... how are you going to prove that the Muchmore film on the Discovery DVD came from a 1st generation print? Who told you it was a 1st generation print, Groden?

[Bill Miller]

Not to be combative of course....

Oh, of course not, David ... not Baghdad Bob Healy ... never!

How are you going to prove that the Muchmore film on the Discovery DVD came from a 1st generation print? Who told you it was a 1st generation print, Groden?

I learned it through the 6th Floor Museum. Do you have any information to the contrary?

Bill Miller

[Chris Davidson]

...

The last paragraph of your response is what I'll ask about.

What if someone was trying to hide the hack job they did on the film. Wouldn't you want to use a similar method which mirrors the

telecining process, but is a reasonable explanation for the film imperfections?

The Discovery DVD and Groden's version, have similar (telecining) problems pertaining to the gif's I posted earlier.

...

thanks

chris

Chris,

Telecining adds a duplicate frame (or frames) to compensate for different frame rates. A purely duplicated frame (or frames) would be quite easy to detect -- even when watching a film, and most certainly so when looking at it frame-by-frame. Missing frames are harder to detect, but as we have shown on the "Missing Nix Frames" thread, not impossible. This is why I was theorizing about the clever use of blur to allow the insertion and removal of frames.

Just about every DVD will have the issue that you ran in to. In general, extracting purely progressive frames isn't too difficult, especially once you know what to look for and have the right software handy. Most, if not all, software DVD players de-interlace frames using some combination of filters known as "Bob and Weave". This de-interlaces the video before displaying it on your monitor (computers are progressive scan devices). If you have one that allows you to single-step through frames, you'll notice some have the ghost images. These are the result of the bob & weave filters and aren't on the original film.

For example, here are two frames from the Hughes film:

However, on the DVD (in this case, the discovery channel show) there is a "frame" in between these two "real" frames. This frame is interlaced -- portions from A and B are on alternating lines (see the example below -- left picture).

When you play a DVD on your computer, it applies the filter(s) mentioned above so that you don't see the annoying horizontal lines on your monitor. On the right side of the lower picture is the result of such a filter:

The "Field Bob" frame is less displeasing to the eye than the horizontal lines when played on a computer. However, neither frame is actually on the Hughes film.

Here's Muchmore's movie from the Discovery DVD, I stabilized it, runs at 15 frames per second, shows camera movement. Reduced to 75% for forum limits.

Thanks again for the info, Frank.

chris

P.S.

I threw out a couple of blurry frames at the beginning, one of which shows limo movement.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Chris Davidson

[David G. Healy]

Not to be combative of course....

Oh, of course not, David ... not Baghdad Bob Healy ... never!

How are you going to prove that the Muchmore film on the Discovery DVD came from a 1st generation print? Who told you it was a 1st generation print, Groden?

I learned it through the 6th Floor Museum. Do you have any information to the contrary?

Bill Miller

and the 6th floor museum, do they have this 1st generation Muchmore print? Where's the original, btw?