How much could you alter the film if Abraham Zapruder had shot in slow motion mode?
|
How much could you alter the film if Abraham Zapruder had shot in slow motion mode?
|
16-02-2016, 10:44 PM
The motorcycle was originally shot at 48fps slow motion mode.
I believe it was from a super 8mm camera. I used a frame sequence of keep1 remove2 keep1 remove2, etc... The gif is running at approx 17fps. chris ![[Image: 48fpscut.gif]](http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/48fpscut.gif)
16-02-2016, 11:33 PM
The film clip appears normal to me. The question is, by this method, how much could you hide? Surely somewhat less than 1/17 of a second's worth of information, which missing bits we could clearly infer by what is left, like the sudden slowing of the cycle as it makes the turn, or the fact that the rider almost plants a foot on the ground.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis." Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease." Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
17-02-2016, 12:00 AM
Chris Davidson Wrote:The motorcycle was originally shot at 48fps slow motion mode. Looks eerily like all the Zappy copies... a little dark, a little jumpy... and that's without the camera moving around a lot like Zap's did. I'd be interested if you could do something like removing 3-5 frames in a row and then keep 1 or 2 to remove portions of his turn. Starting with a 48 frame 1-second period, see how many frames you can remove in a row before it looks as "jumpy" as this regular speed, un-stabilized version... Looking at this linked to version - really does not look too hard to hide the removal of frames. The stabilized versions we look at do not give a real sense of the film but a sterilized version of what it should have looked like. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqlib47cefM
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
17-02-2016, 01:20 AM
I was surprised that Photobucket would allow this size gif, but here it is for comparison, in it's original(progressive frames only) slow-motion form.
Once again, running at 17fps. chris P.S. David, I originally utilized a keep4, remove5 sequence, but it was obviously much too jumpy. ![[Image: 48fpscut1.gif]](http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/48fpscut1.gif)
17-02-2016, 01:28 AM
Thanks Chris - I'll see what I can do with it.
I did some quick removal work and it's amazing really. The more I do the more it looks like the Zfilm as the limo moves down Elm you can see the mini jumps as Zap moves the camera around... same as what I just did. Gotta run now but will post the work and analysis soon DJ Thanks again Chris
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
17-02-2016, 07:17 AM
Drew Phipps Wrote:The film clip appears normal to me. The question is, by this method, how much could you hide? Surely somewhat less than 1/17 of a second's worth of information, which missing bits we could clearly infer by what is left, like the sudden slowing of the cycle as it makes the turn, or the fact that the rider almost plants a foot on the ground. That's a good point. Even with a frame or two, it seems like you could eliminate clear evidence of a shot. Or in the case of Z313, what happened around a shot. Brugioni was clear that in the version he reviewed, the head explosive was definitely more than one frame.
18-02-2016, 04:59 PM
David Josephs Wrote:Thanks Chris - I'll see what I can do with it. David, The zfilm shot at 48fps and viewed at 15fps would have looked something like this. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtV...sp=sharing Sorry I didn't make it to the films end, but, you get the idea. Couldn't fully support a 48fps scenario until I figured out the math between CE884's and applied it to the extant zfilm. Just the way I approached it. Kudos to you and Doug Horne for sticking with it. chris
18-02-2016, 05:52 PM
Chris Davidson Wrote:David Josephs Wrote:Thanks Chris - I'll see what I can do with it. That's fascinating. Costella found something odd with the sign when he did his pincushion correction, and in that version - to me - the sign jumps around. Also for some reason it seems like the "blob" after the head shot looks more like a massive wound - again to me - it looks like the entire front right side of his head is gone. Anyone else see that? Does it look dramatically different to anyone else or are these old eyes f'ing with me?
18-02-2016, 07:13 PM
Chris Davidson Wrote:David Josephs Wrote:Thanks Chris - I'll see what I can do with it. That is great work, Chris. Really thought provoking to watch. Also, that is a really clear version of the Z film. Do you mind if I ask if you have a link to this Z version before you did your test? Best, Chris
18-02-2016, 08:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 18-02-2016, 08:20 PM by Chris Davidson.)
Chris,
This version is from "The Lost Bullet". Besides the segment being truncated, there are other missing frames within it, which existed on the original DVD version. The untouched segment is 330mb in size. I'll see if Google Drive will allow it to be uploaded. Added on Edit: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtV...sp=sharing chris |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
