29-08-2013, 03:21 AM
I feel I have to clear up a few misrepresentations.
In an earlier post on another thread I offered that I have operated an Oxberry aerial optical printer and more than once. I would not describe myself as an expert, but I knew people who were and had opportunities to watch them at work. By simply threading the projector and loading the camera for the first time in the printer room, I had already amassed more hands-on experience with this machine than anyone else on this thread, particularly the most obnoxious detractors. And since those persons had been trolling through all the previous threads apparently seeking any inconsistencies by which to attack my credibility, they had also obviously encountered the paragraph by which I discuss my qualifications, and for some reason continued to insist that I have said nothing and inform the others on this thread that I have said nothing.
That said, I stand by most everything I have said on any post. All of the points I listed at the beginning of this thread are repeated, and with greater clarity and detail, by Zavada in his 'Open Letter". I have also provided some material taken from the American Cinematographer Manual - a standard reference volume - which provides a third concurring opinion, particularly on the difficulties presented by generational loss, internegatives and the introduction of new film stocks. These concepts are accepted industry wide and have been for decades. All of the technical information provided by Zavada is peer-reviewable and correct.
David Josephs continues to be upset that I corrected his assumption that film cameras could switch frame rates instantaneously. They cannot and I explained why. He then says there's a switch on the camera that says you can actually do it. I had to explain that this meant that the camera was capable of "ramping" - that is gradually moving from one speed to the next. And that there are several "clues" within the Z-film which suggest that this switch was not engaged. David had been making calculations based on an incorrect assumption and he was corrected. That should have been the end of it.
David also denies that there was any NPIC analysis of the Zapruder film. He did not ask for a citation, preferring to again attack my credibility on this issue. But this analysis is discussed right in the Introduction to McKnight's "Breach Of Trust". I mentioned it not because I am an arrogant bullshit artist, but because I assumed that you already knew about it.
My mistake.
In an earlier post on another thread I offered that I have operated an Oxberry aerial optical printer and more than once. I would not describe myself as an expert, but I knew people who were and had opportunities to watch them at work. By simply threading the projector and loading the camera for the first time in the printer room, I had already amassed more hands-on experience with this machine than anyone else on this thread, particularly the most obnoxious detractors. And since those persons had been trolling through all the previous threads apparently seeking any inconsistencies by which to attack my credibility, they had also obviously encountered the paragraph by which I discuss my qualifications, and for some reason continued to insist that I have said nothing and inform the others on this thread that I have said nothing.
That said, I stand by most everything I have said on any post. All of the points I listed at the beginning of this thread are repeated, and with greater clarity and detail, by Zavada in his 'Open Letter". I have also provided some material taken from the American Cinematographer Manual - a standard reference volume - which provides a third concurring opinion, particularly on the difficulties presented by generational loss, internegatives and the introduction of new film stocks. These concepts are accepted industry wide and have been for decades. All of the technical information provided by Zavada is peer-reviewable and correct.
David Josephs continues to be upset that I corrected his assumption that film cameras could switch frame rates instantaneously. They cannot and I explained why. He then says there's a switch on the camera that says you can actually do it. I had to explain that this meant that the camera was capable of "ramping" - that is gradually moving from one speed to the next. And that there are several "clues" within the Z-film which suggest that this switch was not engaged. David had been making calculations based on an incorrect assumption and he was corrected. That should have been the end of it.
David also denies that there was any NPIC analysis of the Zapruder film. He did not ask for a citation, preferring to again attack my credibility on this issue. But this analysis is discussed right in the Introduction to McKnight's "Breach Of Trust". I mentioned it not because I am an arrogant bullshit artist, but because I assumed that you already knew about it.
My mistake.