Old and New Paul Pic Together

[JoJo]

Ok, here's the post I've been wanting to do, and I have it in front of me. One picture is from the Talking Pictures magazine, circa 1964, and one is from "The Beatles A Diary" published in 2002. To see the Talking Pictures version, go to:

60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=paul&action=display&thread=1068076284

It's the fifth picture down.

1964 version:



2002 version:



The height and width are the same, I played around with photoshop to get that right, and the cropping is as close to spot on as possible, maybe it is exactly right, it's hard because the 2002 pic is "muddled" at the top. I was sort of letting my hand go where instinct guided me, it just felt right, I dunno...

Is there a difference? The debate floor is now open!

I vote yes and it's not that hard to see.. (In my oh so humble opinion...)

[PaulBearer]

Gif the two pictures together and any difference should be obvious and a blatant proof of doctoring reprints.

[SunKing]

...animation loading...please wait...



Facts not words

[Eggman]

.....Naughty boy, you let your face grow long!!!!!! ;D ;D

[Mollymalone]

I can see it

[MotherNaureSon]

Once again, great work SK

[Perplexed]

It appears that the picture has had it's "axises" deviated.

Like when they takes map projections and alter the "stretch" of the longitude/latitude. They don't just "buff" over a feature or two; they replot the relative proportioins of the whole picture, or at least "Paul" as subject. The background is very dark, hard to see how much it changed.

The trick would be doing this axis tweaking on Paul while making everything else stay exactly the same. There would be leftover edges.

[JoJo]

Thanks Sun King, I had a feeling you might finish the job. I have no idea how to do those animation thingy's.

I tend to agree with Perplexed, in that the picture was stretched along a vertical line. It's almost hard to believe that they would alter in such an obvious way. Sun King's DVD vs VHS clip of help is so much more subtle. As a matter of fact, most of the pictures of Paul in this book are stretched in this crude fashion. It's like they knew that the job had to be done, but they didn't have access to anyone with a good eye or the budget? Or someone good that they could trust perhaps. And yet there will be a picture that looks normal sometimes, weird.

I'll keep looking for pictures along a similar vein, so far that was the only one.

[DeeT]

I agree that the aspect ratio is munged. It wouldn't have to be on purpose, though it probably was on purpose if it was done to more than one picture and always by roughly the same amount in the same direction.

I've used that trick to make my wife's face look skinnier on the family Christmas card photo, and I've often encountered mirrors that aren't completely flat and distort along one axis or the other. (By the way, the easy way to tell if a mirror is distorting your face is to turn your head on its side while looking. If suddenly your tall, thin face becomes short and fat (or vice versa), the mirror is at fault.)

It would be very interesting if someone who is good with graphics could squish the taller picture so it lines up as perfectly as possible with the original one, and then see if anything else was changed.

Another interesting challenge (notice how lazy I am!!) would be to work out what the proportions are between Faul and Paul's head height, and see if the aspect ratio adjustment between these photos just happens (ahem) to match it.

-DeeT

[eyesbleed]

Great animation! (as usual)
Sunking & the rest of you ol' regulars around here are really doin' some excellent work..!
This MB has certainly become a (growing) wealth of information that keeps me intrigued continuiously.

Y'all are great....... as usual

[gracemer]

Good eye, Jojo. My question is, who is going back and doctoring all these photos?

[SunKing]

gracemer said:

Good eye, Jojo. My question is, who is going back and doctoring all these photos?

Do you know, gracemer?

[SunKing]

DeeT said:

Another interesting challenge (notice how lazy I am!!) would be to work out what the proportions are between Faul and Paul's head height, and see if the aspect ratio adjustment between these photos just happens (ahem) to match it.

-DeeT

DeeT:
this is just my last project.
But there is NO GOOD ratio change because James Paul's face features (nose, eyes, mouth, chin skull shape are different from Faul's ones in a COMPLETE non-uniform way.

Faul is a visual/aural FX effect.
What was (is!) the plastic surgeons sublimal psychological trick?
To assembly the same details (very possible with plastic surgery) onto a different skull.

That's all

[gracemer]

No, I'm new here and just trying to get up to speed. I hoped one of you knew.

I was never a big Beatles fan as a kid except that I thought Paul was soo cute. A few years later when I saw pics of him I wondered why I ever thought THAT! He was goofy looking. Now I know why.

Since coming across this site I've become obsessed with finding out about the switch and have rented the Anthology, Hard Days Night, bought CDs, etc. I once heard a preacher say that bank tellers are taught to recognize counterfeit bills, not by studying the counterfeits, but by constant handling and seeing genuine bills. So I spend a couple of hours each day now studying photos of JPM, and listening to him. It's paying off.

Still, I depend on the rest of you for insider info and will try to contribute when I have something worthwhile. I'm hoping "Let It Be - Naked" will provide something but no one seems to have it yet.

[JoJo]

I posted a new comparison along these lines, added to this post:

60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=60ifclues&action=display&thread=1068316947&start=0

Have a look, thanks!