|
Post by Jack Jackson on Mar 26, 2020 16:29:37 GMT -5
The identification comes from a comparison of images of the Babushka-Lady, especially the Allen-photo above, and camera's in Sears Catalogs from the late 50s and early 60s. It looked like she was carrying a box-camera. Denis Morissette identified it as a Tower Box 120 camera. There were many similar looking models, but I think he is right. I am very familiar with Dennis Morissette’s work on the Babushka Lady’s camera. His claim of it being a Tower Box 120 is faulty, and I’m going to lay out my analysis of why it is faulty. But, first I must insist that my analysis is strictly limited to Morissette’s “Tower Box 120” camera claim. I will not entertain any question or statement that deviates from this singular topic.
This image shows the photo analysis enhancement upon which Dennis bases his conclusion. This image is so drastically grainy and hyper pixelated that it is impossible to definitively identify a manufacturer or model of the camera shown. So, let me begin my camera image analysis by starting with a cleaner version of the photo. I will now walk through my digital photo enhancement process which I used to arrive at a conclusion different than that of Dennis Morissette. This is a closer zoom with a bit lighter exposure to help one see any possible physical details shown on the surface(s) of the camera. You should be able to see several features that are not possible to see in Morissette’s hyper pixelated version. This next image has some minor sharpening and contract applied to help bring out those available features. A blue tone has been applied because it helps many people see the contrast more easily. Some people see the contrast better in a red tone. Hopefully, in the blue and/or red image you will be able to see/notice some distinct physical features shown on the camera. To help, I have pointed out several of those physical features. I could go into a lengthy analytical dissertation on each of those features (plus others that are visible), but this post is not intended to nail down a specific camera brand nor model. The intent is to refute the possibility of this camera being a Tower Box 120 model. You will NOT find these features present on a Tower Box 120. To help dramatize one other feature, I have created an animated GIF file which illustrates my analysis of the camera feature that suggests a different type of housing frame than that used by or shown on a Tower Box 120. Of particular interest to me is feature #7. Visual analysis suggests that feature to be a “circular winding handle” commonly found on 1950- and 1960 vintage model moving film cameras. There are other features that point to a moving film camera, but I am not going to share those findings at this point in time. I’m merely saying, this camera is NOT a Tower Box 120. [Actually, I would like to say this camera is NOT any model of a box camera, but I’ll save that discussion for the day that someone else stakes a claim to identifying this as another specific box camera model.]
|
|
|
Post by ADMIN on Mar 26, 2020 16:54:25 GMT -5
Mr Jackson - Thank you for your contribution.
One thing - please keep the pictures sized within the post WITHOUT a scroll bar - it makes it very difficult to see otherwise
I re sized these to fit in a single post - please check I got the aspect ratio correct Please use smaller pictures when posting thank you
|
|
|
Post by Arjan Hut on Mar 27, 2020 5:07:08 GMT -5
I will now walk through my digital photo enhancement process which I used to arrive at a conclusion different than that of Dennis Morissette. This is a closer zoom with a bit lighter exposure to help one see any possible physical details shown on the surface(s) of the camera. You should be able to see several features that are not possible to see in Morissette’s hyper pixelated version. (...) Some people see the contrast better in a red tone. Hopefully, in the blue and/or red image you will be able to see/notice some distinct physical features shown on the camera. To help, I have pointed out several of those physical features. I could go into a lengthy analytical dissertation on each of those features (plus others that are visible), but this post is not intended to nail down a specific camera brand nor model. The intent is to refute the possibility of this camera being a Tower Box 120 model. You will NOT find these features present on a Tower Box 120.(...) Of particular interest to me is feature #7. Visual analysis suggests that feature to be a “circular winding handle” commonly found on 1950- and 1960 vintage model moving film cameras. There are other features that point to a moving film camera, but I am not going to share those findings at this point in time. I’m merely saying, this camera is NOT a Tower Box 120. [Actually, I would like to say this camera is NOT any model of a box camera, but I’ll save that discussion for the day that someone else stakes a claim to identifying this as another specific box camera model.] I find it very difficult to discern anything on that surface where you see feature #7. At this point, it becomes a 'badgeman'-level of trying to identify recognizable shapes from shades. So far, two distinct claims have been made about the Babushka-camera itself. One by Morissette, identifying it as a Tower Box camera, and another by Beverly Oliver, who claimed it is a prototype Yashika not yet on the market by November, 1963. Now, you say that - despite the similarities when looking at the Morissette comparison-photo - this cannot be a Tower Box camera, but it could be a vintage 50s, 60s movie camera because of the features you have pointed out in your post. I find these features impossible to identify, and still feel that, to the naked eye, it mostly looks like a box-type photo camera. Have you got a picture of such a vintage camera with a circular handle?
|
|
|
Post by Jack Jackson on Mar 28, 2020 22:15:42 GMT -5
Mr Jackson - Thank you for your contribution. One thing - please keep the pictures sized within the post WITHOUT a scroll bar - it makes it very difficult to see otherwise I re sized these to fit in a single post - please check I got the aspect ratio correct Please use smaller pictures when posting thank you Thanks for helping me with these images. The aspect ratio is a bit off... but don't sweat it. It doesn't substantially distort the concepts I am attempting to share. What are the max image dimensions suitable for this site?
|
|
|
Post by ADMIN on Mar 28, 2020 22:20:30 GMT -5
Thanks for helping me with these images. The aspect ratio is a bit off... but don't sweat it. It doesn't substantially distort the concepts I am attempting to share. What are the max image dimensions suitable for this site? I think its about 975p side to side
|
|
|
Post by Jack Jackson on Mar 28, 2020 23:08:48 GMT -5
I find it very difficult to discern anything on that surface where you see feature #7. At this point, it becomes a 'badgeman'-level of trying to identify recognizable shapes from shades. So far, two distinct claims have been made about the Babushka-camera itself. One by Morissette, identifying it as a Tower Box camera, and another by Beverly Oliver, who claimed it is a prototype Yashika not yet on the market by November, 1963. Now, you say that - despite the similarities when looking at the Morissette comparison-photo - this cannot be a Tower Box camera, but it could be a vintage 50s, 60s movie camera because of the features you have pointed out in your post. I find these features impossible to identify, and still feel that, to the naked eye, it mostly looks like a box-type photo camera. Have you got a picture of such a vintage camera with a circular handle? Again, the only issue I intend to address is the Tower Box 120 claim. So, my response to your questions is: The Tower Box 120 does NOT have such a “circular winding handle”. Thus, this camera cannot be a Tower Box 120 still camera. But, a quick online search..... this first image popped up under a 1950's moving film camera search... which illustrates a commonly utilized “circular winding handle” on the lower left side of the camera. The second image popped up under a 1960's moving film camera search. Both are examples of pre electronic-controlled cameras, and show the mechanical spring technology. Although they are different models made by the same manufacturer, it is easy to find this same/similar feature on several different brands and models of moving film cameras of the 1960's era. I challenge you and/or anyone else to find the existence of a still film BOX 120 camera made by any manufacturer that utilizes such a “circular winding handle”. They don't exist. The “circular winding handle” came into existence with the advent of the still film reflex camera design. To be clear, I am NOT positing either of these specific moving film cameras as being the camera shown in the Babushka Lady photograph. They merely illustrate the “circular winding handle” common to that era.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Sorensen on Mar 29, 2020 4:34:39 GMT -5
Jack, plenty of artifacts just like the ones you call "features" are found in the lower left corner of the picture under her hand. Your circular handle is pure imagination... EDIT> "I could go into a lengthy analytical dissertation on each of those features [...]" Please do, especially the red tone version shows nothing but massive rectangles, what some call "pixel art" -- LOL
|
|
|
Post by Jack Jackson on Mar 29, 2020 18:14:25 GMT -5
Jack, plenty of artifacts just like the ones you call "features" are found in the lower left corner of the picture under her hand. Your circular handle is pure imagination... Feel free to point out those specific "features" to which you refer.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Sorensen on Mar 30, 2020 4:04:46 GMT -5
Jack, plenty of artifacts just like the ones you call "features" are found in the lower left corner of the picture under her hand. Your circular handle is pure imagination... Feel free to point out those specific "features" to which you refer. Drop a numbered arrow anywhere on your Quilt...there's your "feature".
|
|
|
Post by Jack Jackson on Mar 30, 2020 10:47:13 GMT -5
This is not my "quilt".
|
|