New Petition

https://gregrparker.com/dowloads/petitions/

No log-in required. Please sign and share.

Results will go to NBC and NARA.

Done.

Done.

Signed.
P.S. Great to see you posting again Stan 
I hope all is well with you and yours.

Done.

Only 9,988 to go.

We should have this done by tomorrow noon, right?

9981 to go ....

Thanks guys. 10,000 I think is the minimum number that any org is required to accept. I could be wrong.

I'm in. I am not in the habit of signing many petitions, but this one is crucial.
Thanks for this website

TerryWMartin wrote:Done.

Only 9,988 to go.

We should have this done by tomorrow noon, right?

Actually, I just found out it doesn't matter. This little app sends the petition document to the target individuals at NBC and NARA with every new sig. 

They will be wondering what's hit them! Hopefully they will wave the white flag long before the 10,000 mark!

John F wrote:I'm in. I am not in the habit of signing many petitions, but this one is crucial.
Thanks for this website

I'm hearing you, John and I greatly appreciate you making the exception here.

Done!

greg_parker wrote:

TerryWMartin wrote:Done.

Only 9,988 to go.

We should have this done by tomorrow noon, right?

Actually, I just found out it doesn't matter. This little app sends the petition document to the target individuals at NBC and NARA with every new sig. 

They will be wondering what's hit them! Hopefully they will wave the white flag long before the 10,000 mark!

I've confirmed it. An email with the petition reasons goes out to the targets each time someone signs - and it goes out in to them in the signers name and email address. 

That means so far, two people at NBC and NARA have received 24 emails with the same message from 24 different people.

Please keep it going!

Done

In.

alex_wilson wrote:Signed.
P.S. Great to see you posting again Stan 
I hope all is well with you and yours.

Thanks Alex. I'm doing OK.

Hate to rain on the parade and best of luck with this petition, but I really don't think that grabbing a copy from the negative is going to tell us anything more. I recall seeing some pretty clear still of the footage and I don't think there's going to be enough detail there to reveal it's Lee - as much as I'd love for it to be him.

JFK_Case wrote:Hate to rain on the parade and best of luck with this petition, but I really don't think that grabbing a copy from the negative is going to tell us anything more. I recall seeing some pretty clear still of the footage and I don't think there's going to be enough detail there to reveal it's Lee - as much as I'd love for it to be him.

Thanks for the opinion. Others differ.

Either way, would it really hurt you to sign it so we can find out? If it happens, and you turn out right - honestly, you can hit me with all the "I told you so's" that you want. I'll wear it.

I'm no expert here on photos, but I've been surprised at the level of detail that I've been able to extract with high resolution scanning. I've been going through many old family photos I inherited from my parents and I've been making digital copies to share with others. Now I'm scanning old, paper photos, many of them beat up, not film or negatives.
 
For example: I've seen this picture of my uncle on a horse in the mid-1940s for a number of years. I couldn't tell it was my uncle just by looking at photo, it was too small to make out any facial detail. I was only going by the writing on the back of the picture.
 


But when I decided to scan it to send a digital copy to his daughter, I cranked up the resolution. Here's a cropped portion:
 

 
It was clearly him. I could never see this level of detail before in the original. But it's there.
 
Another photo—a crumbly old 1 1/2 X 2 inch picture taken in 1921 or 1922 with writing on the back saying it was of my father and grandfather—was so tiny I could only tell it was a man and a baby. I did a high resolution scan and I was amazed at the level of detail I got. This is only a small cropped portion of the entire photo:
 


Do I think a 4K scan of the original Darnell film my reveal facial detail on Prayer Man?

Yes I do. So let's find out once and for all, shall we?

It was clearly him. I could never see this level of detail before in the original. But it's there.


Great stuff Stan go for it! 


But your point here is key. The detail. There seems to be enough of it to resize the photo of your uncle on the horse without too much loss. 
It saddens me to think that all we need is either the original or first gen copies of the Weigman or Darnell frames and unleash the latest AI enhancements to do the rest. We'd be home free. 


It's sure worth a try Stan. 


Good luck with the project mate.

Excellent stuff,Stan. The increase in detail is amazing.

I thought I did, Greg.

JFK_Case wrote:I thought I did, Greg.

You hadn't previously - at least not under your real name. But you have now, so thank you!

Signed and shared

Jeff Reilley wrote:Signed and shared

Excellent! Thanks Jeff.