True color of MVR Fokker Dr1 425/17

Dave_Watts · 10 July 2006, 11:46 PM

Oops, I posted...it frooze...I cancelled...but it did it anyway.

Dave_Watts · 10 July 2006, 11:47 PM

Hi all,

As some of us have become engrossed in this thread, I was looking at the usual suspects (photos) and noticed one was different from another of which I believe no one has noticed before and have thought to be the same image. I am sure Ferko and most likely Grosz knew of this, but no one has mentioned it here.

Our old familiar images from Ferko;

This photo is at a different angle. Note the guys at the left in front of the other plane trying to squat down. Also look at the right hand wingtip and you will see it is in a different position in relation to the triplanes in the background. This image is also from Ferko (in Leaman's Triplane book).

I wonder if this was the image he could read the serial number 425/17 or more likely the tighter center image.

Now here are close-ups of the two images to see if anything at all can be seen of benefit.

As usual just when you thought you knew it all....

We need high dpi file scan copies from University of Dallas!!! Anybody out there?

Best wishes,
Dave W.

ManfredT · 11 July 2006, 12:02 AM

Taz-

I have just done a 16 bit scan with 4000 dpi (optical) resolution from a high quality negative of Peter Grosz's photo you have access to.

The image is flared and unsharp and you can not read the digit 8 of the Werknummer.

This is a weak point at the Grosz and Imrie collection: when it comes to copy work they asked for the print, not for the negative with the much higher Dmax.

A real drawback in our times of digital processing.

acer

ManfredT · 11 July 2006, 06:38 AM

Taz-

on the original of our photograph in question, which is glued in the diary of the late Generalfeldmarschall

Robert Ritter von Greim, the digit 8 of Werknummer 2189 is readabel. Stencilled in Antiqua script, with the broad bar from above left to the lower right.

acer

Taz · 11 July 2006, 08:55 AM

Acer- I am convinced about 521/17. You are right about negatives, I would much rather have original negatives than a print, but have no original negatives myself. A friend of mine had a few negatives and no way to scan them so I scanned them at 4800 dpi for him and the scanner/computer produced beautiful positive images on which every detail could be seen. Printing those positives is then a snap and even a 1200 dpi print looks beautiful. The graphics shop I use can print images at up to 6400 dpi if you really want to be sure nothing is lost. Plus you have the digital image which you can share without worrying about damaging originals.

It is amazing how much better original prints are than first copy prints. Most collections are made up of a few originals and a lot of first or even second copy prints. The ability to scan original photos and negatives is a huge advance for our hobby. We jus need access to the originals. UT Dallas, here I come eventually.

Drop me a PM or an e-mail if you want to swap images. My collection is small but interesting.

Has an English translation of

von Greim's diary ever been done? I would love to see even the German version. Would make a great series in OTF or Propellerblatt or both.

Taz
Terry Phillips

Taz · 11 July 2006, 09:06 AM

Dave- As many times as I looked at those photos, I never noticed the difference in those two images. Good sleuthing.

Langdon- Could not read the flugel number. We can kind of cheat on the WN because we know it says DRI and a 4 digit number between 1661 (really 1729) and 2269, but the Flugel numbers could be combinations of letters and numbers which make it difficult to cheat. Plus if I fouled up the WN on what turned out to be 521/17, think what a mess I could make of the Flugel number.

Acer- Can you read the Flugel number on your original print?

Taz
Terry Phillips

Taz · 11 July 2006, 09:24 AM

Acer- I also see your other point. In the old days when scanners were not available, collectors would ask a fellow collector for a copy of their original print. They should have asked for both the negative and a print rather than just a print. If we had those first copy negatives now, we could get better results with scanning the negative than from scanning the first copy print because the negative contained more data.

I am a little slow today.

Taz
Terry Phillips

Langdon · 11 July 2006, 02:24 PM

Taz,

Remember the old adage "believe half of what you see and nothing of what you hear" when the evidence is provided we can then decide. Acer obviously know plenty about photography so providing the proof will be easy, I have a feeling it will not happen. If it does then that will be great and I will owe an apology.

Langdon

Taz · 11 July 2006, 02:33 PM

Langdon- I am convinced. Nobody has to provide hard proof on the Forum and some collectors do not. Just the information is valuable. But the information is correct and I am happy and it fits what I had already heard from another source besides Greg. Will have to change my photo captions from 477/17 to 521/17 now.

Taz
Terry Phillips

Langdon · 11 July 2006, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taz

Langdon- I am convinced. Nobody has to provide hard proof on the Forum and some collectors do not. Just the information is valuable. But the information is correct and I am happy and it fits what I had already heard from another source besides Greg. Will have to change my photo captions from 477/17 to 521/17 now.

Taz
Terry Phillips

That's fine Taz, but for me evidence is necessary. Otherwise anyone can claim anything. It makes no difference to me which aircraft it is but I would like to get it right.