Detection of Splicing in Hoax Film
Posted 23 April 2011 - 04:34 PM
In 1967 the most famous hoax involving bigfoot was filmed by Roger Patterson with a hand-held Cine Kodak 16 mm camera, Kodachrome II color film ASA film speed 64, K-12 development process. The original film has never surfaced. Copies were made on Ektachrome film, and these copies are the only thing that has ever been seen publicly.
The hoax has been adequately exposed, most particularly by Greg Long in his book "The Making of Bigfoot" where both the costume maker (Phillip Morris) and the fellow who was wearing the suit were interviewed, along with the provision of a tremendous amount of supporting material and witnesses. It is still a fascinating subject in terms of some remaining details on how he pulled it off, and there are yet true believers who despite all evidence to the contrary still believe it was not a hoax.
One of the remaining issues of a technical nature is whether by inspection one can see by examining copies of a film whether the original had been edited. There are definitely numerous stops and starts, and that is not at issue. Rather, the question is whether one can edit an original, then make copies, and have the splicing "mark" or "line" or whatever you call it be undetectable by physical inspection of those copies. Of course we are not talking about splicing through frames, but splicing between frames.
This subject is of interest to participants in a forum dedicated to debunking hoaxes, named after James Randi, a retired magician who demonstrates how various tricksters use sleight-of-hand to bend spoons or make objects move, or "see" objects printed on cards, read minds etc. Despite that anti-hoax bias, it is extremely important to remain dedicated to truth and not make assertions unsupportable by the facts.
Hence the inquiry here, and your professional opinion would of course be very much appreciated.
Posted 26 April 2011 - 07:57 PM
They appear as white lines in major Hollywood movies. I remember then in "The Alamo" just seven years ago.
Reversal? I want to say they are more difficult to spot, because of the reversal process as opposed to neg-> pos. I want to say they'd be black? Watch, I am wrong.
However, as it was on 16mm film, there's no way to CONTACT print 16mm, except A&B roll, where you don't have to scrape the emulsion off at the bottom of one frame spliced, so it'd show up at the top (due to the lens flipping it) of the screen on the last frame projected before a splice.
However, if the film were OPTICALLY printed (a projector camera combination to duplicate it), splices can be completely hidden, or in A&B roll they are almost undetectable, as the leader has the scrape made on it, not any frames fof film.
If you had access to the actual FILM ELEMENTS, there'd probably be evidence of splices with all but optical printing, but I doubt you have a copy ;-)
I'm glad you're not one of those people that have turned this into a relgiion. The guy that made this got lucky and wasn't even that good of a huckster, yet to some people he is like Jesus Christ ofr monster movies.
Posted 26 April 2011 - 08:08 PM
Posted 27 April 2011 - 03:34 AM
So I think the absence of a slightly over-exposed frame at the start of a shot would be diagnostic.
Posted 05 June 2011 - 10:23 AM
In 1967 the most famous hoax involving bigfoot was filmed by Roger Patterson with a hand-held Cine Kodak 16 mm camera, Kodachrome II color film ASA film speed 64, K-12 development process.
I thought that Kodachrome motion picture film was only available in 40asa and 25asa versions? I used to shoot K40 in super 8 by the way and I know that K25 was available in regular 8mm, presumably also standard 16mm.
Posted 05 June 2011 - 01:31 PM