Paper Chase: MTF Resolution, 4.9±0.5 mm and all that
Because of my comment that I did not understand what 4.9±0.5 mm MTF meant and because of the recent discussions of the subject in this blog, Giulio Fanti wrote to me this morning to remind me about a paper he presented at the International Conference on the Shroud of Turin in Ohio in 2008. I should have remembered.
Thank you, Giulio.
Title and Link: MTF resolution of images obtained without an acquisition system
Authors: Giulio Fanti, Roberto Basso
Abstract:
The present paper proposes an extension of the traditional evaluation of the MTF curves in the case in which the acquisition system is not available and the input is not well known, if a relatively low quality of the result is accepted. The method is at first applied when only the acquisition system is unknown, and then when also the input is not well known; in this case the face and the right hand of the Turin Shroud are studied underlining the relatively high resolution of such images in comparison with other examples.
The method is applied to images of the Turin Shroud and to images obtained both by means of PP (Psychic Photography) and BEO-GDV (Biological Emission and Optical radiation – Gas Discharge Visualization). the resolution of the Shroud images reaches 4.9±0.5 mm at the 5% MTF value, that of PP image is only 12±2 mm, but the resolution of BEO-GDV images of 5.3±0.3 mm is compatible with that of the Shroud images.
It results an anomaly at the low spatial frequencies (less than about 20 m-1) that clearly presents values less than the unity. If verified with future studies, this data would set a new interesting characteristic of the Shroud image: the “acquisition system” should be characterized by the fact that the spatial frequencies around 30 m-1 are better represented than the others.
Leave a Reply
Is the Shroud real? Probably.
The Shroud of Turin may be the real burial cloth of Jesus. The carbon dating, once seemingly proving it was a medieval fake, is now widely thought of as suspect and meaningless. Even the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins admits it is controversial. Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archeologists. This is because there are significant scientific and non-religious reasons to doubt the validity of the tests. Chemical analysis, all nicely peer-reviewed in scientific journals and subsequently confirmed by numerous chemists, shows that samples tested are chemically unlike the whole cloth. It was probably a mixture of older threads and newer threads woven into the cloth as part of a medieval repair. Recent robust statistical studies add weight to this theory. Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.” If we wish to be scientific we must admit we do not know how old the cloth is. But if the newer thread is about half of what was tested – and some evidence suggests that – it is possible that the cloth is from the time of Christ.
No one has a good idea how front and back images of a crucified man came to be on the cloth. Yes, it is possible to create images that look similar. But no one has created images that match the chemistry, peculiar superficiality and profoundly mysterious three-dimensional information content of the images on the Shroud. Again, this is all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
We simply do not have enough reliable information to arrive at a scientifically rigorous conclusion. Years ago, as a skeptic of the Shroud, I came to realize that while I might believe it was a fake, I could not know so from the facts. Now, as someone who believes it is the real burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, I similarly realize that a leap of faith over unanswered questions is essential.
My name is Dan Porter. Please email me at DanielRobertPorter@gmail.com
I don’t think the point spread function is shift invariant.
Anyway, I don’t think we can assume the “acquisition system” is a “focused optical system”.
This article is nonsense.
Until further explained I have to agree with @anoxie