WmW writes in a comment:
HF has made what seems to be a brilliant observation (see Aug 28, 3:42 am). Would love to see some pictures of just what he is looking at. Is that possible? This may be a whole new paradigm for banding
I made the screen shot shown here. You should be able to click on it to enlarge it.
This is what Hugh Farey wrote:
In Shroud 2.0, longitudinal banding is very clear, and is definitely related to the pitch of the zigzag, specifically the darkness of the shadows cast by the overlying warp threads onto the underlying weft threads. Thus the entire Shroud is covered in alternating lighter and darker bands. This pattern is not seen on the Durante photo. Here the various longitudinal stripes seem to me to be much thinner, where you can see them, and appear to be related to the ‘spines’ of the herringbone ribs, which may have formed into slight ridges or troughs as part of the rolling up process. I cannot find a good positive Enrie image, but the large scale negatives, which can be found at the link above among others, show a variety of bands, some very thin and some as thick as a width of a pitch. However they are much less consistent and the thick ones do not appear to be lighting artifacts as they sometimes extend over two or three bands of alternating pitch. It is not clear in any case that the pale vertical areas defning the sides of the cheeks, or the dark vertical areas defing the fall of the hair, are due to imperfections in the weave or the lighting of a photo rather than the shape of the image model itself. As such, attempts to ‘correct’ the image by removing them are probably misguided.
Colin Berry certainly agrees. Here, and in his blog, he writes, “Brilliant. Hugh. Possibly, nay probably the best contribution to ‘banding’ in all time.”
Two “brilliants.” I think I see what Hugh is talking about. I may need to agree with Colin. But, “the shape of the image model itself.”? Model? I would like to see pictures with pointed narrative. Hugh, can you send along a couple of screen shots from your perspective?
 To make screen shots in Shroud 2.0, hold down the round “Home” button on the front of the iPad or iPhone and press the “Sleep/Wake” button. The screen shot is in your Pictures folder. |
I’ve commented this post on the original thread: http://shroudstory.com/2014/08/27/banding-is-it-real/#comment-147056
You want an original thought from Hugh Farey ? see Aug 27, 7:42 am (same post – banding? is it real?)
“Finally, as I have said before, one might predict that the irregular processing of the raw thread could lead to visible banding on a cloth, but in that case there would be irregular banding patterns longitudinally, as the warp threads would be made from separate individual hanks, and broad regular bands transversely, as each weft single hank was used up going backwards and forwards across the loom. This is not what we observe.”
And before giving my thought on this one, Hugh, what do you mean by “this is not what we observe” ? That it rules out banding effect from a single hank ?
Well, I don’t know what to say really. It may be that anoxie spotted all this long before me, but as I was wholly unable to understand his comments I may be inadvertently re-inventing his wheel. I hope he will forgive me. To help WmW and Dan and anybody else who wants to see what I see, I have put together this: http://imgur.com/v4hGM2B, which I hope will explain all.
“And before giving my thought on this one, Hugh, what do you mean by “this is not what we observe” ? That it rules out banding effect from a single hank ?” I don’t think I have enough evidence to reach a conclusion on this one. As we have already mentioned, only 25% of the weft threads are visible on the image side of the shroud, and small differences in processing or colour may not be visible. I’m inclined to think that the entire shroud was originally sufficiently uniform in colour for us not to be able to ascribe any of the present variation, image or otherwise, to variations in hank processing. But I’d be happy to consider any evidence to the contrary, especially anything from the ‘hidden’ side, where it would all be more evident.
I note that imgur is not as good at resolution as it really needs to be, so I’ll email the pdf my submission is based on to Dan in case he wants to make it more accessible.
Well this “new paradigm” has appeared after :
Daveb:
“Query to anyone: The weave is a zigzag herringbone twill. Does anyone know if the alleged banding synchronises with the pitch of the zigzag, or not? Or is it independent of the pitch?”
anoxie:
“3- the zig zag pattern has an independent role on image perception (image – différence)
Synchronisation ? Let’s have a break on banding and the “no sharp edge” claim of CB.”
Guess what are the bands on the “image – différence” who have a role on the image intensity? Maybe Dan should include this image in the post, what a new paradigm! FYI, it’s from Thierry Castex’s blog.
You’ve re-invented the wheel Hugh.
And you see David Goulet, that’s why i’m reluctant to give constructive answers.
By the way, thanks for your non constructive answer Hugh, i won’t comment.
Goodie. More alphabet soup on the menu today. Yippee.
You’re lovely Colin, and harmless.