Bill Miller Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 (edited) and the 6th floor museum, do they have this 1st generation Muchmore print? Where's the original, btw? Here is the phone number to the Museum (214) 747 - 6660 ext.6693. Now about where Muchmore's original film is .... this is the second time in one 4 page thread that you asked me that question and this will be the second time I have answered it .................. Bill Miller View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts Jan 2 2007, 11:16 PM Post #30 Super Member Group: JFK Posts: 1740 Joined: 2-August 04 Member No.: 1084 . perhaps you can tell us where one can view the Muchmore in-camera original, for that matter ALL the DP-JFK assassination related in-camera *original* films, especially the ones you seem to have access too! Nothing like an even playing field, eh? David ... there can never be an even playing field for a xxxxx. As far as Muchmore's film ... I would contact the Muchmore family if you really want to see it for as I recall .... I read or heard that when the UPI division that had it closed down, it was said to have been given it back to the Muchmore family. I hope that helps - now don't ask me to go and actually retrieve it for you. Bill Miller Edited January 5, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 The Discovery channel DVD version of the Muchmore film has some issues. It does not seem to have the same issues with any of the other included films. It appears that the Muchmore clips may have been telecined on a 768 x 578 (or 720 x 576) 50Hz field-rate PAL system w/interlacing. There is nothing wrong with this, as this is a supported and standard configuration. However, in NTSC-world, this needs to be converted to 720x480 59.94 system prior to distribution... This is where I think things might have gone wrong... From the look of things, the original (PAL telecine) was NOT inverse telecined. Instead, it appears to have been de-interlaced using a bob/weave filter. This produced some of the ghosted images that people have seen in their clips. When the clip was authored to the NTSC DVD, interlacing was added back in. However, it was added back in to the previously "bobbed" version. Thus, some of the ghosted "fake" frames are interlaced with real frames, and some real frames ONLY appear as interlaced frames. The side-effect is that it MAY not be possible to recover all of the frames in full-frame detail (or it is going to take some time and effort to do so). Another side-effect is clips that will appear "jumpy" if one attempts to reduce the clips to purely progressive images using methods that would work with a normal telecined DVD. I'm going to start digging in to this literally field by field (not frame by frame). In the interim, I have to caution against drawing any conclusions using clips and/or stills from this source. As we've seen in other threads, NTSC/PAL craziness can be the source of anomalies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 7, 2007 Author Share Posted January 7, 2007 (edited) At this link is a 2mb strip of the early color version, not the cleaned up ones that followed. This will form the basis of this study. http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/yanndee/ms01.jpg "A close up of the four 'splices'. Are they 'splices' or has the emulsion been scraped off two or one stripes and a replacement glued in? Where does the film which has the emulsion on come from when it's a step joint. From the preceding strip of film or from the following? Can one tell from the look of them? For those non-members who may recognise the splices from experience with this sort of film please study these and contact forum. a 3D visualisation of the film frame edge on to show the straight cuts http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/yanndee/ms03.jpg on both frames there are rows of dots that suggest straight edges with serrations, is there a splice equipment used in te process that can cause this. Here the rows of dots are along the periphery of these two red stripes overlaid on the film frames http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/yanndee/ms04.jpg This image has the four splices in sequence as they appear on the film. In between these two sets comes the 'correcting' splice with the blue stripe and the timing mark. http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/yanndee/ms05.jpg EDIT:: link correction Edited January 7, 2007 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 7, 2007 Author Share Posted January 7, 2007 without regard for frame numbers or which portion goes with which, four frames are made up of at least 11 images. large for study http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/yan...frameslarge.jpg small Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 'Bill Miller' wrote: David ... there can never be an even playing field for a xxxxx. dgh: I am absolutely crushed, CRUSHED at that news! LMAO! I suspect if you poll the JFK related lurkers on this board, they know all, ALL about you and your games.... but don't let that stop your efforts As far as Muchmore's film ... I would contact the Muchmore family if you really want to see it for as I recall .... I read or heard that when the UPI division that had it closed down, it was said to have been given it back to the Muchmore family. dgh: didn't a family member comment, the film returned was NOT the film turned over to the commission? Or was that ANOTHER one of the Nov 22nd 1963DP film of record -- can't keep all these descrepencies in a row.... can you help us out here I hope that helps - now don't ask me to go and actually retrieve it for you. dgh: help? you can start helping by telling me and the rest of this forum your professional experience in the film/photo industry, can you retrieve THAT? we'll start there.... From what I've read today there's others not quite impressed with your "opinion".... This morning I did see James Gordon here though, perhaps he can provide comfort.... hope this helps ............ Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 dgh: I am absolutely crushed, CRUSHED at that news! LMAO! I suspect if you poll the JFK related lurkers on this board, they know all, ALL about you and your games.... but don't let that stop your efforts I think Mike Hogan already addressed your inquiry. most people donlt pay any attention to you. I hope the lurkers have been reading your conflicting statements that I have archived and will keep posting from time to time. dgh: didn't a family member comment, the film returned was NOT the film turned over to the commission? Or was that ANOTHER one of the Nov 22nd 1963DP film of record -- can't keep all these descrepencies in a row.... can you help us out here Are you thinking of the Nix film? dgh: help? you can start helping by telling me and the rest of this forum your professional experience in the film/photo industry, can you retrieve THAT? we'll start there.... From what I've read today there's others not quite impressed with your "opinion".... I believe I posted that I cite the experts. Would you like to see Fieldings bio or Zavada's and compare it to yours? By the way, didn't you say that Fielding was on your side or something stupid like that? Should I post his letter to Len once again? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 (edited) dgh: I am absolutely crushed, CRUSHED at that news! LMAO! I suspect if you poll the JFK related lurkers on this board, they know all, ALL about you and your games.... but don't let that stop your efforts I think Mike Hogan already addressed your inquiry. most people donlt pay any attention to you. I hope the lurkers have been reading your conflicting statements that I have archived and will keep posting from time to time. dgh: didn't a family member comment, the film returned was NOT the film turned over to the commission? Or was that ANOTHER one of the Nov 22nd 1963DP film of record -- can't keep all these descrepencies in a row.... can you help us out here Are you thinking of the Nix film? dgh: help? you can start helping by telling me and the rest of this forum your professional experience in the film/photo industry, can you retrieve THAT? we'll start there.... From what I've read today there's others not quite impressed with your "opinion".... I believe I posted that I cite the experts. Would you like to see Fieldings bio or Zavada's and compare it to yours? By the way, didn't you say that Fielding was on your side or something stupid like that? Should I post his letter to Len once again? Bill Miller what the hell does Mike Hogan know about photos/film? Does he have similar qualification concerning the film/phot media alteration arena as you? NONE! Either one of you can change my mind by posting your film/photo resume-expertise.... feel free. That the same Fielding who wrote the first book in the english language concerning the Art of Special Effects Cinematography, he the one I brought to the attention of the entire Zapruder film cottage industry? Hell, Bill I know his resume.... problem is, no one knows YOURS -- help us out here Sorry to interrupt your thread here John Dolva... Edited January 7, 2007 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 7, 2007 Author Share Posted January 7, 2007 That's cool David. Thank's for the concern. Have you an opinion on the images above? Or do you know a link to sample images of super8 60's splices to study? Are the dark parts aged glue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 8, 2007 Author Share Posted January 8, 2007 (edited) Jackies head moves in a particular pattern replicated on both films. Here M 42 with green dot. Edited January 8, 2007 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 8, 2007 Author Share Posted January 8, 2007 Further alignment studies indicate the above (last post) is inaccurate. More later. __________________________ the two double striped frames. The first stripe on both frames have interesting similarities. The first edge on the first frame is similar to the second edge on the second frame and the second on the first frame is similar to the first on the second frame. The secomd stripe on both are also similar in their raggedness, plus there is the 'tail' on the second frame. It looks to me like the strip of film between the first stripes could be one strip and on either side of this is the rest of the film. These sort of splices are 'wet'. They are made by slicing the film in a guide. One end of the join has the emulsion scaped off and then the other end is glued on to this stepped edge. I think the 'ragged. edge is under the film and the brown (with gamma turned up they turn blue. (I've approximately matched the color profile of the frames to the Z film. Those astute enough will see the color change) is aged glue. In between this is the headshot frame, the blue striped frame, and one other frame between the blue striped one and the last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 8, 2007 Author Share Posted January 8, 2007 (edited) Jackies position redone. There is a very blurred frame represented by pink line that is left out as it's hard to say exactly where she is. Another correction is the perspective 'distorion' created from M's POV. Here it's corrected for so her last head is similar in size to the first. This indicates that in time z313 is closer to m41 than m42. green dot M42, red dot z313. Edited January 8, 2007 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Jackies position redone. There is a very blurred frame represented by pink line that is left out as it's hard to say exactly where she is.Another correction is the perspective 'distorion' created from M's POV. Here it's corrected for so her last head is similar in size to the first. This indicates that in time z313 is closer to m41 than m42. green dot M42, red dot z313. Intriguing, John. So, this would seem to indicate that the 3 films are all slightly offset - not unlike we postulated earlier. The relationship between M41 and N22 may prove to be very interesting. Of course, I'm still looking for potential sync points. The Discovery Channel DVD has what appears to be a better transfer of both Bronson and Nix. I'll be re-considering our previous timetable based on these frames as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 That's cool David. Thank's for the concern. Have you an opinion on the images above? Or do you know a link to sample images of super8 60's splices to study? Are the dark parts aged glue? Super 8? Kodak released that format in 1965. Although the format was tested earlier, I doubt any DP related films were of the *super*8 variety.... There are two types of film splicers: tape splicers are for creative editing-quick cutting and easy to take a part. Hot splicers are for making rolls to be printed or transfered, to be precise: "solvent" welding of the film base. I'm slightly puzzled by these splice points [not just this film but other JFK related films], splicing mid-frame is not a common practice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 8, 2007 Author Share Posted January 8, 2007 Ok, not super 8 , thank's for the correction David. I came across some old manuals for editing kits. They describe splicing midframe where a scraper shaves off the emulsion and the other part overlapping into this step that's created. Apparently experienced splicers can create a midframe splice like this that is not seen in projection mode. Possibly the mid-portion on one or both frames here could be glued into a section in a scraped out 'trough' without cutting the film? ______________ Frank, have you looked at the last few posts in Nix film topic suggestion a M01 match with Z270-71? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 That's cool David. Thank's for the concern. Have you an opinion on the images above? Or do you know a link to sample images of super8 60's splices to study? Are the dark parts aged glue? Super 8? Kodak released that format in 1965. Although the format was tested earlier, I doubt any DP related films were of the *super*8 variety.... There are two types of film splicers: tape splicers are for creative editing-quick cutting and easy to take a part. Hot splicers are for making rolls to be printed or transfered, to be precise: "solvent" welding of the film base. I'm slightly puzzled by these splice points [not just this film but other JFK related films], splicing mid-frame is not a common practice Beverly Oliver's camera was a Yashica Super 8 experimental model being tested by Larry Ronco, who was working for Kodak. 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