Print

[Joe Cerniglia]

I don't 'have' the full resolution copy.  It is not 'mine' to share.  I have 'seen' a fine enough version to see the stark contrast of rivets in areas adjacent to to the patch, and a patch that bears zero evidence of rivet lines, that by all logic should be as apparent as the rivets in nearby areas.

Yes I am an 'amateur' at anything to do with photo analysis.  I have a relative who is a professional.  I use him for my own edification and as a sanity check, much as Ric might use, say, Glickman.  I make no representation other than that of my own experience, such as it is - and as one who tried to champion a professional review and more openness after that I am simply interested in the full evidence being brought into focus.

You ignore my plea in large part, Joe - that people should avail themselves of the best information possible, and then think for themselves.  That includes in the case of this much and overly bandied point of independent review of this picture, to get it reviewed by an agreed third party and then gaining a report from same - and then deciding for themselves.

Same as to the Wichita evidence: look closely at the things I have cited and decide for yourself.

In sum, however, I do humbly submit that one needn't always be an expert to see the obvious in a clear photo, nor an expert in sheet metal to compare reasonble images and visible measurements to see that a thing does not fit.  They merely need to avoid the obfuscatory effects of hopeful discourse and become more brutally objective.

We can agree to disagree on some minor points.  No problem there.  Is the photo you've seen the same one I'm looking at, the one on warbirds?   We should try to be clear there, I think.

I have no problem at all in having the photo analyzed by third party, but it's up to the owner of the photo to decide to do that.  TIGHAR doesn't own the photo; it would be indefensible for them to decide how to proceed anyway.  Am I missing something?  They want TIGHAR to fund their photo without the ability to see it?

If I should be availing myself of the best information possible, have I had access to that?

Why has warbirds been so emphatic that TIGHAR agree or disagree with the need for the photo's analysis by qualified persons?  If I were a warbird, I wouldn't wait for permission when it's my photo.  The photo would be in the mail to that photo analyst, even now.

They merely need to avoid the obfuscatory effects of hopeful discourse and become more brutally objective

Avoiding discourse isn't my style, Jeff.  Discourse is the incubator and marketplace of ideas.  Ideas are what drive an intellectual pursuit.  You may label my discourse as hopeful.  Perhaps it is sometimes; I'm an optimistic fellow.  I've never categorically stated anything as undisputed fact.  Of this, the critics complain.  Then they complain I've used the word "may" or "might" too much.  It's hard to please them. 

I can accept 2-2-V-1 has been fully ruled out in a heartbeat, but I would need to see the full evidence disclosed first. 

If it is ruled out, somewhere in a formal report, on the record, it should be stated exactly why.

If differences of opinion persist afterward, which is reasonable in open discourse, somewhere in a formal report, on the record, in the clear, it should be stated exactly why.

As far as the statement I do not think for myself, I would only say that defending against that is a little bit like defending one's own objectivity.  How does a reasonably intelligent person do that?  Instead, I will argue, as Socrates, and later a person I admired, James O. Freedman, said and that is that one must proceed with the attitude that is never quite so certain it is right.  Only in that is any learning at all possible.

So I'll continue learning.  Thanks for trying to educate me.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ER

[JNev]

Yes I am seeing the same version you've seen over at WIX.  There are some here at Tighar, in fact, who have remarked privately how clear that version is.

"Warbirds", I presume you mean the forum at "WIX", has no position; that entity merely hosts a broad and interesting forum on the title subject which includes side bars on vintage aircraft and sundries.  One beauty of the place as some might see it is that WIX per se has no position to guard, so discussions are rather freely expressed.  That said, it can at times resemble a saloon of the old west, so the gentleman thinker would do well to choose his drinking partners wisely and keep a thick skin - a form of self-moderation, as it were.

It isn't the 'owner' who insists on further analysis as I see it, but the owner's response to Tighar's desire to have this photo fully revealed.  I thought the terms were very reasonable, especially given Tighar's own similar treatment of a proprietary level of photo quality many times in the past, despite Ric's recent declining to consider that point as precedental.

The 'owner' simply appears to have a concern about Tighar applying some proprietary interpretations and seems to believe that it would be more appropriate to await the review and report of a third party, if Tighar insists on seeing this in full glory.  I hardly see what could be more fair, especially given Ric's noble concession to the blue ribbon perfect world idea (his own) of a blind three judge panel, so to speak.  Ric even solicited donations to support such a creature, right here in this string.  Only one such judge is asked in this case, if Tighar would like to see the results.

Should Tighar really not care that much, then fine - I don't see why she can't ignore this and move on in the strength of what she already possesses.  That's risky for reasons other than the photograph, if Tighar intends to hold fast to the veracity of 2-2-V-1 as 'the patch' at 99%, but such is life: choose your table and roll the dice, so to speak.

Nor do I shun discourse - I believe the record is long and clear on that.  But there comes a time when that which has become more than evident deserves little more discourse because there is so little new to be said.  So the topic of 2-2-V-1 seems to have become for some.  Others may, of course, differ.  I wish them well.

[Ric Gillespie]

Scanning introduces distortions.  That's why Jeff Glickman and I went to England, New Zealand and Miami to get best-possible copy photos - and it's why Jeff will go to Purdue to see what can be discerned from the Darwin Ramp photo.

[Monty Fowler]

GENTLEMEN - and GENTLELADIES!

There, now that I have your attention. We're here in this forum to find out what happened to Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan. Nothing more or less than that.

Anything else can devolve into the personal and belongs off-forum or in private messages. To do otherwise distracts our focus, dissipates our limited energy and resources, and diverts us down blind alleys that end in very painful brick walls. Let's all work to keep it real and keep it focused, OK?

And that's all I have to say about that.

LTM, who has a limited amount of emotional energy to expend,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

[Ric Gillespie]

And scanning introduces more then distortion - it subtracts.

It also adds.  Case in point:

Our first look at the Bevington Object was in a casual copy-photo Pat took when we visited Eric Bevington in 1992. When Jeff Glickman noticed the object in 2010 it was just a blur in the copy-photo.  We asked the archivist at Oxford University to send us a scan of the photo. The best they could do was 600 dpi.  When we got the scanned image there was much more detail visible than we had seen in the casual copy-photo.  In April 2012 Jeff and I went to England and Jeff took a max-resolution copy-photo.     We discovered that much of the detail that we had seen in the 600 dpi scan was not really there, it had been inserted by the scanner software. 
It's entirely possible that the absence of rivet lines in the scanned version of the Darwin Hangar photo (if there is such absence) is an artifact of the scanning process.

[JNev]

Leon,

You are over-reacting.  No such thing was intended, nor do I see it.

What I do see is that many just don't grasp a rather obvious fitment problem with the artifact, and I can only surmise that they don't grasp sheet metal construction fundamentals well enough to see why it matters.  That's not derogatory or patronizing, it is an observation after watching this sail past many good folks.

[Hal Beck]

Isn't the Miami Patch photo a copy of a ~300 dpi digital scan printed with a dye sublimation printer?  In an earlier post by Ric (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.255.html) he wrote:

"The rear of the Miami Herald print bears the labeling “Kodak Electronic Imaging Paper”.  Kodak entered the electronic imaging market in 1987.  There was a series of Kodak printers that were compatible with this paper, including dye-sublimation printers.  For example, the Kodak XL-7700 dye-sublimation printer was introduced in 1989.  I located the manual for the Kodak XL-7720 dye-sublimation printer and its resolution was 203 DPI, a standard dye-sublimation printer resolution for the era.  Other standard dye-sublimation resolutions included 314, 320, 480, 540, 720 and 1,440 DPI.  Measurement of the frequency of the raster band artifact that is observed on the Miami Herald photo at 6,400 DPI optical resolution shows a rate of 20:1, suggesting that the resolution of the imaging system was 6,400 DPI / 20 = 320 DPI, which is consistent with a known resolution for dye-sublimation printing."...

..."The banding seen in the Miami Herald photographic print on “Kodak Electronic Imaging Paper” is consistent with dye-sublimation printing.  What I can now reasonably assert is that the Miami Herald photographic print is not a print from a negative: It is probably a print from a dye-sublimation printer that may have been retrieved from a photograph archival system.  Whether an original print or negative was used during the storage recording process is currently unclear, nor is the recording method currently known. I anticipate that the band artifacts will slow down, but not prevent, analysis of the image."

[Ric Gillespie]

Isn't the Miami Patch photo a copy of a ~300 dpi digital scan printed with a dye sublimation printer?

No it is not. It's a print, not a scan. Big difference.

[Ric Gillespie]

What I do see is that many just don't grasp a rather obvious fitment problem with the artifact, and I can only surmise that they don't grasp sheet metal construction fundamentals well enough to see why it matters.

Aris Scarla was with us in Wichita. He had the opportunity to assess the fit in person.  Do you feel that Aris doesn't grasp sheet metal construction fundamentals?

[Andrew M McKenna]

Using an independent "Third Party" is usually a measure taken when two parties can't agree on something.

Part of the problem I have the the Lanz/WIX "Third Party" approach is that in fact we don't even have a "Second Party" in the game yet, all we have is Lanz's analysis of the photo he has, and it has not yet been made available to the "second party" for analysis.

Doesn't make sense to insist on a Third Party when the Second Party hasn't even had a chance to review and comment on the matter at hand.

It is possible that a TIGHAR analysis concludes the same as Lanz, in which case no third party is needed, but without that opportunity it seems odd to insist on a outside analysis before giving us the chance to analyze the photo he has.

I don't have a problem with having an "independent" analyst examine the photo, but at the same time TIGHAR should be allowed to examine it as well. 

Insisting that we not be allowed to the source material is counter productive to the scientific process and acceptable peer review.

If Lanz is correct in his analysis, the best way to prove it is to release the hi res version of the photo and show the TIGHAR membership that he's right.  Keeping the photo under cover will only prolong the dispute.

A McKenna

[JNev]

What I do see is that many just don't grasp a rather obvious fitment problem with the artifact, and I can only surmise that they don't grasp sheet metal construction fundamentals well enough to see why it matters.

Aris Scarla was with us in Wichita. He had the opportunity to assess the fit in person.  Do you feel that Aris doesn't grasp sheet metal construction fundamentals?

I think he missed this fundamental point out of lack of understanding of the whole picture.

Of course Aris has a wonderful understanding of sheet metal.  Does he have an understanding that the cover did not abut the skin edge at STA 293 5/8 as you placed it in that photo in Wichita?

[JNev]

I was looking at the 'hangar photo' scanned 'press' reproduction very briefly (whatever it is that Lanz posted). 

Rivet review of the supposedly higher res image would face some interesting challenges perhaps.  The largest image in the reflection on that panel is the top and trailing side of the right wing.  I believe the right wing surface is made from riveted aluminum, which would mean those rivets could appear in the reflection on the shiny panel on the side of the plane. I'm sure some expert can resolve that by comparing the size of the rivets on the plane to the size of the rivets in the reflection . . . depending on the compression used on the electronic image.

But is Mr. Long going to step up and get an analysis of his PRINT? How about it Mr. Long?

Leon

What has Elgen Long got to do with this?  Odd.

[Hal Beck]

Isn't the Miami Patch photo a copy of a ~300 dpi digital scan printed with a dye sublimation printer?

No it is not. It's a print, not a scan. Big difference.

What Jeff Glickman photographed, as I understand it, is a dye-sublimation print of a scanned (digitized) image. I can’t find anything on the forum at the moment, but I thought that the original ‘analog’ images (original prints or negatives) taken that day in Miami were gone and all that is now available are the prints made from digitized versions of those images.   

In the post I linked to above, Jeff Glickman says “Whether an original print or negative was used during the storage recording process is currently unclear”; I am understanding ‘storage recording process’ to mean digitization (by scanning), and I also take it from what Glickman said that it isn’t clear if the digitized image was made from a negative or an original print.   

As I understand it, Glickman is also saying that the resolution of the dye sublimation print that he photographed was ~320 dpi: “Measurement of the frequency of the raster band artifact that is observed on the Miami Herald photo at 6,400 DPI optical resolution shows a rate of 20:1, suggesting that the resolution of the imaging system was 6,400 DPI / 20 = 320 DPI, which is consistent with a known resolution for dye-sublimation printing.”   From Glickman’s brief history of scanning technology (see the url I posted previously), it would seem that the scanner that was used to digitize the Miami patch image probably had a resolution of more than 1000 dpi.  Unfortunately the dye sublimation print of that digitized image only had a resolution of ~320 dpi, according to Glickman.

So, if the limitations that you and Leon indicate apply to the two Darwin photos would also apply to the Miami photo, isn’t that true?…

On a related topic, I’m curious if the ‘other’ Miami photo of the Electra shortly after take-off (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg32224.html#msg32224) will be examined for signs of rivet lines.

[Bill Mangus]

What the heck, I might as well throw in my two cents.

We would do well to think about the camera and film technology which existed in 1937.  The Darwin ramp photo, as I understand it, was taken by an amateur photographer and subsequently used in various newspapers.  I'm guessing the photographer was at least 100' away, maybe more, from the a/c when he took the picture.  It doesn't seem to be a telephoto lens, I'm guessing anywhere from 45 to 50mm.  I don't know what the 'standard' lens for general/newspaper work might have been or the type of camera that might have been used.  Heck, from that distance even today's digital cameras using a 55mm lens might have trouble discerning rivets/lines.  Just a guess though.

For Jeff Glickman or others, I'm wondering if the emulsion grain of the typical and/or best black-and-white film of the day, with a good quality lens, would even be small enough to pick our a 3/32" rivet or line of rivets from that distance.  I'd think the film emulsion grain on the film would be larger than any individual rivet at that distance.  It appears to have picked up the lines of the double-rivets between the skin section but probably not the individual rivets within the line.  Is the grain in the film emulsion fine enough to pick up a line of single rivets?

The Darwin hanger photo appears to have been taken from a closer vantage point but with all the reflections, and shadows, from sunlight and work lights, I don't see how you can trust anything in the photo smaller than 3 or 4 inches.  The 'oil-canning' referred to may be nothing more than a strange confluence/combination of shadows from multiple light sources.

If the film grain isn't fine enough, it doesn't matter how large a print you make, even from the original negative; the fine detail won't be there.  Digitizing/scanning that print from Elgen Long would only make things worse, as referred to above.

I'm not a camera/film expert so perhaps someone who is will weigh-in here.

[JNev]

Jeff,
Sorry for any confusion. I read the following on WIX, accompanied by the two pictures.  I believe the 'indoor' picture is the one that Mr. Long has.

Mr. Lanz:
"In my research I found the picture in Elgen Long's book of the Electra in the Darwin hangar. I knew that there had to be a better version. A few months ago, I found one on the Internet that I had a friend post on the TIGHAR forum. However, that picture was in a JPEG format and though the cleanest picture I found, it was not the quality or size I needed to work with. I decided to go to the source; low and behold, Captain Elgen Long had the original copy of the photograph that was given to him some 25 years ago by Norman King. King was an A&P mechanic for Quantas in Darwin who worked on the Electra and was also an amateur photographer. Wing Commander Stan Rose RAAF facilitated getting Captain Long the photo and also worked on the radios in the Electra."

I think it would be great to have an analysis of the print Mr. Long has, as long as Tighar doesn't pay for it.

L

Thanks, Leon, I can see how you got there.

My understanding from what Bob has posted is that Long has turned this hi-res copy over to Bob in the sense of our current discussion.  Since Bob dropped the shoe with Elgen's blessing, I think Bob's the guy.

The problem with me and you thinking it would be great to have an analysis as long as TIGHAR doesn't pay for it, is here we sit at TIGHAR wishing that.  Bob doesn't have to wish that if he is satisfied that he sees what he sees: that is the extent of his claim, it is based on his own (considerable in my opinion) experience - TIGHAR does not have to accept it at all.  However, if TIGHAR would like to refute it, it seems some reasonable terms are necessary.  I am among those who would love to see the copy released - beyond this immediate topic, it is also a lovely historic picture of the Electra - an odd perspective, but that somehow makes it more haunting to moi.  But, I believe we must respect Bob's wishes.

That said, I have a high degree of respect for Andrew McKenna's post above (as I typically do with Mr. McKenna) and have some hope that a way might be found.  Again, however, notice it is we who would like all this, and Bob doesn't have to like all this.  Maybe time will tell.