posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:23 AM
Earlier back in the thread, when the video source was actively being debunked, there were so many great ideas floating around as to how this video may
have been rendered, and how it may have been proven to be faked or real, being digitized from a film.
I said that I would try and get a video experts opinion, that of Dr Bruce Maccabee,
and I am sure most on ATS know who he is and his rather famous background.
Anyway, he actually responded to my query. I do not want to quote his entire email, since he has not explicitly given me permission, but I will quote
an excerpt from what he said:
If you have an old analog video and digitize the signal coming from the analog video player I would expect that one would get a "perfect" (or very
good) rendering of all the analog output signal (wanted images) and noise (electronic garbage) contained in original. Video back in those days was
NTSC standard (except for special research type video machines) with 640 by 480 "pixel" resolution. (Video monitors of those days had the same limited
resolution.) If, back then, one made a video of a high quality film, the resolution of the video would be 640 x 480 which is less than the resolution
of the film. Thus I would guess that one could not distinguish between
a) using a 1980 vintage camera to produce the original source video (video the subject matter directly) or
b) make a high quality film the subject matter and then convert the film imagery to electronic analog format (not "digitizing") with a typical NTSC
video camera to make a video of the subject matter
I don't know if this exactly answers your question... if not you can try again
Note that he said "Not Digitizing", which also infers that this method would leave telltale clues as to being non-original.
So, this backs up what Sceptic Overlord had analyzed earlier on, that the quality is too good for NTSC video, That a copy taken from an original
NTSC camera, or a recording taken from high quality film and then converted to electronic analog format (not digitizing ) would be indistinguishable.
Further, it implies a film that was digitized, would show artifacts consistent with the use of modern equipment.
Don't know how much this helps in this stage of the game, but having him comment was great.
edit on 19-1-2012 by charlyv because: spelling , where caught