|
|
 September 04, 2010, 06:12:44 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2201
|
For the web version of this article see: As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginToo often people ignore blurred frames of the Zapruder film. By recognizing the characteristics of various blurs they can obtain valuable information. In fact a blur caused by a rapidly moving object conveys more information than a clear frame. Two features on frames Z324 and Z325 show blurs. They are the partition between operator and passenger compartments and the small white object immediately above the head of President Kennedy. Viewing following frames reveals that white object as the tip of the gloved hand of Mrs. Kennedy. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginStepping from frame Z324 to Z325 shows two changes. The partition becomes clearer and the hand becomes blurrier. A closer examination shows most images on frame Z324 are blurrier than on frame Z325. Further the blurrier images show lateral streaking. These characteristics indicate movement of the camera with respect to the incoming light during exposure caused the blurring. By contrast, the movement of Mrs. Kennedy's hand by a few inches between frames Z324 and Z325 shows intrinsic motion as the cause of its increased blurriness. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginFrames Z325 and Z326 show Mrs. Kennedy is swiping her hand from the left side to the rear of the President's head. As she swings her hand, its direction of motion moves away from the plane of view and toward the line of sight. By frame Z326, Mrs. Kennedy's hand is speeding toward the camera and its motion causes less blurring. This observation illustrates another characteristic of blurs caused by moving objects. Namely the components of their velocity lying in the plane of view cause blurring. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginA lesser movement of the camera during exposure accounts for most objects becoming clearer on frame Z326. Having completed the left to rear movement, Mrs. Kennedy starts lowering her hand. This change in direction of her hand increases the downward component of its velocity. Not surprisingly more blurring accompanies the considerable downward speed of Mrs. Kennedy's hand as shown by frame Z327. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginA blur caused by a rapidly moving object enables calculation of two components of its velocity. In general the uncertainty in position due to blurring places an upper bound on the plane of view distance moved by an object during exposure. Knowing the exposure time permits calculation of the upper limit of two components of the object's velocity. This technique is especially valuable in evaluating brief motions such as Kennedy's forward and backward head snaps.
-------------------------
|
|
|
 Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 05, 2010, 03:53:42 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1374
|
Ok Herbert....you have camera induced blur, blur caused by a moving subject {limo} and blur of moving subject inside a moving subject {Jackie indide the moving limo] Please tell us HOW exactly your have uncoupled all of these blurs...... For the web version of this article see: As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginToo often people ignore blurred frames of the Zapruder film. By recognizing the characteristics of various blurs they can obtain valuable information. In fact a blur caused by a rapidly moving object conveys more information than a clear frame. Two features on frames Z324 and Z325 show blurs. They are the partition between operator and passenger compartments and the small white object immediately above the head of President Kennedy. Viewing following frames reveals that white object as the tip of the gloved hand of Mrs. Kennedy. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginStepping from frame Z324 to Z325 shows two changes. The partition becomes clearer and the hand becomes blurrier. A closer examination shows most images on frame Z324 are blurrier than on frame Z325. Further the blurrier images show lateral streaking. These characteristics indicate movement of the camera with respect to the incoming light during exposure caused the blurring. By contrast, the movement of Mrs. Kennedy's hand by a few inches between frames Z324 and Z325 shows intrinsic motion as the cause of its increased blurriness. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginFrames Z325 and Z326 show Mrs. Kennedy is swiping her hand from the left side to the rear of the President's head. As she swings her hand, its direction of motion moves away from the plane of view and toward the line of sight. By frame Z326, Mrs. Kennedy's hand is speeding toward the camera and its motion causes less blurring. This observation illustrates another characteristic of blurs caused by moving objects. Namely the components of their velocity lying in the plane of view cause blurring. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginA lesser movement of the camera during exposure accounts for most objects becoming clearer on frame Z326. Having completed the left to rear movement, Mrs. Kennedy starts lowering her hand. This change in direction of her hand increases the downward component of its velocity. Not surprisingly more blurring accompanies the considerable downward speed of Mrs. Kennedy's hand as shown by frame Z327. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginA blur caused by a rapidly moving object enables calculation of two components of its velocity. In general the uncertainty in position due to blurring places an upper bound on the plane of view distance moved by an object during exposure. Knowing the exposure time permits calculation of the upper limit of two components of the object's velocity. This technique is especially valuable in evaluating brief motions such as Kennedy's forward and backward head snaps.
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 05, 2010, 04:35:27 PM by Craig Lamson »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 05, 2010, 06:11:52 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2201
|
Ok Herbert....you have camera induced blur, blur caused by a moving subject {limo} and blur of moving subject inside a moving subject {Jackie indide the moving limo]
Please tell us HOW exactly your have uncoupled all of these blurs......
I discussed frames where movement of part of a subject was the primary cause of the motion blur. Since lateral movement of the image relative to the film causes the motion blur, we have just two cases to consider. Changes in the contents of the filmed field from one frame to the next identify the cause of a motion blur as camera and hence film movement relative to the images. We see this effect on frames Z-317 and Z-318. A motion blur due to movement of a particular object leaves other objects unaffected. This more common occurrence represents lateral movement of a part of the image relative to the film. These methods are sufficient to analyze situations where both mechanisms contribute toward the motion blur. Herbert For the web version of this article see: As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginToo often people ignore blurred frames of the Zapruder film. By recognizing the characteristics of various blurs they can obtain valuable information. In fact a blur caused by a rapidly moving object conveys more information than a clear frame. Two features on frames Z324 and Z325 show blurs. They are the partition between operator and passenger compartments and the small white object immediately above the head of President Kennedy. Viewing following frames reveals that white object as the tip of the gloved hand of Mrs. Kennedy. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginStepping from frame Z324 to Z325 shows two changes. The partition becomes clearer and the hand becomes blurrier. A closer examination shows most images on frame Z324 are blurrier than on frame Z325. Further the blurrier images show lateral streaking. These characteristics indicate movement of the camera with respect to the incoming light during exposure caused the blurring. By contrast, the movement of Mrs. Kennedy's hand by a few inches between frames Z324 and Z325 shows intrinsic motion as the cause of its increased blurriness. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginFrames Z325 and Z326 show Mrs. Kennedy is swiping her hand from the left side to the rear of the President's head. As she swings her hand, its direction of motion moves away from the plane of view and toward the line of sight. By frame Z326, Mrs. Kennedy's hand is speeding toward the camera and its motion causes less blurring. This observation illustrates another characteristic of blurs caused by moving objects. Namely the components of their velocity lying in the plane of view cause blurring. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginA lesser movement of the camera during exposure accounts for most objects becoming clearer on frame Z326. Having completed the left to rear movement, Mrs. Kennedy starts lowering her hand. This change in direction of her hand increases the downward component of its velocity. Not surprisingly more blurring accompanies the considerable downward speed of Mrs. Kennedy's hand as shown by frame Z327. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginA blur caused by a rapidly moving object enables calculation of two components of its velocity. In general the uncertainty in position due to blurring places an upper bound on the plane of view distance moved by an object during exposure. Knowing the exposure time permits calculation of the upper limit of two components of the object's velocity. This technique is especially valuable in evaluating brief motions such as Kennedy's forward and backward head snaps.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 05, 2010, 06:52:46 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1374
|
So if we cut through all of your handwaving excuses, the correct answer is YOU DON'T. Please show us even a SINGLE frame where you can uncombine the three forms of blur. Oh yes, you can't. Your methods are NOT valid. Ok Herbert....you have camera induced blur, blur caused by a moving subject {limo} and blur of moving subject inside a moving subject {Jackie indide the moving limo]
Please tell us HOW exactly your have uncoupled all of these blurs......
I discussed frames where movement of part of a subject was the primary cause of the motion blur. Since lateral movement of the image relative to the film causes the motion blur, we have just two cases to consider. Changes in the contents of the filmed field from one frame to the next identify the cause of a motion blur as camera and hence film movement relative to the images. We see this effect on frames Z-317 and Z-318. A motion blur due to movement of a particular object leaves other objects unaffected. This more common occurrence represents lateral movement of a part of the image relative to the film. These methods are sufficient to analyze situations where both mechanisms contribute toward the motion blur. Herbert For the web version of this article see: As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginToo often people ignore blurred frames of the Zapruder film. By recognizing the characteristics of various blurs they can obtain valuable information. In fact a blur caused by a rapidly moving object conveys more information than a clear frame. Two features on frames Z324 and Z325 show blurs. They are the partition between operator and passenger compartments and the small white object immediately above the head of President Kennedy. Viewing following frames reveals that white object as the tip of the gloved hand of Mrs. Kennedy. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginStepping from frame Z324 to Z325 shows two changes. The partition becomes clearer and the hand becomes blurrier. A closer examination shows most images on frame Z324 are blurrier than on frame Z325. Further the blurrier images show lateral streaking. These characteristics indicate movement of the camera with respect to the incoming light during exposure caused the blurring. By contrast, the movement of Mrs. Kennedy's hand by a few inches between frames Z324 and Z325 shows intrinsic motion as the cause of its increased blurriness. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginFrames Z325 and Z326 show Mrs. Kennedy is swiping her hand from the left side to the rear of the President's head. As she swings her hand, its direction of motion moves away from the plane of view and toward the line of sight. By frame Z326, Mrs. Kennedy's hand is speeding toward the camera and its motion causes less blurring. This observation illustrates another characteristic of blurs caused by moving objects. Namely the components of their velocity lying in the plane of view cause blurring. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginA lesser movement of the camera during exposure accounts for most objects becoming clearer on frame Z326. Having completed the left to rear movement, Mrs. Kennedy starts lowering her hand. This change in direction of her hand increases the downward component of its velocity. Not surprisingly more blurring accompanies the considerable downward speed of Mrs. Kennedy's hand as shown by frame Z327. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginA blur caused by a rapidly moving object enables calculation of two components of its velocity. In general the uncertainty in position due to blurring places an upper bound on the plane of view distance moved by an object during exposure. Knowing the exposure time permits calculation of the upper limit of two components of the object's velocity. This technique is especially valuable in evaluating brief motions such as Kennedy's forward and backward head snaps.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 05, 2010, 07:25:55 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2201
|
So if we cut through all of your handwaving excuses, the correct answer is YOU DON'T. Please show us even a SINGLE frame where you can uncombine the three forms of blur. Oh yes, you can't.
Your methods are NOT valid.
My tactful corrections of your incoherent remarks are not "handwaving [sic] excuses." You blathered; "Ok Herbert....you have camera induced blur, blur caused by a moving subject {limo} and blur of moving subject inside a moving subject {Jackie indide the moving limo] Please tell us HOW exactly your have uncoupled all of these blurs......" Absolute motions of the camera, subject or the limousine do not exist. Instead Galileo correctly asserted that all motions are relative. When you get your mind out of the middle ages then perhaps we can have a reasonable discussion of how I use content of field to separate one cause of a motion blur from the other. Herbert Ok Herbert....you have camera induced blur, blur caused by a moving subject {limo} and blur of moving subject inside a moving subject {Jackie indide the moving limo]
Please tell us HOW exactly your have uncoupled all of these blurs......
I discussed frames where movement of part of a subject was the primary cause of the motion blur. Since lateral movement of the image relative to the film causes the motion blur, we have just two cases to consider. Changes in the contents of the filmed field from one frame to the next identify the cause of a motion blur as camera and hence film movement relative to the images. We see this effect on frames Z-317 and Z-318. A motion blur due to movement of a particular object leaves other objects unaffected. This more common occurrence represents lateral movement of a part of the image relative to the film. These methods are sufficient to analyze situations where both mechanisms contribute toward the motion blur. Herbert For the web version of this article see: As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginToo often people ignore blurred frames of the Zapruder film. By recognizing the characteristics of various blurs they can obtain valuable information. In fact a blur caused by a rapidly moving object conveys more information than a clear frame. Two features on frames Z324 and Z325 show blurs. They are the partition between operator and passenger compartments and the small white object immediately above the head of President Kennedy. Viewing following frames reveals that white object as the tip of the gloved hand of Mrs. Kennedy. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginStepping from frame Z324 to Z325 shows two changes. The partition becomes clearer and the hand becomes blurrier. A closer examination shows most images on frame Z324 are blurrier than on frame Z325. Further the blurrier images show lateral streaking. These characteristics indicate movement of the camera with respect to the incoming light during exposure caused the blurring. By contrast, the movement of Mrs. Kennedy's hand by a few inches between frames Z324 and Z325 shows intrinsic motion as the cause of its increased blurriness. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginFrames Z325 and Z326 show Mrs. Kennedy is swiping her hand from the left side to the rear of the President's head. As she swings her hand, its direction of motion moves away from the plane of view and toward the line of sight. By frame Z326, Mrs. Kennedy's hand is speeding toward the camera and its motion causes less blurring. This observation illustrates another characteristic of blurs caused by moving objects. Namely the components of their velocity lying in the plane of view cause blurring. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginA lesser movement of the camera during exposure accounts for most objects becoming clearer on frame Z326. Having completed the left to rear movement, Mrs. Kennedy starts lowering her hand. This change in direction of her hand increases the downward component of its velocity. Not surprisingly more blurring accompanies the considerable downward speed of Mrs. Kennedy's hand as shown by frame Z327. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginA blur caused by a rapidly moving object enables calculation of two components of its velocity. In general the uncertainty in position due to blurring places an upper bound on the plane of view distance moved by an object during exposure. Knowing the exposure time permits calculation of the upper limit of two components of the object's velocity. This technique is especially valuable in evaluating brief motions such as Kennedy's forward and backward head snaps.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 05, 2010, 10:36:35 PM
|
Sr. Member
Posts: 374
|
.....Absolute motions of the camera, subject or the limousine do not exist. Instead Galileo correctly asserted that all motions are relative. ...
Herbert
Well that's absolutely wrong. History, even of science and engineering, seems to be a weak spot. Off by 270 years more or less. Plus, of course, while there are no privileged frames of reference, there are certainly camera, subject and limousine motions relative to the our frame - which happens to be the only relevant frame for this discussion. Jerry
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 05, 2010, 11:48:08 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2201
|
.....Absolute motions of the camera, subject or the limousine do not exist. Instead Galileo correctly asserted that all motions are relative. ...
Herbert
Well that's absolutely wrong. History, even of science and engineering, seems to be a weak spot. Off by 270 years more or less. Plus, of course, while there are no privileged frames of reference, there are certainly camera, subject and limousine motions relative to the our frame - which happens to be the only relevant frame for this discussion. Jerry The relative motion between the image and the film is the only relevant variable pertaining to the motion blur. This statement is true regardless of the frame of reference used to measure either motion of the image or film. In terms of symbols let Vi be the motion of the image and Vf be the motion of the film both relative to your frame of reference. The relative motion between the image and the film is Vi - Vf. Now if the motions of the image and film are referenced to the motion of the limousine, the motion of the image becomes Vi - Vl and the motion of the film is Vf - Vl. So in this case the motion of the image relative to the film is (Vi - Vl) - (Vf - Vl) = Vi -Vf. Likewise if one references the motions of the image and film to a frame with motion Vx then the motion of the image relative to the film is (Vi - Vx) - (Vf - Vx) = Vi - Vf. No matter how many irrelevant frames you introduce the motion blur depends upon the relative motion between the image and the film. Herbert
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 06, 2010, 03:40:20 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2201
|
Blah Blah Blah..Herbert waves his hands wildly looking for a mark for his silly claims.
Three forms of blur exist. You can't UNCOMBINE THEM. You work...such that that is...fails.
Get back to us when you can show us the the uncombined blurs.
Till then you are spouting gibberish.
You are making up a false goalpost. My web article that I repeat below pertains to identification and interpretation, not removal, of motion blur. Since you boldly proclaim, "You can't uncombine them.", I challenge you to show readers where my interpretative work has gone where no person has gone before. Too often people ignore blurred frames of the Zapruder film. By recognizing the characteristics of various blurs they can obtain valuable information. In fact a blur caused by a rapidly moving object conveys more information than a clear frame. Two features on frames Z324 and Z325 show blurs. They are the partition between operator and passenger compartments and the small white object immediately above the head of President Kennedy. Viewing following frames reveals that white object as the tip of the gloved hand of Mrs. Kennedy.  Stepping from frame Z324 to Z325 shows two changes. The partition becomes clearer and the hand becomes blurrier. A closer examination shows most images on frame Z324 are blurrier than on frame Z325. Further the blurrier images show lateral streaking. These characteristics indicate movement of the camera with respect to the incoming light during exposure caused the blurring. By contrast, the movement of Mrs. Kennedy's hand by a few inches between frames Z324 and Z325 shows intrinsic motion as the cause of its increased blurriness.  Frames Z325 and Z326 show Mrs. Kennedy is swiping her hand from the left side to the rear of the President's head. As she swings her hand, its direction of motion moves away from the plane of view and toward the line of sight. By frame Z326, Mrs. Kennedy's hand is speeding toward the camera and its motion causes less blurring. This observation illustrates another characteristic of blurs caused by moving objects. Namely the components of their velocity lying in the plane of view cause blurring.  A lesser movement of the camera during exposure accounts for most objects becoming clearer on frame Z326. Having completed the left to rear movement, Mrs. Kennedy starts lowering her hand. This change in direction of her hand increases the downward component of its velocity. Not surprisingly more blurring accompanies the considerable downward speed of Mrs. Kennedy's hand as shown by frame Z327.  A blur caused by a rapidly moving object enables calculation of two components of its velocity. In general the uncertainty in position due to blurring places an upper bound on the plane of view distance moved by an object during exposure. Knowing the exposure time permits calculation of the upper limit of two components of the object's velocity. This technique is especially valuable in evaluating brief motions such as Kennedy's forward and backward head snaps. Herbert
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 06, 2010, 03:49:52 PM by Herbert Blenner »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 06, 2010, 04:50:20 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2660
|
Herbert, have you ever considered to compare other films of these times regarding blur with the Zapruder film?
Are this kind of anomalies just in the Zapruder film and not Hughes, Nix, Muchmore, Bronson etc?
Also interesting to see would be a comparison of films of the 60'es (not from the JFK asassination) with Zapruder, although
i doubt we would find material developed and enhanced that sharp.
Such a comparison would support your theory (if just Zapruder have this blur anomalies) or debunk it (if this blur anomalies are present in other older films as well).
I'am far away from being an expert on this old generation cameras. I've never hold one in my hands.
I can ensure you, everytime i've examined the Zapruder film with the other footages and still photos taken in Dealey Plaza in this
tragic moments, i discovered never any discrepancy. The sync seem to fit perfectly.
Ok, no movie film taken that day runs 22 seconds contemporaneous with Zapruder.
Anyway, i have done a lot of comparisons and this research is given me a hard time to believe the Zapruder film is altered.
How can the Zapruder film have been altered when Willis5 is a match to Zframe 202?
How can the Zapruder film have been altered when Betzner3 is a match to Zframe 186?
How can the Zapruder film have been altered when Altgens6 is a match to Zframe 255?
How can the Zapruder film have been altered when the Bronson photo is a match to Zframe 229?
best
Martin
-------------------------
-------------------------
Firework As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginGod bless Emmett Till: As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginInsipired by the Movie "Invictus" and Nelson Mandela. What a poem! As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 06, 2010, 06:21:33 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2660
|
Here an attempt to declare the possibly alteration of the Zapruder film. <![CDATA[As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
<a href="http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=register">Register</a> or <a href="http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=login">Login</a>]]> This video is from 2008. Can you see the poor attempt to mask out the presidential limousine in order to get the motion out the of sync? Almost every claim in this video can be debunked very easely. Apart from that we can witness how hard it is to replace the SS-100-X with all the motion blur. Even with our newest technology it is impossible to alter the Zapruder film reliable. Give me the job, give me 100.000 Dollars and i would be never able to convince any experienced expert to mask out the presidential limousine in a reliable way.....in motion. You doubt my abilties? Ok, have you seen any convincing attempt? Me not. And we are writing 2010. I think it maybe possible in a couple of decades. It would be bold to say otherwise. But not yet and never in the 60'es. Think of it. Martin
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 06, 2010, 06:51:26 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2201
|
Herbert, have you ever considered to compare other films of these times regarding blur with the Zapruder film?
Are this kind of anomalies just in the Zapruder film and not Hughes, Nix, Muchmore, Bronson etc?
Also interesting to see would be a comparison of films of the 60'es (not from the JFK asassination) with Zapruder, although
i doubt we would find material developed and enhanced that sharp.
Such a comparison would support your theory (if just Zapruder have this blur anomalies) or debunk it (if this blur anomalies are present in other older films as well).
I'am far away from being an expert on this old generation cameras. I've never hold one in my hands.
I can ensure you, everytime i've examined the Zapruder film with the other footages and still photos taken in Dealey Plaza in this
tragic moments, i discovered never any discrepancy. The sync seem to fit perfectly.
Ok, no movie film taken that day runs 22 seconds contemporaneous with Zapruder.
Anyway, i have done a lot of comparisons and this research is given me a hard time to believe the Zapruder film is altered.
How can the Zapruder film have been altered when Willis5 is a match to Zframe 202?
How can the Zapruder film have been altered when Betzner3 is a match to Zframe 186?
How can the Zapruder film have been altered when Altgens6 is a match to Zframe 255?
How can the Zapruder film have been altered when the Bronson photo is a match to Zframe 229?
best
Martin
The motion blurs on frames Z-324 to Z-327 that I discuss in this thread are not anomalous. They are consistent with a movie camera filming 18 fps with a duty cycle, exposure time divided by the time between adjacent frames, of about one half. I have identified anomalous absence and presence of motion blurs on Z-317 and Z- 318 respectively. For details see the following link. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginThese identified problems are specific to the motion of Zapruder's camera relative to the filmed scene so examination of the other assassination films for the absence or presence of similar problems is pointless. Candidly, Martin I do not follow your logic in implying that corroboration by several photographs at discrete times prohibit alteration of the motion picture films at other times. Herbert
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
| 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
|
