Where was Lovelady Standing in Wiegman and Altgens6?

[James Hackerott]

James,
the difference between BL and Frazier appears to be more than one step as Alan observed.


Also, on your Altgens view.
You have Lovelady coming down to meet his position for Ike's photo but that doesn't appear correct.
His position in Altgens is the highest we see him and he's in the that same position in Wiegman IMO because we still see a slight leaning, then it's from from that position he goes down to a lower step.

The Texas Two Step...
Barry and Alan, I suppose I should eat my hat, but would rather eat Ruth Dean's hat. I had purposely modeled her height to represent the apparent height to the top of her  hat, but exaggerated it a few inches. I  now represent her matching eye levels. That looks more natural.

Then I placed Lovelady on the landing, 1 step down and 2 steps down and animated that versus a Wiegman W2 frame. I can agree with you and Alan that Lovelady does appear to be on step 5 in the second pass of Wiegman's view of the doorway. That does not change my opinion of him being on the landing in W1 and step 6 for Altgens6. Sorry for any trouble this might have caused anyone.

p.s.
I might consider adding 2? to Frazier's height, based on past and now personal enhancements from the deep shadow of the doorway. But that would make him about 6'3?. Do we have a hard number for his height?
p.p.s
I also remodeled the horizontal aluminum frame by changing it from a slender cylinder to a box shape with more width. That may help visualization of Frazier in doorway. Disguised warning, don't use Frazier's height for quantitative estimations in this model at this time.

[James Hackerott]

Thanks James,
I agree that your positioning of Lovelady for Altgens looks very good with Shelley but I would suggest that in W1, there is no difference and yet you obviously dissagree.  I don't quite understand why yet sorry.  I was just asking Brian why he thought Wiegman comes perhaps 3-4s after Altgens, I think 1-2s later, now you are saying Wiegman came first because you see Lovelady higher than he is in Altgens. and it's W2 that is closest to Altgens, again I don't understand why, perhaps sometime you could point these differences out visually.
I think in W2, BL is back on the same step he was for Hughes, two up from Jones, whether that's on step 4 or 5 though I'm not sure.

Barry, I think for him to be on the landing puts him too high. He appearns taller than Shelly then. I suppose the argument is Lovelady leans enough to lower his chin below Shelley's. I find that difficult to believe. I will try to re-test this, but it will require some surgery on my mannequins to be able to bend at the waist. I will check out the Hughes frame too when I can.

Best Regards

[Alan Ford]

The Texas Two Step...
Barry and Alan, I suppose I should eat my hat, but would rather eat Ruth Dean's hat. I had purposely modeled her height to represent the apparent height to the top of her  hat, but exaggerated it a few inches. I  now represent her matching eye levels. That looks more natural.

Then I placed Lovelady on the landing, 1 step down and 2 steps down and animated that versus a Wiegman W2 frame. I can agree with you and Alan that Lovelady does appear to be on step 5 in the second pass of Wiegman's view of the doorway. That does not change my opinion of him being on the landing in W1 and step 6 for Altgens6. Sorry for any trouble this might have caused anyone.

p.s.
I might consider adding 2? to Frazier's height, based on past and now personal enhancements from the deep shadow of the doorway. But that would make him about 6'3?. Do we have a hard number for his height?
p.p.s
I also remodeled the horizontal aluminum frame by changing it from a slender cylinder to a box shape with more width. That may help visualization of Frazier in doorway. Disguised warning, don't use Frazier's height for quantitative estimations in this model at this time.

Thanks for your continued work on this, James 

In W1, Lovelady is approximately at the height of Frazier's chin:

In W2, he goes down another step:

[James Hackerott]

Thanks for your continued work on this, James 

In W1, Lovelady is approximately at the height of Frazier's chin:

In W2, he goes down another step:

I increased Frazier to 6'3? per enhanced frames, and redid the overlays. It looks to me like landing for W1 and step 5 for W2.

[James Hackerott]

James,
let me try again in case my question was lost or not clear enough.

In your view from Altgens, you have Lovelady coming down from the landing to meet his obligation for Ike's image, why?
Hughes(and perhaps Towner too) suggests he moved up the steps.

Here you go Barry. 5th step looks about right. Normal light vs radiosity.

[Chris Davidson]

I've already posted this gif (just removed the latter frame), and added James' animation scaled to 140% of its original size:
The frames I use did not come from Groden's DVD.
They came from the DVD "Death in Dealy Plaza", better quality in my opinion.
Irregardless, they are always scaled.




 

James, added your latest(Frazier at 72.5inches) to the above.
Scaled to 165% and rotated 2 degrees CCW to fit your previous (third frame in sequence)version.

[James Hackerott]

James, added your latest(Frazier at 72.5inches) to the above.
Scaled to 165% and rotated 2 degrees CCW to fit your previous (third frame in sequence)version.

That's appreciated Chris. Actually, I added 2? to the 73? inches for a total of 75? I used previously. I don't know if we have a hard number for his height.  I can't tell in your graphic if  he is hitting the top of his head in the real frame ? it's pretty dark there.

One thing I wanted to mention to you about the DiDP Wiegman frames. I mentioned that they were cropped and afterward I overlaid it on the Groden frame and the DiDP frames are about 84% by area. Not so bad by itself, but more disturbing is the aspect ratio of those frames are about 4% squashed in the vertical dimension. 4% on a 6' figure would decrease about 3? to the apparent height.  I had to increase the vertical by 4% to match the Groden frame. If not adjusted first then after the frame is rotated that wrong aspect ratio is present at different amounts in all directions. And if the overlay frames are also rotated differently it could confusing. It could be that may not affect how you are scaling those images, but it might be something to thing about.

[Chris Davidson]

If I was 4 percent off in the vertical, because I used 2 common people for scaling between both frames, I can live with that.
I believe a 4 percent vertical stretch would have a negligible effect on the smaller background figures.