A reader writes:
Thank you for the update on ImageJ, the everyman’s VP8. The more I fool with it using everything from Enrie to Haltadefinizione images the more I clearly see that the images on the SOT are, by some measure of understanding, three-dimensional data. I cannot say that I’m convinced, as most shroud researchers seem to be, that the data represents body-cloth spatiality. In fact, I doubt it. It could be three-dimensional for many reasons.
It is not 1978 anymore. It is time to move on. We now have better images on the internet and better tools that are freely available to anyone in the world. ImageJ does everything the VP8 does only faster, with more precision and with many more analytical options. Significantly, all data and settings can be automatically documented, shared and reproduced, which is something sorely lacking in the work done by Petrus Soons and Ray Downing.
I have attached an interesting straight on view from a Durante picture using a magenta and yellow LUT to better see the effects of lighting from the left and above. Notice how sharp the eyebrows and lower cheekbones seem to be.
“It could be three-dimensional for many reasons”
What are those reasons? (beside cloth body distance)
“It could be three-dimensional for many reasons”
What are those reasons? (beside cloth body distance)
The whole statement is imprecise. Every image is 3D, as it has 2 spatial coordinates + intensity (X,Y,I). The point is that the intensity I correlates with cloth body distance (which is also imprecisely defined Jackson, Jumper & Ercoline used simply vertical, or Z distance).
We discussed this on November 3, Maybe the 3D data doesn’t mean what we think it does.
Here is another thought. The intensity at each x,y point is also a measure of distance from a hypothetical plane that intersects the body. The problem with that is imagining a process that could create an image. But do we have anything more than imagination so far when we think of body to cloth distance? Maybe the reader will write back. Like you I’d like to know what the many reasons are.
Fantastic 3D rendering. ImageJ (Fiji) is a turbocharged precision VP-8.
Agree with you totally, Paulette! WOW!
“It is not 1978 anymore. It is time to move on.” Smoothing the image ? Bad idea.
For example a useful tweak is filtering the background pattern : https://douglawrence.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/front-filtered-neg-histo-g1-final.jpg
There is always a loss of information but you can see better the original shape.
How do you plot the shroud face without smoothing?
I mean it’s too loosely correlated to image intensity.
Hey Dan, but how did you get this parameters? By your impression?
We need a better standing point.
I don’t understand the question.
Sorry Dan, I don’t use english as my primary language! I have been working with your parameters in Imagej (Fiji): 3D Surface Plo – grid 256 and etc. But, others parameters go as well 257, or 258… I wanted to say is, is there I chance to know what could be the best parameters on The Shroud? Thank you!
It all depends on used picture -some are better , some worse. Generally, the better quality picture (that is usually bigger in size), the better 3D effect.
Always on the begining go Image>Adjust>Brightness contrast. Use moderate smoothing (a few pixels) -it reduces noises, but also dissipates smaller structures. Grid size -always the highest 512.Usually Min=0 %, Max=100 %. Perspective =0. Play with z-scale and/or smoothing. Other parameters are less important.
Thank u!