Jump to content
Bill

Munns Research Status

Recommended Posts

xspider1

^ ditto.  You have always been accommodating and extremely  informative here, Bill.  That is very much appreciated!  Best of luck with the legal stuff, I encountered a lawyer myself once who was, unfortunately, slip-sliding away into la la land...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

xspider1:  the lawyer in my case did something which can only be described as committing career suicide and taking down some of his clients as collateral damage. The magnitude of willful misconduct, with absolutely no apparent gain on his part, still astonishes me. His permanent disbarrment had 24 causes of action, about 7 or 8 from my case, and the rest from two other cases he also wrecked. But I'm probably the only one who fought this hard to try to win the right to reinstate my case.

 

It was a bizarre experience, trying to undo the damage he did. Can't wait for the appeals court decision and accompanying opinion, due on or before June 1, to see how the court analyzes the issues and arguments.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Just to bring this back to the PGF, the following are the things I personally would like to accomplish or see accomplished in the future:

 

1 Locating and scanning any of the missing footage items described in WRMP. I doubt we'll ever find them all, but I strongly suspect we can find some of them, and any new find would be a blessing.

 

2. I'd like to go back to Bluff Creek and do another survey. The work by Steve, Robert, Ian and their team in 2012 was great, but there are landscape objects which were not located and I would like to do more searching and surveying based on my visualization of the site. I would like to try and find Rene Dahinden's location when he took the high side view of the area, as one example.

 

3. I have been doing some preliminary studying on image enhancement technologies, and they are promising, so I would like to see a very comprehensive push in this direction.

 

4. I would love to get a look at what Al's got in his office.

 

Not sure when, if or how these would be accomplished, but I can look forward to the prospect.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

Bill...welcome back. The rigor you bring to this topic is a rare skill. I have no doubt you served your interests well in your pro se appeal. For reasons we both know, that causes me extreme distress if your choice of lawyer resulted from my referral-on-a-referral. I know I might have only been the unwitting agent of your misfortune, but the distress over your news is none the less for it. All my best wishes for a successful outcome, and for good health to you and your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

WSA

 

Rest assured that the disbarred lawyer was one we retained long before I consulted you. The counsel you described were among the many consulted to take over the case when this bad lawyer was finally fired, but they, and all the others consulted, declined because no one was certain that a new lawyer can even substitute in to argue a 473B Mandatory Relief motion filed by a prior attorney, so I had to file an ex parte motion to act as my own council to finally argue the motion (and then file the appeal). Your advise was very helpful and you have absolutely no cause to be distressed in any manner. Please rest assured.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Hi Bill, welcome back.

 

Here are some of the questions I have been leaving in the Munns thread until you had time to answer.

 

Would the film in Roger's camera have been developed directly to a showable film roll,  or would there have been a negative created first, and then that reversed into the showable film roll?

After that, can you tell if the 1st gen copies you saw at Patricia Patterson's house, were made directly the in camera roll, or would they have been made from the negative roll which might have been developed.

It is confusing to me, but I'm trying to figure out some stuff about 16mm developing.

when we say 'In-Camera original'  are we talking about the actual film in the camera?  because I would think that had to be developed into a showable roll, whether or not it is the actual in camera roll that was converted through chemical developing into a showable roll itself, or if it was developed and the copied on to a showable roll is the question i'm asking I guess.  secondary, would it be developed into a negative, and then copied on to a positive showable roll. 

Thanks just trying to clarify a little.

 

 

 

Have you personally told Dr. Meldrum that Patty was not 7'3" ?

Could the original Kodachrome film Roger used, be developed, in color, anywhere other than a Kodak facility?

I'm not referring to copies, only the original development.

 

 

 

The reason I asked Bill this question about about whether copies of the in camera original would have been direct copies, or copies made with inter-negative style printing, is that 1. I don't know how it worked, and I know Bill has probably done the copies of 16mm film before,  2. If this type of copying is done, our 1st generation copies are really 3rd generation copies.

 

Contact printing Wikipedia
"In the traditional photochemical post-production workflow, release prints are usually copies, made using a high-speed continuous contact printer, of an internegative (sometimes referred to as a 'dupe negative'), which in turn is a copy of an interpositive (these were sometimes referred to as 'lavender prints' in the past), which in turn is a copy, optically printed to incorporate special effects, fades, etc., from the cut camera negative. In short, a typical release print is three generations removed from the cut camera negative."

 


Thanks,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

Bill, that is a relief for me to know, but only from a selfish point of view. That sort of betrayal by someone you trust is not easily overcome. I'm recalling now the history of your prior representation. The profession in all jurisdictions has some true incompetents holding licenses to practice, and it usually comes to light only after the damage is done. 

 

I go your PM and will be glad to take a look at that. Based on how adroitly you are able to defend your PG research, my prediction is you will come out just fine in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Drew:

 

Kodachrome is a "reversal positive type film, so when processed, it results in a positive image. There is no negative. That positive image can be viewed or projected, and most users of Kodachrome were the home movie crowd who always projected their film without making any copies. So Kodachrome camera film is generally presumed to be projected for viewing after processing and return to the customer.

 

Once the reversal positive type film is processed (either Kodachrome or Ektachrome), if the owner desires copies, the lab can make a reversal positive copy (no negative step) or can go with a negative/positive process. It's the customer's choice. Of all the PGF copies I have examined, I found only one which had any indications of going through a negative/positive copying process. This was one of the many copies Eric Beckjord had made.

 

Just a side note, when a Kodak film name includes the word "chrome", it is a reversal positive type. When it includes the word "color" (like "Kodacolor"), it is a negative/positive type.

 

Kodak preferred to do most of the Kodachrome processing at it's own labs, but did license a few private labs to process Kodachrome, and one of those was in Seattle. Peter Byrne did extensive research on that lab about 20 years ago.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Drew:

 

I missed the generational question.

 

The negative/positive process has more generations between a camera original (whatever was run through the camera) and prints or copies than the reversal positive type. But the super fine grain of those copy  stocks prevents much detail loss, especially in 35mm films used in old Hollywood. The Wikipedia quote is describing the common way movies were printed for theatrical distribution.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

.....

Kodak preferred to do most of the Kodachrome processing at it's own labs, but did license a few private labs to process Kodachrome, and one of those was in Seattle. Peter Byrne did extensive research on that lab about 20 years ago.

 

Bill

 

Could you please direct me to more information on Byrne's research on the lab from 20 years ago?

 

Thanks

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Martin:

 

It's in my archives but the documents are not scanned for any kind of posting on the internet at present. Scanning those documents is one of many things on my "to do" list. They will be part of the research archive I described in the opening post.

 

 

You might try the NASI report. I don't recall if it had Peter's lab research in it, but it might. I'm pretty sure Peter has published material about this, but offhand, I don't know where that might be. Kitakazi might know, as he seems familiar with Frank Ishihara, who ran the lab and was interviewed by Peter.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

Thanks Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Martin:

 

See the film developing thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Thanks for the info Bill.

 

 

 

When Dr. Meldrum cites the 7'3 height, I feel that is based on your lens calculations from Monsterquest.

 

Have you told him that the 7'3 height has been thrown out?

 

If so, it would seem he is holding on to that figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Drew:

 

Although Jeff and I work together, I don't review his other work or his presentations, so I cannot comment about what you are describing.

 

I have basically removed myself from all discussions of height or processes to determine it, until I resolve the question in my own manner and have meticulous documentation of how an answer was achieved.

 

I put an eight page explanation in my book, and that was the best explanation I could offer for the matter. Nothing has changed and I have nothing more to add to that published explanation, at this time.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...