This unpopular opinion should, I suppose, be its own thread. Here is what I have to say on this topic:
Zapruder film alteration scenarios seem to have originated with a need to account for a) a slow down and/or complete halt of the limousine, described by many witnesses, but which is not readily apparent in the existing Z-film b) inconsistencies within the frames, including what appear to be body movements which are too quick.
I claim that a slow down of the limousine is actually visible in the Zapruder film. The ability to see it for what it is has been difficult because an illusion of constant pace is created by the combination of the moving vehicle and the panning movement of the camera. A clue to seeing the slow down resides in attention to the pace of Zapruder's pan.
I also have claimed that the quick body movements can be explained by the mechanics of the spring-wind motor of Zapruder's camera in conjunction with the frame rate.
If the above points adequately explain perceived problems with the Z-film, the logic of alteration is challenged. There are a number of technical difficulties inherent to alteration scenarios which suggest that extensive alteration to the Z-film is an unrealistic proposal.
These difficulties include but are not limited to:
1) creation of internegatives and prints results in generation loss with corresponding image degradation. This degradation intensifies with each successive generation. Alteration scenarios which rely on the creation of numerous internegatives introduced in various phases of the work, are not realistic as the image degradation visible on the final print would be too obvious.
2) film stocks have unique characteristics related to color, exposure, and grain. Since an altered Z-film would need to be finally re-photgraphed back onto 8mm Kodachrome, maintaining Kodachrome's characteristics on the other film stocks would be a major, possibly unassailable challenge.
3) Excision of frames is relatively simple, but care would have to be taken to ensure that resulting playback is smooth. Excision of numerous successive frames is unrealistic as the resulting jump or disruption in the Z-film's panning would be visible.
4) claims that figures or objects in the frame have been removed or moved to another position within the frame is extremely unrealistic. The optical printer is not Photoshop and its capabilities have been severely overstated in some alteration scenarios.
5) other than a possible patch on back of JFK's head and perhaps something at Z313, there is no visible evidence or trace of any alteration work.
6) even if the technical limitations involving mattes or object removal had been overcome, a realistic time scenario for this work would conservatively run to hundreds of hours. Alteration scenarios would need to account for swapping prints of the Z-film many weeks later (and somehow confirm no further copies had been struck).
7) I am not aware of any shot or sequence done anywhere at anytime, utilizing an optical printer, which approaches the technical accomplishment claimed for Z-film alteration scenarios beyond frame excision.
Jeff Carter Wrote:5) other than a possible patch on back of JFK's head and perhaps something at Z313, there is no visible evidence or trace of any alteration work.
Other than the fact that his head was blown apart, there is no visible evidence that JFK was assassinated in Dallas.
Alternate Response: Other than that, Mrs. Kennedy, how did you enjoy Dallas?
Jeff, deep political analysis of Z-film alteration arguments suggests that some of the most easily refuted were made to diminish all of the most easily demonstrated.
Please define "extensive" as you use the word in the title of this thread.
Jeff Carter Wrote:I am not aware of any shot or sequence done anywhere at anytime, utilizing an optical printer, which approaches the technical accomplishment claimed for Z-film alteration scenarios beyond frame excision.
This, of course, is a classic example of the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Authority.
Person C claims to be an authority on subject Z. (Forgive me if you're not making such a claim. But if you are, would you be so kind as to share with us your relevant credentials?)
Person C makes claim L about subject Z.
Therefore, L is true.
Further, implicit in your statement above is the claim, "If I don't know about it, it can't exist."
Did stealth technology exist prior to being made public by the Air Force? For how long?
Might classified technologies other than optical printers have existed in 1963?
Here is an excerpt from the essay Cinemagic of the Optical Printer by Linwood G. Dunn, A.S.C. printed in American Cinematographer Manual (5th edition). It gives a good overview of the possibilities and limits of image manipulation on these machines.
"The following is a typical example of the optical printer's value as a scene-salvaging medium. In "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad,Mad World", an important scene was photographed in which a truck was supposed to back onto a shack and knock it over. The breakaway shack was rigged to collapse when wires were pulled on cue. Signals became crossed, and the shack was pulled down well before the truck touched it. A very costly retake was indicated, so the optical printer was called to the rescue. The task of correcting the error through a split-screen seemed relatively simple until it was discovered that the camera panned with the falling shack. It then became necessary to plot and move the split matching point frame-by-frame on the optical printer to follow the pan. Through the travelling split screen technique the progress of the shack's falling action was delayed until the truck had reached the point of impact."
So, basically what was done was the frame was split into two sections by means of a hard vertical line, and then the relationship between the two sections was manipulated. These techniques require a hard vertical or horizontal line by which to isolate sections for the manipulation. Look at frames from Z-film and try to establish a place where any horizontal or vertical line can be reliably established. Further compounding the problem is that the limousine changes size in the frame as it moves toward, past, and beyond the Zapruder camera.There is nothing in the Zapruder frames which could be said to be consistent relative to other frames, and this would provide a massive problem for anyone contemplating manipulation.
25-08-2013, 08:04 PM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2013, 08:20 PM by David Healy.)
Jeff Carter Wrote:This unpopular opinion should, I suppose, be its own thread. Here is what I have to say on this topic:
Zapruder film alteration scenarios seem to have originated with a need to account for a) a slow down and/or complete halt of the limousine, described by many witnesses, but which is not readily apparent in the existing Z-film b) inconsistencies within the frames, including what appear to be body movements which are too quick.
...
7) I am not aware of any shot or sequence done anywhere at anytime, utilizing an optical printer, which approaches the technical accomplishment claimed for Z-film alteration scenarios beyond frame excision.
Oh-My goodness, declarative sentences already and we've just been introduced... lmfao -- Only two are worth commenting on:
re your 1st comment above: you've skipped over the one solid reason-necessity ("scenario" as many of my lone nut friends like to call it) re possible Zapruder film alteration . That being "OFFICIAL Conspiracy Deniability." read: ONE SHOOTER ONLY. Perhaps you can determine the 1963-4 consequences that of a conspiracy murdered the President of the United States, yes?
The ONE SHOOTER ONLY, which of course necessitated Washington's creation AND formation of the Warren Commission.
--
re the 2nd of two above: ahhhh, so, your not quite the student of optical film printing as you think you are, eh... Perhaps you should be digging around SMPE/SMPTE archives and find out the REAL history of optical film printing. Right to the source, why fart around with rumor, opinion and innuendo, Guy?
SMPE (Society of Motion Picture Engineering) - SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineering) has some pretty interesting, pre World War II optical film printing "scenarios" in their technical reports. The Society is still around today, in fact Roland Zavada is/was a member, even little old I attended my share of yearly SMPTE meetings.
You are going to have to do better than: if you (or those you know) can't do it on an Oxberry, it CAN'T be done "nonsense"... "technical accomplishment" you say? Dude the optical film printer was awarded an ACADEMY AWARD for Technical Achievement, who do you think operated those beasts? Here's one oldtime operating scenario: contracted Hollyweird Studios for the USArmy Signal Corps (WWII era before they were called Oxberry's)
It's painfully obvious to me you've never been to Hollyweird, nor to a Hollyweird based optical film house. From the sounds of your boastings I bet David Lifton knows more about Oxberry filmprinters than you do. And he, surprise-surprise, he actually knows the systems operation...
You aren't the new and improved version of Craig *Lampoon* Lamson, are ya there, Jeffrey?
Jeff Carter Wrote:Here is an excerpt from the essay Cinemagic of the Optical Printer by Linwood G. Dunn, A.S.C. printed in American Cinematographer Manual (5th edition). It gives a good overview of the possibilities and limits of image manipulation on these machines.
"The following is a typical example of the optical printer's value as a scene-salvaging medium. In "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad,Mad World", an important scene was photographed in which a truck was supposed to back onto a shack and knock it over. The breakaway shack was rigged to collapse when wires were pulled on cue. Signals became crossed, and the shack was pulled down well before the truck touched it. A very costly retake was indicated, so the optical printer was called to the rescue. The task of correcting the error through a split-screen seemed relatively simple until it was discovered that the camera panned with the falling shack. It then became necessary to plot and move the split matching point frame-by-frame on the optical printer to follow the pan. Through the travelling split screen technique the progress of the shack's falling action was delayed until the truck had reached the point of impact."
So, basically what was done was the frame was split into two sections by means of a hard vertical line, and then the relationship between the two sections was manipulated. These techniques require a hard vertical or horizontal line by which to isolate sections for the manipulation. Look at frames from Z-film and try to establish a place where any horizontal or vertical line can be reliably established. Further compounding the problem is that the limousine changes size in the frame as it moves toward, past, and beyond the Zapruder camera.There is nothing in the Zapruder frames which could be said to be consistent relative to other frames, and this would provide a massive problem for anyone contemplating manipulation.
Let's tell our viewers just who Mr. Dunne was (as he has gone on to that great flatbed in the sky) then you can tell and show us us what that "massive problem for anyone contemplating manipulation" is,
If I were an ambitious television producer hired by a major network to do a hatchet job on the critical community, I would seek out one of those proposing extensive alteration to the Z-film. I would interview him at length and encourage the presentation of lots of examples of what he thinks was done to the film. Then I would cut to a Hollywood optical house, and an interview with a probably retired 40-years-on-the-job optical effects technician and we would carefully and convincingly debunk most of the propositions regarding Z-film alteration.
At the end of that show the critical community's flag would be drooped so low to the ground it would be months just getting it back to half mast.
David H - sorry we have to cross swords here, but there are presumptions in your article which are highly unrealistic.
I don't relish being the messenger on this, but like I said: if I don't do this now then somebody else will do it later, and maybe under less favorable circumstances.
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).
26-08-2013, 05:28 AM (This post was last modified: 26-08-2013, 05:48 AM by David Healy.)
Jeff Carter Wrote:...
David H - sorry we have to cross swords here, but there are presumptions in your article which are highly unrealistic.
I don't relish being the messenger on this, but like I said: if I don't do this now then somebody else will do it later, and maybe under less favorable circumstances.
Ahh Jeffrey it's obvious you weren't around when the Z-film debate was on full bore (1998-2005/6), the Gang of Eight led by Tink Thompson, Gary Mack, Todd Vaughn, Craig Lampoon Lamson etal and the laughable others --against John Costella, Jack White, Jim Fetzer, David Mantik, David Lifton, Rich DellaRosa, Monk, myself etal.... ah the good old days...no, we have NOT had cross words, Jeffrey. In fact we haven't really had words at all, you see son, you're an unknown quality, entity and most likely just another aliased lone nut .john-ite, without cred's...
For those of us that were around when JFK was assassinated, the assassination was not a realistic, event especially not on the streets of an american city... unfathomable, unbelievable.... altering a film? Now why would a government deem it necessary to do something like that, one might ask. No virgins here Jeffrey, just researchers who fall on the side of, conspiracy took the life of JFK and of course those that live under the motto, of Eyes Wide SHUT.
"...less favorable circumstances" you claim, and what might those circumstances be? Are you with the MAN Jeffrey? Do you care about the Zapruder film, JFK assassination case evidence, if so, WHY?
Thank you for the warning, a few of us had no idea we were really getting under lone nut, WCR supporting, .john-ites skin as we evidently have. Must be the 50th approaching eh, Jeffrey... pressure and all that kinda stuff, eh? After all, why would you be bestowing your presence in front us mere mortals here at this time?
Where's my old buddy lone nut Steve Keating when I need him. To quote old Steve: "you're a hoot" Jeffrey. Now, as I've stated at least a hundred times, prove to me and the rest of the world forensically, the Zapruder film. as we know it, currently stored in the National Archives (NARA) is in fact the in-camera original shot on Nov 22nd 1963.
You've got your assignment Mr. Phelps, gett'er done!
Perhaps you should be digging around SMPE/SMPTE archives and find out the REAL history of optical film printing. Right to the source, why fart around with rumor, opinion and innuendo, Guy?