29-08-2013, 11:46 PM
Again I must clarify misrepresentations.
I have indeed provided supporting material. Roland Zavada's "Open Letter To Doug Horne , in great detail and clarity, discusses the most of the points I made at the start of this thread. I have also quoted from "Exposure Control of Optical Printers" by Mehrdad Azarmi. Both gentlemen are credentialed professionals, their observations and descriptions are not controversial, and are accepted throughout the industry. It is remarkable to witness tantrums from people who don't actually know what they are talking about. There has been no attempt to address the fine points of Zavada's critique because most persons sharing the extensive alteration viewpoint do not have the technical background to even understand what he is saying, let alone develop a response. But they are somehow very very certain he must be wrong.
http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf
Doug Horne does tremendous work in tracking the Z-film through the first weekend. But his flat declarative statement that the Z-film was in fact altered has no basis in fact. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that something was done, but nothing in his article can actually pinpoint where, when or how. He is therefore presumptive in his conclusion. He too misunderstands basic technical issues, as Zavada points out in his patient, though exasperated, letter.
Quite honestly, I have been baffled by the ferocity shown here, and will move on after stating one last time: if you persist in your claims without pausing for reflection on the clearly identified technical hurdles, you risk being embarrassed in a huge way down the road.
Good luck with your theories, guys.
I have indeed provided supporting material. Roland Zavada's "Open Letter To Doug Horne , in great detail and clarity, discusses the most of the points I made at the start of this thread. I have also quoted from "Exposure Control of Optical Printers" by Mehrdad Azarmi. Both gentlemen are credentialed professionals, their observations and descriptions are not controversial, and are accepted throughout the industry. It is remarkable to witness tantrums from people who don't actually know what they are talking about. There has been no attempt to address the fine points of Zavada's critique because most persons sharing the extensive alteration viewpoint do not have the technical background to even understand what he is saying, let alone develop a response. But they are somehow very very certain he must be wrong.
http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf
Doug Horne does tremendous work in tracking the Z-film through the first weekend. But his flat declarative statement that the Z-film was in fact altered has no basis in fact. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that something was done, but nothing in his article can actually pinpoint where, when or how. He is therefore presumptive in his conclusion. He too misunderstands basic technical issues, as Zavada points out in his patient, though exasperated, letter.
Quite honestly, I have been baffled by the ferocity shown here, and will move on after stating one last time: if you persist in your claims without pausing for reflection on the clearly identified technical hurdles, you risk being embarrassed in a huge way down the road.
Good luck with your theories, guys.