A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Herr Nilsson » Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:14 am

hans zurbriggen wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:38 am
Hello,
to Mr. Nilsson writing: 'The person who made the film sequence seems to be moving towards the railing ':
I do not think movie (film) camera could be moved in any way during sequence. Afaik it was mounted on pedestal and quite bulky: it could only be elevated and trained by operator but only moved while not operated.
To me, shaking was due to roll, pitch and own gun fire, affecting operator control of bearing and elevation, not to the camera being moved in position.

hans
If the camera wasn't moved, then the railing has to be visible (like it was at the beginning of the movie) every time the camera is tilting downwards at the end of the movie.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

hans zurbriggen
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by hans zurbriggen » Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:34 am

Hello,
to Mr.Nilsson writing 'If the camera wasn't moved, then the railing has to be visible ':
It depends from where the camera is placed and oriented to. If camera is quite close to gunwale (lens almost over railing), looking aft or fore beam, railing can be visible when tilting downward.
When looking directly around beam, railing may be too low to be seen as no deck is visible too even if wave is visible.
I am not aware of PK movie cameras that could be displaced during operation.

hans

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Herr Nilsson » Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:05 am

@hans zurbriggen

Yes, possibly. On the other hand: at the beginning of the battle sequence the stancion to the left of the garbage chute moves from the extreme left of the movie out of the right edge within about 15 seconds while Bismarck remains near the center.
Railing3.jpg.png
Railing3.jpg.png (102.86 KiB) Viewed 428 times
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

hans zurbriggen
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by hans zurbriggen » Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:11 am

Hello,
to Mr.Nilsson: you are right. Thanks.
About 'moving' stanchions, reading back the threads, I must acknowledge Mr. Virtuani (mentioning first study of Mr. Bonomi, I presume) for his explanation: see link viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=435#p82759 )
Also to me, the stanchions move to right is the effect of Prinz Eugen turning to starboard. The camera is kept on target (Bismarck) pivoting, while stanchions 'move' aft as optical effect, until they disappear, when camera is pointing around beam.

hans

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Herr Nilsson » Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:53 am

I understand. Yes, that's a possible explanation...with a lot of consequences causing a lot of questions.

So why did Bismarck turn about 2 Minutes before Prinz Eugen?
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

hans zurbriggen
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by hans zurbriggen » Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:15 am

Hello,

thanks Mr. Nilsson, I know. Prinz Eugen turning is logical as camera could not be moved while operating.
I would suggest to focus on what can be understood from images in topic, without extending the discussion to the whole battle. My fault for speaking about the film.
To me Bismarck turned less than 1 minute before Prinz Eugen, due (logically) to same torpedo reason coming from her GHG, possibly just before. Prinz Eugen had to wait before turning to be sure not to be 'cut in two' by Bismarck following, possibly turning already.

hans

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Herr Nilsson » Wed Feb 05, 2020 1:10 pm

hans zurbriggen wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:15 am
Hello,

thanks Mr. Nilsson, I know. Prinz Eugen turning is logical as camera could not be moved while operating.
I would suggest to focus on what can be understood from images in topic, without extending the discussion to the whole battle. My fault for speaking about the film.
Do you have any evidence that a tripod was used at all and that this tripod was bolted to the main deck? I mean there a lot of examples that the Arriflex 35 was used by the PK without tripod.
Arri3.jpg
Arri3.jpg (43.54 KiB) Viewed 395 times
hans zurbriggen wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:15 am
To me Bismarck turned less than 1 minute before Prinz Eugen, due (logically) to same torpedo reason coming from her GHG, possibly just before. Prinz Eugen had to wait before turning to be sure not to be 'cut in two' by Bismarck following, possibly turning already.

hans
Less than 1 Minute won't work. Let's say Bismarck was about 900 m behind Prinz Eugen sailing 30 kn (IMHO 28 kn would be more likely) when turning to a course of 270° and Prinz Eugen was sailing on a course of 220° with 28 kn. It would last about 90 seconds to reach a relative bearing of at least 135°.

...but you're right, that should possibly be discussed in another thread.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

hans zurbriggen
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by hans zurbriggen » Wed Feb 05, 2020 1:32 pm

Hello,

to Mr.Nilsson writing: 'Do you have any evidence that a tripod was used at all and that this tripod was bolted to the main deck?'
I have images of tripod camera, never seen it hand managed. To me too bulky equipment to be managed in action with ship shaking hard without tripod. Do you have any evidence of a hand managed film camera on board Prinz Eugen ?


to Mr. Nilsson writing: ' It would last about 90 seconds to reach a relative bearing of at least 135°'
Please let's discuss in another thread. To me 135° is not correct. More likely 160° (measuring Bismarck length versus height).

hans
Last edited by hans zurbriggen on Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Herr Nilsson » Wed Feb 05, 2020 1:52 pm

hans zurbriggen wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 1:32 pm
Hello,

to Mr.Nilsson writing: 'Do you have any evidence that a tripod was used at all and that this tripod was bolted to the main deck?'
I have images of tripod camera, never seen it hand managed. To me too bulky equipment to be managed in action with ship shaking hard without tripod. Do you have any evidence of a hand managed film camera on board Prinz Eugen ?
Unfortunately you seem to have missed my edit in my last post. Sorry, I hoped I was fast enough to edit before someone would answered.
hans zurbriggen wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 1:32 pm
to Mr. Nilsson writing: ' It would last about 90 seconds to reach a relative bearing of at least 135°'
Please let's discuss in another thread. To me 135° is not correct. More likely 160 (measuring Bismarck length versus height).

hans
OK
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

hans zurbriggen
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by hans zurbriggen » Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:12 pm

Hello Mr. Nilsson,
I meant hand managed camera in navigation, at high speed with ship rolling, pitching, turning hard and shaking due to gun fire. I have only seen tripod mounted camera when operated.

hans

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Herr Nilsson » Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:51 pm

I have no evidence for or against it, but I would be very grateful, if you could show me a picture of a camera on a tripod used on a Kriegsmarine warship at high speed with ship rolling, pitching and turning hard. I haven't seen that before.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 756
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Bill Jurens » Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:21 pm

A very interesting and useful discussion!

One very important source of information would an examination of the negatives -- or positive prints --themselves. If they are film, they should have survived in one form or another. Examination of the negatives would preserve, one hopes, both the camera format and the entire uncropped image, although it's quite possible that what appear to be the original negatives or copy prints in the archives may in fact be already worked through, i.e. that 16mm film was scaled up to 35 mm or vice-versa for use in the final edited copy print, and the final 'propaganda' film is the only thing the archives now has.

Bill Jurens.

hans zurbriggen
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by hans zurbriggen » Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:32 pm

Hello
to Mr. Nilsson writing: 'I would be very grateful, if you could show me a picture of a camera on a tripod used on a Kriegsmarine warship at high speed with ship rolling, pitching and turning hard. '
Scharnhorst in navigation, rolling, pitching and in action (admittedly, not evident if she is turning or not).

PK_Camera_SH.jpg
PK_Camera_SH.jpg (50.89 KiB) Viewed 377 times

I do not think a cameraman would have risked to keep his camera in his hands during a battle when own guns were in action and Prince of Wales shells were falling between his ship and Bismarck.

hans

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by wadinga » Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:20 pm

Fellow Contributors,

Well this is splendid! Reasoned responsible discussion. Everything we want and only one thing missing. Hmmm.

It would be great if you opened another thread to specifically discuss the movie film, since the reference quoted relies on unwarranted timing and assumptions from the Gefechtskizze which is discredited if the ships are at right angles whilst Bismarck is still firing on her port beam.

Before that starts I would like to say I personally would not like to be encumbered by a tripod whilst 15" salvoes are being fired at me. Dashing out with the handheld Arriflex, identified and as illustrated by Herr Nilsson makes vastly more sense. I suspect the tripod shot PK_Camera was more to show off the cameraman during exercise than to gain useful footage. Considering "own armament damage" frequently experienced to radars, crockery, cabins etc etc the total lack of shock absorbing between deck and camera would be detrimental to quality and survival. A shock absorbing human body makes much more sense.

Can we return to Bild 146-1990-061 please? This shows Bismarck in some detail and shows the full side of her forward turrets with her armament firing very close to port beam in my estimation, Ie her target is in a similar orientation to PG's handrails. It might be 10 degrees either way of port beam but it still indicates her target is dead astern of PG.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

hans zurbriggen
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by hans zurbriggen » Thu Feb 06, 2020 8:27 am

Hello,

to Mr. Wadinga writing: 'This shows Bismarck in some detail and shows the full side of her forward turrets with her armament firing very close to port beam in my estimation, Ie her target is in a similar orientation to PG's handrails'
I agree with first part of sentence above. Conclusion is based on your assumption of a c 90° course between the two ships, that I don't think can be proven (see explanations from Mr. Nilsson and myself in above posts).
Target is more probably c 60° aft of Prinz Eugen port beam.

'I personally would not like to be encumbered by a tripod whilst 15" salvoes are being fired at me'
I understand you point, but I have never seen an image of such bulky camera hand managed when in action at high speed. I still think that theory with cameraman walking around the bridge under these conditions, when ship can turn at any time, is very unlikely.

'unwarranted timing and assumptions from the Gefechtskizze '
Please, let's avoid to define 'unwarranted' the only solid evidence from German side, used in all the existing battle maps up to now, and accepted also by people having been on board Prinz Eugen.
If there is any possible track other than the Gefechtsskizze one, please show us Prinz Eugen track as you would like it to be from evidences. Else I still accept the Prinz Eugen own track, missing any evidence against it.

hans

Post Reply