Petrus Soons’ Anaglyph vs Mario Latendresse’s at SchroudScope
I noticed that one of your posting about 3D anaglyphs for the Shroud, namely [I certainly have real reservations about Petrus Soons’ 3D work. Any comments now? . . .] states:
No! The [Petrus Soons] anaglyph may not be very scientific, at all. And that is a major concern because the impression one gets from the website [Petrus Soons' Website] and probably most places this image is displayed is that it is scientific. It may be, but if so, how so. I am not at all convinced that the data found in the Shroud’s image supports the anaglyph on the website. I’m not convinced that adjustments that were made to the images (there seem to be many) are scientifically warranted.
This is probably true for the transformations that were done at Petrus Soons’ Website since no complete explanation is given about what was done to generate the 3D anaglyphs.
But the Shroud Scope has a 3D anaglyph image of the Shroud that was generated in a very simple way based on a simple mathematical transformation (i.e., no artistic effect). This is described, using a freely available software package, at [Enrie 3D Anaglyph Version . . . ]
See the Shroud Scope 3D anaglyph at [Shroud Scope Anaglyph . . .] (as usual, you can zoom in and out and pan like a Google map)
My conclusion is that the Shroud image does contain simple 3D data that can be directly used to generate 3D anaglyph photographs with no artistic intervention. Of course, the 3D data applies to the corpse, not the other artifacts, like bloodstains, water stains, burned marks, and so on.
I stand by what I wrote in that doubly-indented paragraph above and I am delighted to see a legitimate anaglyph.