Using the Anthology version, which is clearer than this boot, two or three frames before:
http://*banned link*/Shoebox/PBWStillsc/PB7.jpg
[/img]
And the same frame as the one you posted:
http://*banned link*/Shoebox/PBWStillsc/PB6.jpg[/img]
Yeah Anthology gets a bad rap for doctoring, but I think whatever doctoring there was came along long before Anthology. I agree with what Perplexed said way back, that something was excised from this series of frames. Did they put a little "bonus" in secretly?
Maybe there's a face there, dunno for sure..[/quote]
You know, Jojo, I found a candid photograph of this exact scene from the moments they were shooting that set-up for "Paperback Writer". I saved it somewhere---will have to find it (I am my own secretary and he's about to get fired). What is interesting, is, it's looking across to the fabs sitting under the treee, from George's side. And, wouldn't you know it, Paul (or somebody) IS there, in the shot. Paul really is there in the shot. BUT----Lennon is sitting forward and slumped and completely blocking Paul's head--nothing else-----out of the photo........You can see all of him, including the edge of his head, hair, neck etc-----but NOT his facial features.........hmmm..........
Somewhere in the world is one more photograph, from one more slightly different angle---with Paul's face.............unless they could not show it--because------it isn't Paul sitting there.
And---if this shoot was from April I think of 1966--------hmmm......
The mystery Paul under the wysteria is....inconclusive.
Smoke and mirrors. Wysteria, missing frames, and John's slack posture.
All things work together don't they? It seems that nobody could plan anything as well as that, you know, to leave the unanswerable questions. Yet, that's is what seems to happen.
Lennon sang, "Got to be good lookin' 'cause he's so hard to see."
Makes more sense every day. I think maybe it was working so well that Lennon was convinced. Maybe till about 1969.
I think whatever magic they were working theatrically, and cinematically, and recording wise, was going well and freaking Geo. and John out, for about the duration of 1967-1968-part of 1969. It might have been a thing of being too eerie, a little TOO perfect, for a while. In '68, which I guess some have guessed that was after round 3; the look, the voice, and the impersonation were becoming so right on the money that it was scary.......from repeated watchings, I can see I think all the improvements and so forth---in some of the promotional videos, my theorized reshoots---William is "doing" Paul to the utter nines. The movements, head, body, playing, the hair (wigs), the facial expressions, the, well everything--it's clearly the evidence of 2-3 years of intensive applications.
With surgeries, they got the baby faced look more and more, certainly the "Paul look" in SFF and PL videos is NOT baby faced;
but, by the trip to India, the white album period, and IMO the reshoot periods, they had mastered the cosmetic tricks needed to create the illusion in a dramatic way. The fact is, William was a larger man creating the illusion of a smaller man, a youth really in appearence. I suspect that JP would have seemed like the movie version Harry Potter in size and maturity in a side by side comparison with William. That was never seen, I guess....
Still, comparing what I feel is almost intouched, non-CGI'd wide shot footage of James Paul, with close-up "cut-in's of billy, here and there, I note the high sucess level creating an image that seems to tally up, to match, between shots. Where Paul's head is longest from front to back, and William is longest from the chin to the back upper crown of his head; angles, wigs, and careful cropping minimize this inconsistency and what is left in the frames, between shots of both, is remarkably compatible.
What does occasianly leap out is the turned up, bulbous nose tip that IMO Paul possesed; a silly little detail I actually remember noticing 40 years ago. One of the many stupid notions I held as a child (many of which continue today)was, that the people with turned up noses were the superior smart ones, and people with
straight but wide noses (like me) were the dummies.
!
Don't ask me; I long ago discarded that thinking, but it was something that caused me to note that feature when I encountered it, and file that person away in the "smart, superior" category.
This same, childish mind-set of mine also caused me to remark to my father in about 1970, that the crease running down the tip of his aquiline nose meant the mark of "authority," which is why I feared him so, and saw him as controlling person. I got over that eventually........
You know, I have this thing about spaces, and area. While helping myh mom pick out a bath rug last week, we looked at many. Before she unfolded them and layed them on one another for size comparison, I predicted in every case, while still folded in two, how they would compare, whether two inches shorter, or narrower, or equal, I saw it by projecting how they would look open. They weren't marked; we had to just do a eye-ball job. The one she bought--I told her that it would not be long enough, and a slight amount to broad to clear ther basinette.
No measuring tape. I was right. Not a perfect fit. Which annoyed her that I knew. But, she kept it for the color.
The only rug they had that would perfectly fit her bathroom floor(in my mind's eye)---was an ugly pink. I may go back and buy it just to see if I was right........
Where'll I put it? I dunno. Sometimes you gotta buy an ugly pink bath rug just to know if you can make measurements in your mind. Maybe I'll put it up on the mantle. 'Cept I don't have one.
No-wait--it'll fit perfectly in the outer hallway to the bathroom........
I said all that to illustrate that we may not all need calipers and scales to measure things. Sometimes, somehow, you just know.
And, a lot of you--and a whole lot better than me! And, I say this because facial recognition isn't based on tape measures and yardsticks; it's far to subtle for that, and those tools are too socially awkward!
Nature endows all with a good measure of facial recog. Well, a few have a disability where they can't tell one man from another, but that's rare.
But, it's all about proportion. As long as light, shadow, lines, and
proportion say "billy"--then it's a picture of billy. There are less images available that indicate otherwise.
And, yes. Jojo, IMO, by the time Anthology came along, I suspect a lion's share of the image and sound adjusting work was long past.
Hey, do you need a pink throw rug for your bathroom? Anybody?
It has a nice textures, it's just flamingo-ugly hot pink. Kinda fits a retro-look......beachy........