Muchmore Oddity

[Chris Davidson]

Not convinced Clint grows taller, perhaps it's his fancy footwork that is deceiving us.

Please watch his right leg at the beginning of the animations.

Chris, many times when I do detailed checks over height changes, I will place lines over my overlays to watch for minute changes between frames. In doing so with your animation and while not changing their size , I saw what caused Hill to be slightly taller and wider between locations.

1) One is that Hill is seen more from the rear as he is further down the street which would naturally make his width appear to have gotten wider.

2) If you look at the angle of Hill's standing foot between the two images, you should see that one is slightly angled and the other is almost vertical. This change alone will cause Hill to rise a couple of inches. It would be no different IMO than a woman wearing a pair of 4" heels and then putting on a pair of 6" heels ... her height would naturally rise.

3) Jean Hill turned her head and leaned slightly forward which dropped her height down a few inches between film frames.

4) The two men on the steps with Hudson bent their kness which caused their heights to change as well.

Bill Miller

Bill, at the moment in time of this photo,

Is Clint that much taller than Jean, who is up on the curb/slope?

thanks

chris

[Frank Agbat]

dgh: Again, unless you have the original film -or- individual 35mm film transparencies of same (from which you can reassemble the film at the verified CORRECT speed, you're rolling, headlong down a slippery slope of visual confusion -- which I'm sure the DP film purists love to see.....

Now we're talking about a PAL 25*progressive*fps video production standards conversion to NTSC 29.97*interlaced*fps (for broadcast in the USofA [in what digital format, again?]), all of which can NOT be confirmed.... on top of this we're told: "the restored version runs much faster than normal" -- what the hell does that mean? Perhap's, in the conversion process frames were added? Isn't that how you spell *a-l-t-e-r-e-d* film?

The Discovery Channel DVD is a cluster foxtrot, no doubt.

From what I can deduce from looking at the constituent fields of this DVD, the copy they were provided was in one the *interlaced* formats that PAL supports, and was de-interlaced (not IVTCed), THEN converted to NTSC Interlaced... Yes... MPEG2, our old lossy friend. This is really the least of the issues with this DVD.

Result?

Cluster Foxtrot.

Oh -- and it looks like some cropping and/or zooming (god knows if it is digital or optical) also took place.

I SAY AGAIN!!! UNTIL SUCH A TIME AS WE CAN RECOVER or HAVE PROGRESSIVE FRAMES FROM THIS DVD, DO NOT JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS! *Some* of the frames ARE purely progressive. Others are not. I'm working on it. There are 4 showings of various muchmore clips on this DVD. I'm about 3/4 through ONE of them (step by step analysis of 127 frames (254 fields) thus far...).

[Bill Miller]

Bill, at the moment in time of this photo,

Is Clint that much taller than Jean, who is up on the curb/slope?

thanks

chris

No, Chris ... he is not. Muchmore is elevated above the scene and looking downward, which causes things to stack upwards in the image. Note than Clint Hill's feet are higher up in the image than Jean's. You might recall my pointing out how the motorcyles stacked up in Moorman's photo which showed her camera to be elevated above the tops of the cycles, which in turn proved that Jack was in error about Mary being in the Street because the cycles standing height was no less than 4" higher than Jack gave for Mary's lens height. The same basic concept led to Jack thinking Toni Foster was 7' tall in the Zapruder film. It is just the perception of how things look when viewed from elevated angles. (see Moorman's photo)

Bill

[Michael Crane]

Could he be standing on one of the steps that were made especially for the SS to ride on?

Edited January 6, 2007 by Michael Crane

[Frank Agbat]

Okay -- I've completed analyzing the 4th clip showed of the MM film on the Discovery DVD. This clip starts at MS4 and ends at MS50.

Based on looking at individual fields, the following MM Sequence (after camera restart, which equals MS1) frames can be progressively recovered without issue:

4,5,6,7,8,9,11,13,16,17,19,20,21,22,23,24,

25,26,28,29,30,31,32,34,36,37,38,39,40,41,

43,45,46,47,49

I need to study the following MM frames from the DVD to see if they can either be: (a) fully recovered, ( recovered at half resolution, or © not recovered:

10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 27, 33, 35, 42, 44, 48, 50.

This is going to take me a bit to do, and then there are three other clips of the film shown...

Oh -- and for those who care:

To "fully recover" a frame, I'm going to have to look at the fields from the preceding and following frames to see if a full-resolution image can be obtained. (In other words, did "ODD10" appear in "EVEN 9" or "ODD 11", etc.

Frames "recovered at half resolution" will contain two copies of the same field, as it may be the only appearance of that film frame on the DVD.

But first... Lunch...

[David G. Healy]

dgh: Again, unless you have the original film -or- individual 35mm film transparencies of same (from which you can reassemble the film at the verified CORRECT speed, you're rolling, headlong down a slippery slope of visual confusion -- which I'm sure the DP film purists love to see.....

Now we're talking about a PAL 25*progressive*fps video production standards conversion to NTSC 29.97*interlaced*fps (for broadcast in the USofA [in what digital format, again?]), all of which can NOT be confirmed.... on top of this we're told: "the restored version runs much faster than normal" -- what the hell does that mean? Perhap's, in the conversion process frames were added? Isn't that how you spell *a-l-t-e-r-e-d* film?

The Discovery Channel DVD is a cluster foxtrot, no doubt.

From what I can deduce from looking at the constituent fields of this DVD, the copy they were provided was in one the *interlaced* formats that PAL supports, and was de-interlaced (not IVTCed), THEN converted to NTSC Interlaced... Yes... MPEG2, our old lossy friend. This is really the least of the issues with this DVD.

Result?

Cluster Foxtrot.

Oh -- and it looks like some cropping and/or zooming (god knows if it is digital or optical) also took place.

I SAY AGAIN!!! UNTIL SUCH A TIME AS WE CAN RECOVER or HAVE PROGRESSIVE FRAMES FROM THIS DVD, DO NOT JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS! *Some* of the frames ARE purely progressive. Others are not. I'm working on it. There are 4 showings of various muchmore clips on this DVD. I'm about 3/4 through ONE of them (step by step analysis of 127 frames (254 fields) thus far...).

Frank,

You and John Dolva are doing a hell-of-a-job -- a thankless task, I know, I was involved with a similar JFK project.... When all is said and done, and you can, through your best anaylitical analyses state this or OTHER DP related films is/was altered -OR- NOT altered, the final question will be posed: How does your claim stand up againt the "in-camera" film originals?

Don't expect in-camera original Zapruder film availability re analyses/comparison. I was ALSO told 4 years ago (by person whom shall remain unnamed) the Zapruder film will never, EVER see the inside of a courtroom. I suspect, what I was told THEN re the *alleged* in-camera Zapruder film, is TRUE

.tiff/.tga format of PAL Progressive frames, MPEG2 compressed are better than NTSC interlaced frames, obviously. The best? **verifiable** 4x5 trannies (of individual ) in-camera original film frames.

Hang in there....

Edited January 6, 2007 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

Don't expect in-camera original Zapruder film availability re analyses/comparison. I was ALSO told 4 years ago (by personwhom shall remain unnamed) the Zapruder film will never, EVER see the inside of a courtroom. I suspect, what I was told THEN re the *alleged* in-camera Zapruder film, is TRUE

How evidence gets into court depends on its evidentuary value to the case. As you must know ... the Zapruder film is kept in air-tight cold storage for preservation purposes. Even to get it out of storage would take a couple of days for it to be allowed to be warmed back up to room temperature in order to examine it. I am sure that if someone with the proper credentials was to present a valid reason why the previous report concerning the Zapruder film was in error that could rewrite history, then a team of good lawyers could force the film to be brought out of storage. One thing I learned from working with some lawyers I knew was that one never knows how a court will rule.

Bill

[Chris Davidson]

Bill, at the moment in time of this photo,

Is Clint that much taller than Jean, who is up on the curb/slope?

thanks

chris

No, Chris ... he is not. Muchmore is elevated above the scene and looking downward, which causes things to stack upwards in the image. Note than Clint Hill's feet are higher up in the image than Jean's. You might recall my pointing out how the motorcyles stacked up in Moorman's photo which showed her camera to be elevated above the tops of the cycles, which in turn proved that Jack was in error about Mary being in the Street because the cycles standing height was no less than 4" higher than Jack gave for Mary's lens height. The same basic concept led to Jack thinking Toni Foster was 7' tall in the Zapruder film. It is just the perception of how things look when viewed from elevated angles. (see Moorman's photo)

Bill

Ashton and Bill,

The light bulb finally turned on.

Feet comparison understood.

thank you both,

David, would the MPI transparencies be of any help. That is the method they used before scanning them back into the computer for

the final product.

chris

chris

Edited January 6, 2007 by Chris Davidson

[David G. Healy]

Don't expect in-camera original Zapruder film availability re analyses/comparison. I was ALSO told 4 years ago (by personwhom shall remain unnamed) the Zapruder film will never, EVER see the inside of a courtroom. I suspect, what I was told THEN re the *alleged* in-camera Zapruder film, is TRUE

How evidence gets into court depends on its evidentuary value to the case. As you must know ... the Zapruder film is kept in air-tight cold storage for preservation purposes. Even to get it out of storage would take a couple of days for it to be allowed to be warmed back up to room temperature in order to examine it. I am sure that if someone with the proper credentials was to present a valid reason why the previous report concerning the Zapruder film was in error that could rewrite history, then a team of good lawyers could force the film to be brought out of storage. One thing I learned from working with some lawyers I knew was that one never knows how a court will rule.

Bill

having spent considerable time at a specific SoCal US military controlled film vault facility [having to do with Vietnam War era film footage 8mm-16mm-35mm-70mm], I'm quite familiar with film vault environmental control standards. NARA follows the same environment standards for film stored in their facility. The JFK Assassination Zapruder film MPI DVD covers the NARA Z-film storage issue quite clearly, I'm sure you're well aware.

One lesson all can take when it comes to civil litigation; he/they who control opinion and evidence, control the outcome! Evidence be damned!

Edited January 6, 2007 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

having spent considerable time at a specific SoCal US military controlled film vault facility [having to do with Vietnam War era film footage 8mm-16mm-35mm-70mm], I'm quite familiar with film vault environmental control standards. NARA follows the same environment standards for film stored in their facility. The JFK Assassination Zapruder film MPI DVD covers the NARA Z-film storage issue quite clearly, I'm sure you're well aware.

One lesson all can take when it comes to civil litigation; he/they who control opinion and evidence, control the outcome! Evidence be damned!

Let me remind you of one vital point, David, and you can correct me if I am wrong, but one wouldn't be going after the NARA to produce the film for they are only storing it. It would be the Zapruder family who would be held accountable to the legal process and it would be them who says what is done with the camera original film. Am I not correct?

Bill Miller

[Frank Agbat]

SUCCESS! (well, mostly, at least).

I have been able to recover *almost* all the progressive frames from the Muchmore film as butchered, errrr, presented by the Discovery channel. The only frames that have any aspect to them that I'm not happy about are MM15 and MM33. They seem to show some minor ghosting, even when selecting the best available fields. The clip stops with only a single field of MM65 appearing. I doubled the odd-field, so MM65 is presented in half-resolution.

Here is an animated GIF:

I'll post a technical description of the process for those who are interested in a follow-up message later on.

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

[...]

Let me remind you of one vital point, David, and you can correct me if I am wrong, but one wouldn't be going after the NARA to produce the film for they are only storing it. It would be the Zapruder family who would be held accountable to the legal process and it would be them who says what is done with the camera original film. Am I not correct?

*************

Remind me? I don't need a teacher Bill..... No one at NARA would know a in-camera original film from a 1st generation dupe. The Zapruder family no longer owns the alleged in-camera Z-film. The United States owns it

Bill Miller

Edited January 7, 2007 by David G. Healy

[Frank Agbat]

I'll post a technical description of the process for those who are interested in a follow-up message later on.

As promised:

I reduced the DVD source clip to a collection individual frames per the normal procedures as described elsewhere. However, because some of the issues I have discussed, I also produced equivalent collections of the the even and odd NTSC fields associated with each frame.

From there, I made a list of frames that appeared to be purely progressive and verified same by looking at the constituent fields. This left a handful of frames (previously listed) that had "problems." The "problems" came in several different flavors, all of which were caused by a previous de-interlacing operation. I refer to these as "ghosted frames". Problem frames typically consisted of:

a) A frame made up of two fields from ghosted frames

A frame made up of one progressive field and one field of a ghosted frame

c) A frame made up of two progressive fields, but in the wrong field order.

"Type A" frames cannot yield progressive frames no matter how the fields are presented.

"Type B" frames may be useful in yielding a progressive frame, but at the very least will yield a half-resolution progressive frame.

"Type C" frames can have their field order shifted to correct the problem. (In all cases where this occurred, the very next frame consisted of correctly ordered fields, so these were discarded).

So -- back to the list of problematic frames.

For example, Muchmore frame 12 is on the "problem list". DVD frame 21 yielded a progressive Muchmore-11, and DVD frame 27 yielded a progressive Muchmore-13. However, there were no DVD frames that yielded a progressive Muchmore-12. I looked at all the frames between 21 and 27 and discovered:

22=Type A (useless)

23=Type A (useless)

24=Type B

25=Type B

26=Type A (useless)

I then looked at the odd and even fields from frames 24 and 25. 24-Odd was progressive, 24-Even contained ghosting. 25-Odd contained ghosting, 25-Even was Progressive.

I then wrote a quick and dirty program to rebuild a full frame from two selectable fields. Combining 24-Odd with 25-Even produced a frame with interlacing artifacts. This was corrected by reversing the frame order of the rebuild. I now had a progressive Muchmore-12 in full resolution.

Rinse, Lather, and Repeat for all the other ones on the "problem" list.

The resulting collection of progressive frames covers Muchmore frames 4-65. Now on to the other three clips of Muchmore from this DVD...

[Robin Unger]

I'll post a technical description of the process for those who are interested in a follow-up message later on.

As promised:

I reduced the DVD source clip to a collection individual frames per the normal procedures as described elsewhere. However, because some of the issues I have discussed, I also produced equivalent collections of the the even and odd NTSC fields associated with each frame.

From there, I made a list of frames that appeared to be purely progressive and verified same by looking at the constituent fields. This left a handful of frames (previously listed) that had "problems." The "problems" came in several different flavors, all of which were caused by a previous de-interlacing operation. I refer to these as "ghosted frames". Problem frames typically consisted of:

a) A frame made up of two fields from ghosted frames

A frame made up of one progressive field and one field of a ghosted frame

c) A frame made up of two progressive fields, but in the wrong field order.

"Type A" frames cannot yield progressive frames no matter how the fields are presented.

"Type B" frames may be useful in yielding a progressive frame, but at the very least will yield a half-resolution progressive frame.

"Type C" frames can have their field order shifted to correct the problem. (In all cases where this occurred, the very next frame consisted of correctly ordered fields, so these were discarded).

So -- back to the list of problematic frames.

For example, Muchmore frame 12 is on the "problem list". DVD frame 21 yielded a progressive Muchmore-11, and DVD frame 27 yielded a progressive Muchmore-13. However, there were no DVD frames that yielded a progressive Muchmore-12. I looked at all the frames between 21 and 27 and discovered:

22=Type A (useless)

23=Type A (useless)

24=Type B

25=Type B

26=Type A (useless)

I then looked at the odd and even fields from frames 24 and 25. 24-Odd was progressive, 24-Even contained ghosting. 25-Odd contained ghosting, 25-Even was Progressive.

I then wrote a quick and dirty program to rebuild a full frame from two selectable fields. Combining 24-Odd with 25-Even produced a frame with interlacing artifacts. This was corrected by reversing the frame order of the rebuild. I now had a progressive Muchmore-12 in full resolution.

Rinse, Lather, and Repeat for all the other ones on the "problem" list.

The resulting collection of progressive frames covers Muchmore frames 4-65. Now on to the other three clips of Muchmore from this DVD...

Thanks Frank.

Nice GIF

I know it's a labor intensive task, but the results are appreciated.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

SUCCESS! (well, mostly, at least).

Frank, this is great - thanks.