29-08-2013, 06:07 AM
Jeff Carter Wrote: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.
Well I for one am glad you cleared up a few of your misrepresentation(s) Jeffrey Carter, especially regarding your experience and qualifications. And I for one do not like dealing with lone nut, "obnoxious detractors"...and I have dealt with more than my share concerning this subject matter. Especially for someone that freely admits, on-the-record, I can't prove the Zapruder film is altered. So, I feel your pain... now, if you can only prove to me that you have the experience you now say you have, that of loading a simple process camera with reversal raw stock we'll of made significant progress.
Are you actually offended folks want to know what you've said in other threads here? You're a program "producer" guy, part of the M-E-D-I-A... is internet streaming now considered MSM?
Figured we'd finally get around to Roland Zavada sooner than later... anything other than double 8mm film manufacturing properties discussion is out of Roland's purview. He is not a motion picture production guy nor a film post-production effects guy. Rollie had to jump on a plane to Florida and talk with Ray Fielding about optical film lab printing. Am aside: Ray told me he wanted no part of the discussion, he did echo Rollie's mantra though: 8mm to 8mm optical special effects film printing is impossible. Think Rollie chose Fielding's brain for no good reason? I quote from Fielding's 1965 1st edition Special Effects Cinematography book extensively.
Your American Cinemtographer is a good play on your part, great opinions, nice manual for neophytes and those new to the industry (I prefer the magazine though)... Now, I reference SMPE/SMPTE journals (those as early as 1925), so did Ray Fielding, in fact the glossary is full of reference material concerning all types of opticial film printing techniques. These are those very people thatcreated the protocols and set standards for the film industry as a whole which, of course the American Cinematographer the magazine, the manual, and their membership discuss and adhere to. Roland Zavada is a member of SMPTE and guess who else?
You sure are running a lot of buzz words out this evening, peer-review for one. When did anyone, ANYONE from a legit, named Hollywood/LA, New York, Chicago, San Francisco film production-post production studio, optical film lab endorse Rolans Zavada's "Open Letter"? You can't be serious are you?
And don't drag out that old 8mm to 8mm to 8mm optical film printing is impossible debacle Rollie always drug out when confronted with optical film printing techniques that overwhelmed him. Orhis discussions with one of my fellow Univ.of Minn Zapruder Film Symposium presenters.
You say: "I stand by most everything I have said on any post." Let's hear about the OTHER than 'most' stuff!