Tracy Riddle Wrote:Of course it was technically possible back then to do some large-scale alteration of the Z-film; amazing things were being done with film effects back in the teens and 1920s. The problem is, when was there time to do it? The backyard photos were easy to fake, and it was done months before the assassination (judging by the differences in the trees and bushes when compared to the DPD reenactment photos).
plenty of time to do the job Ms. Riddle... perhaps you should read my 1998 article based on the premise: IF the Zapruder film was altered, was the time, manpower, expertise (including matte artist and glass painters), equipment, etc. available in 1963-4. Oh and btw, pass on to your friend Jeffrey, those of us whom spent a good portion of our film and/or television careers IN edit suites, under the aegis of very difficult post production directors whom have impossible time deadlines are simply, miracle workers, plain and simple. The impossible? Conquered every damn day!
Altering the Zapruder film simply or extensively film doesn't amount to a mosquito bite on a gnat's ass.... Two (2) weeks, tops!
First of all, David, I'm a guy. Second, insinuating that people are closet lone-nutters because they don't agree with you should be unacceptable here. I guess Harold Weisberg was a lone-nutter too, because he didn't accept the alteration arguments.
Was Zapruder himself part of this plot, since he vouched for the authenticity of the film at the Shaw trial?
Tracy Riddle Wrote:First of all, David, I'm a guy. Second, insinuating that people are closet lone-nutters because they don't agree with you should be unacceptable here. I guess Harold Weisberg was a lone-nutter too, because he didn't accept the alteration arguments.
Was Zapruder himself part of this plot, since he vouched for the authenticity of the film at the Shaw trial?
well I apologize for that gender mixup there Tracy, one can't be to sure of much when dealing with issues such as a faked Zapruder film. Kinda why I like to know folks background before I engage in the subject... Don't want to spend to much time engaging .john lone nut's with an agenda--waste of time!
Anyway, quite frankly, most lone nuts and other researchers agree with me, at first. IF (can you see those two letters there Tracy?) the Zapruder film is altered, then yes, there was the where-with-all, equipment, talent (meaning artists and optical film printing tech's), film post production-direction and TIME to alter the in-camera original Zapruder film. Do you agree or disagree, Tracy? If not, your professional qualifications thus supporting your dis-agreement then your reasons for disagreement, please. Simple as that. And please, have some professional editing suite/film lab qualifications. Otherwise, we are done here.
And forget Harold Weisberg Tracy its me you're jawing misdirection and disinfo to here. So, focus your comments on pre March 1964 Zapruder film son.
Zapruder the man is not the issue here. In case YOU forgot, it's his and LIFE Magazine's film and its possible alteration, during a very, VERY specific time period (pre March 1964) we're talking about. So, nice try, but no banana... As far as closet lone nutters? You'll notice I have a way of sniffing them out...
David H - it was obvious to me, reading your article, that you've not ever worked with an optical printer. And the extent that I have followed the great debate: the opinions of those arguing for extensive image manipulation reveal that no one from this group has ever discussed their concepts with an optical effects technician. Because the proposals present major technical challenges which are never addressed, and I suspect have not even been recognized.
You propose a travelling matte featuring the limousine and escorts travelling across a background of the Dealey Plaza lawn which you want to be slightly enlarged.
PROBLEM 1 - the outline of the limousine and the escorts is never the same from frame-to-frame. Mrs Kennedy is moving at all times, and the size of these figures changes as it moves closer. Therefore, any matte work done involving the limousine would have to be on a frame to frame basis. Therefore, the outline of the limousine which serves as the matte would have to be drawn not once but at least over a hundred times (I would argue more). And, let's remember, the work at the end of the day is flawless- so the job of sketching out these matte outlines, frame by frame, would have to be done with meticulous care. I can conceive of how this would be approached - on an animation stand - but the time commitment is large. Before this work could begin, a series of calculations involving registration of the individual frames anticipating the move from the animation stand cels to a motion picture sequence which would line up properly with other film elements- that would have to be done and probably tested several times to see the results. This registration system would have to be standardized and duplicated frame by frame on the animation stand as each frame is prepared. Objects such as the foreground light pole which is panned past would need to be recognized ahead of time to decide what relationship it would have to the matte (in its case, it would have to be part of the limousine matte).
So a matte of the outline of the limousine would have to be created on a frame-by-frame basis - with careful meticulous work - with a corresponding registration preparation for each frame. To do this, I'd say an hour a frame is reasonable due to the need to be absolutely perfect. And I'm not sure any guarantees could be expressed that this job could, at the end of the day, have perfect results. LABOR COMMITMENT - at least 100 hours. (so when you claim that a finished product could be delivered in 10-14 days, I shake my head because we are already at that point and the work has just been prepped, not begun).
But the problems have just started. Creating the limousine matte is actually the easy part.
In the article proposing the feasibility of creating a travelling matte, the following frame is offered to assist the reader in imagining the elements of a proposed composite shot.
[/URL]PROBLEM #2 - the background. The lawn looks nice here, and it is easy to imagine the limousine gliding past it. Unfortunately, you cannot allow moving images to run across a still frame and have it look like anything but a crude animation. Therefore, any proposal of a travelling matte would necessarily have to commit to a matching background (i.e from exact same frame as limousine at any given moment. It is tempting to think that some sort of clean plate from Dealey Plaza could be introduced (although I would like to hear someone try to explain how that could be accomplished in any way that could possibly realistic replace what is already there). Still, it is easy to achieve an enlargement of the background. However, and any optical technician would point this out right away: there are people in the background! They also would be enlarged, and so one would have to account for this size difference. At what point would they become too large to be believed? 10%? 6%? Maybe it would have to be smaller than that. But the lower that number goes, the more I wonder why any enlargement would be needed at all. Because the larger background figures are just a portion of the issue. The lawn in the example above has a straight horizontal line at its bottom to serve as a join point. But there is no way, in the extant Z-film, to establish such a line, because the background is always changing its size in the lens as the camera pans. Therefore, the join point between the foreground (limousine) and the background of this proposed composite shot is the matte outline of the limousine. Any enlargement of the background also increases the size of the matte outline of the background frames and now suddenly one is faced with a shadow outline over the figures in the foreground. And, equally important, one must also consider the sprocket holes visible on the left side of the frame. The sprocket holes are also part of the composite because the information below them must end up on the final product. An enlargement of the background would also enlarge the holes as seen in the frame and therefore they could never be properly matched at the end of the day. (In fact, considering alteration, an optical technician would likely recommend getting rid of the sprocket holes and the information below them so as to simplify the ultimate re-transfer back to 8mm. But there they are.)
So an enlargement of the background is very unlikely to have been considered. In fact, in practical terms, any travelling matte scenario for the Z-film is highly unlikely.
Jeff Carter Wrote:In the article proposing the feasibility of creating a travelling matte, the following frame is offered to assist the reader in imagining the elements of a proposed composite shot.
[/URL]PROBLEM #2 - the background. The lawn looks nice here, and it is easy to imagine the limousine gliding past it. Unfortunately, you cannot allow moving images to run across a still frame and have it look like anything but a crude animation. Therefore, any proposal of a travelling matte would necessarily have to commit to a matching background (i.e from exact same frame as limousine at any given moment. It is tempting to think that some sort of clean plate from Dealey Plaza could be introduced (although I would like to hear someone try to explain how that could be accomplished in any way that could possibly realistic replace what is already there). Still, it is easy to achieve an enlargement of the background. However, and any optical technician would point this out right away: there are people in the background! They also would be enlarged, and so one would have to account for this size difference. At what point would they become too large to be believed? 10%? 6%? Maybe it would have to be smaller than that. But the lower that number goes, the more I wonder why any enlargement would be needed at all. Because the larger background figures are just a portion of the issue. The lawn in the example above has a straight horizontal line at its bottom to serve as a join point. But there is no way, in the extant Z-film, to establish such a line, because the background is always changing its size in the lens as the camera pans. Therefore, the join point between the foreground (limousine) and the background of this proposed composite shot is the matte outline of the limousine. Any enlargement of the background also increases the size of the matte outline of the background frames and now suddenly one is faced with a shadow outline over the figures in the foreground. And, equally important, one must also consider the sprocket holes visible on the left side of the frame. The sprocket holes are also part of the composite because the information below them must end up on the final product. An enlargement of the background would also enlarge the holes as seen in the frame and therefore they could never be properly matched at the end of the day. (In fact, considering alteration, an optical technician would likely recommend getting rid of the sprocket holes and the information below them so as to simplify the ultimate re-transfer back to 8mm. But there they are.)
So an enlargement of the background is very unlikely to have been considered. In fact, in practical terms, any travelling matte scenario for the Z-film is highly unlikely.
surely you have examples to back your assumptions, Mr. DeMille? Nice of you though to recognize 8mm blowup to 35mm film, guess old Moe Weitzman got that dispute cleared up in the lone nut, LHO did it all by his lonesome camp, that being there isn't any film alteration position.... so, matched against what praytell?
Are conspirators going to trot out the alleged in-camera Zapruder film original (which is probably parked at the bottom of some Dallas landfill today) and make comparisons with the new and improved version? Come on Dude, you have had 13 years to climb this hurdle. Your opinionss are stale and juvenile. That's right, opinions. Do you think in 1963-64 inexperienced fools worked for Hollywood (for that matter New York City or Chicago) optical film, post production houses.... best get up to speed son,
David H - I am confident enough in my "opinions" to say that any optical effects technician will back me up. The issues dealt with in the above two posts are basic physical problems inherent to the proposed work. It is not a matter of talent or skill.
The two above problems are also just the starting point. You can't just blithely assume this work was done on 35mm stock without addressing further compounding issues related to generational loss and newly introduced color and grain issues. Remember, at the end of the day you must return the altered film back to an 8mm print which could conceivably be accepted as a camera original.
Polarizing this debate by assuming only two positions - either extensive alteration or absolute camera original - contributes nothing.
Personally, I believe Doug Horne came up with enough information about the Z-film's possession over the first weekend,and that the means and opportunity for work designed to conceal something is plausibly presented, that I think it's folly to argue for the absolute integrity of the camera original.
But the claims of what actually could have been done to alter the film have to be dialled back a great deal.
Jeff Carter Wrote:David H - I am confident enough in my "opinions" to say that any optical effects technician will back me up. The issues dealt with in the above two posts are basic physical problems inherent to the proposed work.
...
confidence is the drug of choice for amateurs, get your "technician" in here and bring verifiable cred's, both his-her and yours. I've wasted enough bandwidth on you.
Jeff Carter Wrote:Polarizing this debate by assuming only two positions - either extensive alteration or absolute camera original - contributes nothing.
...
there you go again assuming, in this case, debate... the time for that has gone past, many moons ago... There is no debate Jeffrey, as much as you want it.
So get your sole "technician" here, I'll review his-her comments regarding the potential Zapruder film alteration issues. And of course verify his-her cred's are indeed, what they make themselves out to be. Best have the "technician" get up to speed re SMPE/SMPTE technical bulletins, that is going to be a lot of reading son!
An aside: what was the last optical film house he-she worked at? Running out of bandwidth, Jeffrey.
![[Image: jpg.gif]](https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/images/attach/jpg.gif)