|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Aug 26, 2004 4:14:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Aug 26, 2004 5:29:26 GMT -5
Who is this?  Scroll down for the answer: I didn't have to scroll down  he doesn't ;D nope, that one belongs to LJ. But still a vintage pic, yes. ;D yes I know, I'm one determined obsessive pie.  (just ribbing you, FP, no offense intended ) |
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Aug 26, 2004 5:35:51 GMT -5
nope, that one belongs to LJ. But still a vintage pic, yes. ;D   Yes, yes, I'm obsessive, I admit it.  |
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Aug 26, 2004 6:10:00 GMT -5
...Yes, yes, I'm obsessive, I admit it. well, I can say that, 'cuz takes one to know one ;D  But I won't hijack your photo thread with a list of my obsessive tendencies. (I think my partner-in-crime Dr Robert could add a few too ;D  ) Carry on.  |
|
|
|
Post by lennonlives on Aug 26, 2004 12:59:47 GMT -5
Who is this? Scroll down for the answer: my initial thoughts were it aint it looks like James Paul, but there's something different? I have to say though I'm even more confused than I have ever been about this subject, everytime someone puts their case forward (however valid it may be and from whichever side it comes) it seems to just muddy the water for me and brings me no closer to a definite verdict. |
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 26, 2004 14:47:13 GMT -5
Why isn't his head tall and narrow? It is. Of course his face is gonna look like Paul's otherwise this would never be believed by so many people. I believed Bill was Paul for 25 years and it has taken someone else's work to wake me up. I never would have looked unless it was shown to me. Noone said Faul didn't look like Paul but there ARE differences. And they are too many and too big to ignore. Plastic surgery is what made Bill's face into Paul's and the picture you posted could have easily been doctored to make Bill's eyes further apart, make his eyebrows longer, his face rounder, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Aug 26, 2004 18:39:01 GMT -5
It is. Of course his face is gonna look like Paul's otherwise this would never be believed by so many people. I believed Bill was Paul for 25 years and it has taken someone else's work to wake me up. I never would have looked unless it was shown to me. Noone said Faul didn't look like Paul but there ARE differences. And they are too many and too big to ignore. Plastic surgery is what made Bill's face into Paul's and the picture you posted could have easily been doctored to make Bill's eyes further apart, make his eyebrows longer, his face rounder, etc. Faul? Doctored? Wouldn't it be easier just to doctor old pics of Paul to make him look like Faul? If you doctor pics of Faul, you're gonna have to doctor each one of them, so people don't get confused. |
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Aug 26, 2004 19:02:59 GMT -5
Plastic surgery is what made Bill's face into Paul's and the picture you posted could have easily been doctored to make Bill's eyes further apart, make his eyebrows longer, his face rounder, etc. Has anyone ever actually proven that plastic surgery can be used for this purpose? I mean, if it HAS been, then there will surely be other examples which could be tossed into the discussion for reference. In my own quest down this road I can only find references of how cosmetic surgery has been used to either make an aging person appear more youthful, or to attempt to repair mutilated features due to some accident or other mishap, or to make some unsightly features appear less unsightly. Of course we all know what Michael Jackson has done to himself, but I don't think he was trying to look like anyone else...he DID sort of resemble Diana Ross in one phase of his facial carvings. I know Abbey Hoffman had a nose job which was intended to alter his appearance so he wouldn't be so easily recognized when he was in hiding, but that didn't really work, but it made his rather large and ugly schnoz look a little nicer ;D. And to give further creedence to this discussion it would be really great to have a seasoned person from the cosmetic surgery community weigh in and offer some input because as far as I know, none of us here have any experience at all in this area...but I think most of us watched Mission Impossible as kids and may be conditioned enough in our thinking to just openly accept this sort of thing as a possibilty. |
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 26, 2004 19:39:20 GMT -5
Faul? Doctored? Wouldn't it be easier just to doctor old pics of Paul to make him look like Faul? If you doctor pics of Faul, you're gonna have to doctor each one of them, so people don't get confused. People ARE confused. |
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Aug 26, 2004 20:04:38 GMT -5
I haven't seen anyone who's confused before looking at PID stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 26, 2004 20:58:41 GMT -5
I haven't seen anyone who's confused before looking at PID stuff. You said a lot there my friend... |
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Aug 26, 2004 21:50:54 GMT -5
You said a lot there my friend... Yeah, they're confused AFTER looking at it. Darkhorse said people are confused, so I assumed he meant people who haven't look at the evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 27, 2004 8:32:51 GMT -5
Well, not consciously. |
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Aug 27, 2004 9:23:44 GMT -5
Well, not consciously. They're confused and the don't know it?  How do I know I'm not confused right now? How do you know you're not confused this very second?  |
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 27, 2004 11:32:42 GMT -5
They're confused and the don't know it? How do I know I'm not confused right now? How do you know you're not confused this very second? Confused about what? I don't know what you mean. Getting back to your original statement about all of the pictures being doctored to avoid people getting confused here's what I think. Not all of the pics have been doctored. From what I see I would say some are and some aren't. Most people can dismiss the pics that look different as the fault of the camera or the actual photograph itself, not the person being photographed, in this case Faul. That's what I believed for many years. The reason why I said unconsciously is because many people I have shown Faul pics to see a difference in the pics but they consciously dismiss it for the reasons stated above. It's just speculation on my part but I do know how the subconscious mind works. And that's how I came to that reasoning. Better? |
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Aug 31, 2004 5:11:54 GMT -5
Well, I don't know if kazu has brought this up on this forum before now or not, but he is the one who showed me this site, and DarkHorse's comments in his last post brought this to mind. This is a really good and comprehensive look at what different camera lenses can and will do to a person's facial features and you will find the example I'm posting now at this website: bj.canon.co.jp/english/photoshooting/technihsc/camerafunction/camerafunction02.html Many of the Beatles' group photos we see taken at close range are most likely taken with a wide angle lens, perhaps not as wide as 28mm, but 35mm maybe (50mm is considered standard lens size). Other photos are taken with a variety of different lenses at different distances and angles, etc. When you look at the progression in the series above, the guy's face really takes on a different shape, and his ears become more visible with each increment. By the time you get to the 200mm lens shot, it practically doesn't look like the same person. And in this example we see variances in the overall shape of the head in each shot, as well as the length of the face, eye spacing, etc. Each example is different from the others. |
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Aug 31, 2004 5:43:49 GMT -5
Ok. I guess I have to clarify. Many pre66 images were taken with large format negatives. This means that the negatives were 120 - 220mm. The lenses, (Not the one in front of the camera, but the one inside that reverses the image) were larger and the angle of refraction on different cameras may not have been the same. The focusing lenses (In front of the camera) were also rated differently than now. Lenses of focal lengths of more than 100mm may have been used for daily picture taking. Much larger lenses were used for portraits. During the mid to late 60s, more photographers were switching to the 35mm film format. This was probably due 2 factors. The cost of accessories was cheaper as competition from camera manufacturers heated up. Pentax, Nikon, etc... . Color film technology became popular (As color photos were more indemand due to the increase in color printing, otherwise, why use it?) This change to 35mm cameras caused a change in the lense format also. You need a 50mm lense to reproduce what a human eye would see. But in the studio, most professional photographers used 130 and above lenses. In the field, 100-200mm lenses were popular to quickly catch images from a distance. Indoor shots may have used 50mm or less to catch action at a wider angle. This is further clouded by Kodak introducing the 126 film camera in 1963, then the 110 film camera in 1972. Keep in mind that the 35mm film is much older, but was not as popular, so there could have been 35mm pictures taken before. Also, movie camera formats varied. the standard lenses on the home movie 8mm camera and the semi-pro 16mm cameras surely were different. Professional 35mm and the now used 70mm films are not the same. So I propose a 2 part theory. 1: Many pre66 images were taken with large format cameras. Some with fixed lenses that shot similar to studio equipment. this makes much pre66 images similar to each other in distortion rations. 2: Many post66 images were taken with a wide array of lenses and camera formats. this causes a random pattern of distorted images that continues through the 70s. Here's a good source for old film types. www.jandcphoto.com/Anyway, the canon example is only refering to 35mm Film formats. Remember, there is film size and lense focal length. a 50mm lense on a 35mm camera will produce a different result on a 120mm film camera. Ok. Finally, on a 35mm format camera (And the appropriate variations for other formats) a less than 50mm lens with cause barrel distortion. An example is that people near the outer edges of the photo will bend outwards in the middle and get shorter. Likewise a greater than 50mm lens (most likely used a lot in still images and pro cameras that need to zoom in quickly) something called a pincusion distortion will occur. It is not as obvious as barrel distortion. One of the effects may be that people in the outer are of a frame may appear taller. One obvious artifact of this effect is the curving of horozontal lines. The will curve towards the center. 3 men on a stage. The outer 2 will be taller than the center one, depending on how far fron the center. The stage will curve upwards towards the center. This is much like the image Jojo posted on page 2 in the Height increase pt. 2 where he says Paul seems to be standing in a depression. Don't let your eyes be fooled by the contrast between light and dark near Paul's feet that line is not supposed to be straight. It looks like a stain or discoloration or, heck even a guitar cord or something blending in with the stage. but it is not a depression. There is similar discoloration and contrast on John's side. |
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 31, 2004 14:38:33 GMT -5
I'm not so sure i agree with you entirely there Kazu, because the Antholgy pic shows what to me looks like a dome shape. That would explain John appearing to be standing in a similar depression. I see your point about horitontal lines dropping off at the edge, look at the amp's bottom edge curving off on the left. Wouldn't those 2 lines have to follow the same curve or lack thereof though?
|
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Sept 1, 2004 1:32:39 GMT -5
Not all line have to match across an image. I can't pretend that i am right on thi particular image. I have no idea of the equipment used to take the movie, but the distortion caused by a lens does not have to be consistent throughout the image. This all depends on how well manufacured the lenses are.
But look at the amp to the right (our right) of John. The amp appears to be facing slightly towards the camera, but not straight at it (as seen in the color image from above). Yet the side furthest from the center is bigger. If there were no distortion, the outer edge should be smaller. This is classic pincushion distortion.
Basically the bottom of the amp slants down towards the edge of the picture. The top of the amp, does not slope down as much, because it is closer to the centerline of the image. If there were horozonlat lines in the upper portion above the amp, they would slant upwards.
But to be fair. I agree that Paul does appear taller than the average "too tall" images I have seen.
Once again. I am cross posting. My bad. I'll stop now. Jojo, can we continue this in the too tall thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Sept 1, 2004 15:13:47 GMT -5
No biggie, I do the same thing at times.. We can continue this, but to be honest, for me to have a debate about cameras with you would be pretty foolish on my part, I do have a 35 mm camera and understand the basics like f stop and such, but you are obviously way more well versed on the subject.. |
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Sept 2, 2004 2:02:20 GMT -5
I have to admit that he does appear a bit taller than he should in that particular shot even given camera distortion. I am just not sure if it is because he is not Paul.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 2, 2004 13:03:52 GMT -5
Can we get back on topic please?
In another thread, I showed you a pic of "Faul" and Paul with the same expression, that matched up perfectly. You dismissed it because the Paul pic wasn't vintage.
Now I give you this: "Faul" with the same facial features as Paul, and you say it might be doctored. So, how do you know which "Faul" pics were and weren't doctored? How do you know what he really looks like?
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Sept 2, 2004 15:36:35 GMT -5
Can we get back on topic please? In another thread, I showed you a pic of "Faul" and Paul with the same expression, that matched up perfectly. You dismissed it because the Paul pic wasn't vintage. Now I give you this: "Faul" with the same facial features as Paul, and you say it might be doctored. So, how do you know which "Faul" pics were and weren't doctored? How do you know what he really looks like? How indeed? Indulge me in a little recounting, thanks.. This got me thinking about these two twins I used to work with. I work with college students, and I first met them when they were freshmen. I know identical twins look well, identical, but these two were amazing, not a single thing to give it away, like a scar or mole, what have you. At first, I always had to ask then to identify themselves, but then as time went on, I could discern which one it was because they had somewhat different personalities. "John", the older one, had a little bit of an arrogance about him, while "Jake" was somewhat more polite and less outspoken. (the names were changed of course) As time went on further, I needed only a few seconds to tell, I learned to recognize the arrogant look in the John's eyes the minute he walked in the room. (and the lack thereof in Jake's eyes.) Now to be fair, obviously these are people I met in person, but my point is this: Humans have more ways of recognizing who someone is than the sum total of their body parts, it's not some mathematical formula, where you get out a slide rule and make calculations. That information I believe gets processed below a conscious level. |
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 2, 2004 15:43:54 GMT -5
Humans have more ways of recognizing who someone is than the sum total of their body parts, it's not some mathematical formula, where you get out a slide rule and make calculations. That information I believe gets processed below a conscious level. So I'm not human? |
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Sept 2, 2004 15:54:45 GMT -5
Don't be so sensitive, and that's not my point at all. I'm saying we all have other ways of recognizing who someone is. A little anecdote to illustrate that point. I'm assuming that someone will have a forthcoming reason why that's not applicable here, but your reasoning was not what I was anticipating, good grief!
Again, that's not what I was saying, please!
|
|
How do I know I'm not confused right now? How do you know you're not confused this very second? 