A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?
Moderator: Bill Jurens
- hans zurbriggen
- Senior Member
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am
Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?
to Mr. Wadinga writing: 'My point has always been that since such locations are a tiny fraction of the whole handrail environment of the vessel, if they exist at all, then the strong likelihood is that the vessels are at right angles to one another. It is illogical to argue that there is such a location, solely because the speculative scenario says there must be one.'
I possibly do not get the point. The location certainly exists because is visible in photo.
The statement that there are very few meters such chain railings is not relevant, because the very few meters with 2 third stanchions are actually depicted in photo posted by Mr. Nilsson, so many or few meters change nothing in this discussion. They exist and they can indicate the location of cameraman.
No attempt to find the location only to justify Mr. Bonomi map. The railings with 2 third stanchions are partially parallel to the hull and partially angled. If photo depicts a parallel section, then Bismarck is on a course perpendicular to Prinz Eugen course, as Mr.Wadinga believes. If photo depicts an angled section then Mr. Bonomi reconstruction is confirmed. The fact that the 3 third stanchion is on the right in photo points to the aft end of the angled section (place 1) and confirms the reconstruction with Bismarck and Prinz Eugen courses forming an angle c 50 or 60 degrees.
The parallel location fore of this one shows 1 third stanchion: there are other image confirming that they are not 2 third high.It must be excluded. Are you aware of other positions where 2 third stanchions are present supporting your geometry ?
I suggest to avoid polemic with repetition of the word 'speculative': we just completely disagree on that judgement, that is anyway very subjective.
hans
I possibly do not get the point. The location certainly exists because is visible in photo.
The statement that there are very few meters such chain railings is not relevant, because the very few meters with 2 third stanchions are actually depicted in photo posted by Mr. Nilsson, so many or few meters change nothing in this discussion. They exist and they can indicate the location of cameraman.
No attempt to find the location only to justify Mr. Bonomi map. The railings with 2 third stanchions are partially parallel to the hull and partially angled. If photo depicts a parallel section, then Bismarck is on a course perpendicular to Prinz Eugen course, as Mr.Wadinga believes. If photo depicts an angled section then Mr. Bonomi reconstruction is confirmed. The fact that the 3 third stanchion is on the right in photo points to the aft end of the angled section (place 1) and confirms the reconstruction with Bismarck and Prinz Eugen courses forming an angle c 50 or 60 degrees.
The parallel location fore of this one shows 1 third stanchion: there are other image confirming that they are not 2 third high.It must be excluded. Are you aware of other positions where 2 third stanchions are present supporting your geometry ?
I suggest to avoid polemic with repetition of the word 'speculative': we just completely disagree on that judgement, that is anyway very subjective.
hans
- Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1586
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?
Sorry for my delayed answer. I was (and still am) pretty sure that the picture was taken on wheather deck, but Hans' proposed positions on the boat deck made me feel unsecure so I decided to trawl through my archive last weekend.
Some thoughts:
Place 1:
There were no railings and stanchions in the area of the motor yawl. What seems to be short stanchions are boat cradles.
Parallel:
There was just one stanchion and just the upper chain in front of the dinghy. What seems to be short stanchions are boat cradles. What seem to be chains are wooden strips on the hull.
Place 2:
Here I was unable to see a candidate.
In all three cases the boats would obstruct the view anyway.
However, I found another version (uncropped?) of the Denmark Straits picture. It shows two short stanchions and one is just a few centimeters away from a long stanchion.
By a fluke I found one picture showing the position exactly .
Some thoughts:
Place 1:
There were no railings and stanchions in the area of the motor yawl. What seems to be short stanchions are boat cradles.
Parallel:
There was just one stanchion and just the upper chain in front of the dinghy. What seems to be short stanchions are boat cradles. What seem to be chains are wooden strips on the hull.
Place 2:
Here I was unable to see a candidate.
In all three cases the boats would obstruct the view anyway.
However, I found another version (uncropped?) of the Denmark Straits picture. It shows two short stanchions and one is just a few centimeters away from a long stanchion.
By a fluke I found one picture showing the position exactly .
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
- hans zurbriggen
- Senior Member
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am
Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?
Hello,
thanks to Mr. Nilsson for the clear photo. After you found it, I saw the same position, less clearly, in photo of Lutjens visit at Gotenhafen (see below). .
Place 1: vertical parts of boat craddles are inclined inboard. The visible 2 third stanchion is vertical and at the deck edge. The 'packs' visible in photos seem to me to be supported by a chain railing, present at place 1 (see below). Parallel: there is no dinghy in a slightly brighter photo version (see below). Place 2: I agree. No clear photo available to me.
hans
thanks to Mr. Nilsson for the clear photo. After you found it, I saw the same position, less clearly, in photo of Lutjens visit at Gotenhafen (see below). .
Place 1: vertical parts of boat craddles are inclined inboard. The visible 2 third stanchion is vertical and at the deck edge. The 'packs' visible in photos seem to me to be supported by a chain railing, present at place 1 (see below). Parallel: there is no dinghy in a slightly brighter photo version (see below). Place 2: I agree. No clear photo available to me.
hans
- Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1586
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?
Well..no. The rope is wraped around a detachable rack. The stanchions are very hard to see in this picture.hans zurbriggen wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:39 am Hello,
thanks to Mr. Nilsson for the clear photo. After you found it, I saw the same position, less clearly, in photo of Lutjens visit at Gotenhafen (see below).
On Rheinübung there was no stanchion.hans zurbriggen wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:39 am Place 1: vertical parts of boat craddles are inclined inboard. The visible 2 third stanchion is vertical and at the deck edge. The 'packs' visible in photos seem to me to be supported by a chain railing, present at place 1 (see below).
Yes, but there was one during Rheinübung.hans zurbriggen wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:39 am Parallel: there is no dinghy in a slightly brighter photo version (see below).
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
- hans zurbriggen
- Senior Member
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am
Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?
Hello,
thank you Mr. Nilsson !
hans
thank you Mr. Nilsson !
hans
Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?
Fellow Contributors,
To Herr Nilsson and Hans. Excellent, ground-breaking investigative work, gentlemen, conducted co-operatively in a model manner.
To confirm, we now agree the handrail section in question is on the Main or Weather deck, between the starboard midship mount and the crane, and is thus parallel to the ship's centreline.
All the best
wadinga
To Herr Nilsson and Hans. Excellent, ground-breaking investigative work, gentlemen, conducted co-operatively in a model manner.
To confirm, we now agree the handrail section in question is on the Main or Weather deck, between the starboard midship mount and the crane, and is thus parallel to the ship's centreline.
All the best
wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
- Location: USA
Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?
If Herr Nilsson's photo shows the stanchions in question, I wonder if this might act as further confirmation that the 'flash' photo was taken either through one of the air-ports or the door immediately behind leading to the galley, which suggests an angle within 20 or 30 degrees from directly off the beam.
I, too am greatly encouraged to see the maintenance of a reasoned and reasonable discussion here. Makes me smile.
Bill Jurens
I, too am greatly encouraged to see the maintenance of a reasoned and reasonable discussion here. Makes me smile.
Bill Jurens
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1658
- Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am
Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?
A BIG DITTO !!!
This is a most impressive and satisfying example of the sort of progress possible to achieve through cooperative and collegial effort.
My congratulations.
Byron
This is a most impressive and satisfying example of the sort of progress possible to achieve through cooperative and collegial effort.
My congratulations.
Byron
- Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1586
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?
Doors and deadlights usually were marked with a red ball. That means they had to be locked even at cruising stations. Furthermore the deadlight of the galley is locked from the outside. One had to unlock it from the outside before he could take a picture from inside the galley through an air-port.Bill Jurens wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:15 pm If Herr Nilsson's photo shows the stanchions in question, I wonder if this might act as further confirmation that the 'flash' photo was taken either through one of the air-ports or the door immediately behind leading to the galley, which suggests an angle within 20 or 30 degrees from directly off the beam.
The person who made the film sequence seems to be moving towards the railing. While we can see parts of the railing at the beginning we can't see it at the end ...even when the camera is tilting downwards.
In my opinion the pictures most likely were taken outside of the galley.
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?
Fellow Contributors,
Hello Herr Nilsson. Can we be careful about terms film and photos? There is movie film of Bismarck taken from the starboard side of PG. Is there any suggestion that is from the same location? We have two "90 degree" photos identified by the railing, and the proximity of the 105mm muzzles to me suggests a similar location for the Flash photo.
I too, believe the PK people would have been allowed quite a lot of latitude in operating where they wanted to. Whilst Brinkmann may have liked to have kept them well out of the way of his fighting crew, visual combat propaganda was vitally important to the Third Reich and Goebbels had the influence to force compliance.
The alignment of the top chain and the horizon suggests the POV of the camera was down at chest height ie lower than deadlights etc.
Do we all accept that these appear to show that Prinz Eugen sheered across Bismarck's bows, at about 90 degrees to her course, and at a perhaps dangerously short distance before the cease fire at about 06:09? Or are there other possibilities?
All the best
wadinga
Hello Herr Nilsson. Can we be careful about terms film and photos? There is movie film of Bismarck taken from the starboard side of PG. Is there any suggestion that is from the same location? We have two "90 degree" photos identified by the railing, and the proximity of the 105mm muzzles to me suggests a similar location for the Flash photo.
I too, believe the PK people would have been allowed quite a lot of latitude in operating where they wanted to. Whilst Brinkmann may have liked to have kept them well out of the way of his fighting crew, visual combat propaganda was vitally important to the Third Reich and Goebbels had the influence to force compliance.
The alignment of the top chain and the horizon suggests the POV of the camera was down at chest height ie lower than deadlights etc.
Do we all accept that these appear to show that Prinz Eugen sheered across Bismarck's bows, at about 90 degrees to her course, and at a perhaps dangerously short distance before the cease fire at about 06:09? Or are there other possibilities?
All the best
wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
- Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1586
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?
I was talking about the movie film when I wrote film sequence. The camera is moving closer towards the railing during this sequence.
At the beginning of the battle sequence of the movie film we can see this garbage chute again.
I'm extremly cautious about this. The chains are close to eye-level. I think a lot of information about inclination is lost in these pictures.
In my opinion Bismarck wasn't very close to Prinz Eugen.
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?
Fellow Contributors,
Herr Nilsson has written:
The question is whether the same movie camera rushed across through the dogged down doorways etc to the port side to film Hood's destruction or whether two movie cameras were deployed, one either side in similar positions and the edited film intercut later.
The two 90 degree photos align the top chain closely with the horizon and looking at the crowds on deck picture, this chain is at about waist level, not chest high. Therefore it is likely a stills photographer, perhaps kneeling for more stability, took these pictures.
The relative angular distance between the short stanchions and the width of Bismarck's hull shows she is "close" in ship manoeuvring terms especially for two vessels moving at nearly 30 knots. The rudder jam suffered later indicates why fast moving vessels generally maintain generous margins of safety with regard to each other. The famous incident when PG rammed Leipzig shows what can go wrong.
Plotting the stills' camera position on the PG deck plan may allow more to be derived from the Flash picture.
All the best
wadinga
Herr Nilsson has written:
Agreed, in general the top rail is well below the POV in the movie and as time goes on the rail disappears out below the field of view, even given that the horizon moves up and down. The general shaking, jumping when PG fires and freedom to pan left and right eg when shells land suggests a hand held camera at eye level.I was talking about the movie film when I wrote film sequence. The camera is moving closer towards the railing during this sequence.
The question is whether the same movie camera rushed across through the dogged down doorways etc to the port side to film Hood's destruction or whether two movie cameras were deployed, one either side in similar positions and the edited film intercut later.
The two 90 degree photos align the top chain closely with the horizon and looking at the crowds on deck picture, this chain is at about waist level, not chest high. Therefore it is likely a stills photographer, perhaps kneeling for more stability, took these pictures.
There is no foreshortening or angular displacement between the lower chain and the horizon. Bild 146-1990-061-27 indicates PG is already very fine on Bismarck's starboard side having crossed her bows. Whether it is 90 degrees or 85 makes little or no difference, the course of the two vessels is very different.I'm extremly cautious about this. The chains are close to eye-level. I think a lot of information about inclination is lost in these pictures.
The relative angular distance between the short stanchions and the width of Bismarck's hull shows she is "close" in ship manoeuvring terms especially for two vessels moving at nearly 30 knots. The rudder jam suffered later indicates why fast moving vessels generally maintain generous margins of safety with regard to each other. The famous incident when PG rammed Leipzig shows what can go wrong.
Plotting the stills' camera position on the PG deck plan may allow more to be derived from the Flash picture.
All the best
wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
- hans zurbriggen
- Senior Member
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am
Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?
Hello,
to Wadinga writing: 'Do we all accept that these appear to show that Prinz Eugen sheered across Bismarck's bows, at about 90 degrees to her course'
It took to me some time to check photos. I disagree with conclusion, while I must correct what I said before. I also agree with caution suggested by Mr. Nilsson.
Upper railing in Bundesarchiv photo posted by Mr.Nilsson is at height of the camera, thus railing absence of inclination can not prove any inclination of cameraman versus ship centerline .
2 third railing, only slightly below the upper one, is inclined 2° to horizon (optical effect that it is parallel is due merely to horizon not being perfectly horizontal in image). Thus cameraman may well be looking aft.
An opposite but not much different inclination of less than 3° is present, once corrected horizon inclination, in NH69724. In NH69724 the cameraman is surely looking 20° fore of the beam for battle geometry at Hood explosion time. Railing is much more far from lens in NH69724 and cameraman point of view is much higher than railings, not at level of railing. Optical effect suggests more inclination but, once aligned the horizon, the two photos are not different (but opposite) for railings inclination if measured with goniometer.
Photo from Bundesarchiv could have been taken with cameraman looking 20 to 40° aft, and thus Bismarck can be on a course not perpendicular to Prinz Eugen.
hans
to Wadinga writing: 'Do we all accept that these appear to show that Prinz Eugen sheered across Bismarck's bows, at about 90 degrees to her course'
It took to me some time to check photos. I disagree with conclusion, while I must correct what I said before. I also agree with caution suggested by Mr. Nilsson.
Upper railing in Bundesarchiv photo posted by Mr.Nilsson is at height of the camera, thus railing absence of inclination can not prove any inclination of cameraman versus ship centerline .
2 third railing, only slightly below the upper one, is inclined 2° to horizon (optical effect that it is parallel is due merely to horizon not being perfectly horizontal in image). Thus cameraman may well be looking aft.
An opposite but not much different inclination of less than 3° is present, once corrected horizon inclination, in NH69724. In NH69724 the cameraman is surely looking 20° fore of the beam for battle geometry at Hood explosion time. Railing is much more far from lens in NH69724 and cameraman point of view is much higher than railings, not at level of railing. Optical effect suggests more inclination but, once aligned the horizon, the two photos are not different (but opposite) for railings inclination if measured with goniometer.
Photo from Bundesarchiv could have been taken with cameraman looking 20 to 40° aft, and thus Bismarck can be on a course not perpendicular to Prinz Eugen.
hans
Last edited by hans zurbriggen on Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
- hans zurbriggen
- Senior Member
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am
Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?
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
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
- Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1586
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?
@wadinga
However, there is a still with railings which is also part of the movie film. Using the railings for determining the relative bearing leads to about 90°.
That's why I think a lot of information about inclination (or better relative bearing) is lost in these pictures and that's why I'm cautious.
Possibly...or the camera has a waist-level-finder.wadinga wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 3:28 pm
The two 90 degree photos align the top chain closely with the horizon and looking at the crowds on deck picture, this chain is at about waist level, not chest high. Therefore it is likely a stills photographer, perhaps kneeling for more stability, took these pictures.
At the beginning of the movie Bismarck has a relative bearing of - let's say - 120°. It seems that the ships are moving almost parallel until Bismarck seems to turn towards Prinz Eugen. That means at the same speed there is not very much change of the relative bearing.wadinga wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 3:28 pmThere is no foreshortening or angular displacement between the lower chain and the horizon. Bild 146-1990-061-27 indicates PG is already very fine on Bismarck's starboard side having crossed her bows. Whether it is 90 degrees or 85 makes little or no difference, the course of the two vessels is very different.I'm extremly cautious about this. The chains are close to eye-level. I think a lot of information about inclination is lost in these pictures.
However, there is a still with railings which is also part of the movie film. Using the railings for determining the relative bearing leads to about 90°.
That's why I think a lot of information about inclination (or better relative bearing) is lost in these pictures and that's why I'm cautious.
- Attachments
-
- Railing1.jpg (35.69 KiB) Viewed 1344 times
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)