Home > Image Theory > Homogeneous or Not? That’s the Question

Homogeneous or Not? That’s the Question

October 22, 2014

image

Hi Colin.

I see you are up with a new posting, Who says the Shroud of Turin image is homogeneous? Think again, fellow shroudies…

Did I read that right? Fellow shroudie? 

Anyway, you write:

Here are two images of the TS image, frontal v dorsal,  that I can confidently state that no one apart from myself has ever seen before. In fact, I too had not seen them until a hour or so ago. (One needs to scrutinize them closely).

In a picture caption you ask, “Can you guess the provenance?” 

No Colin, I can’t.  I don’t know what you mean by provenance, in this case.  “The shroud”?  The photograph? The film?  The digital file name after conversion from one to the other?  The raw bitmap file?  The JPEG or GIF on a particular website? The original with original size, dots per inch, contrast, brightness, color saturation, etc.? The website where you glommed onto the image?

Every step – object to film, film to digital, file type to file type conversion, resizing and so forth — introduces artifacts including different color approximations in different density areas of the image; or so I’m told. I’m not a graphics expert so correct me, Colin, if I’m wrong.

Anyway, that may or may not be the case here. It would be nice to know what image you are using. For what you are proposing, it would be nice to get a full color image that has had the least possible manipulation in the past.

You write:

It’s been said the TS image is "homogeneous" . . .

These two images show in  my humble estimation  that the TS image, whether imprint or painting (I still prefer imprint) is most definitely NOT homogeneous. Under the carefully adjusted contrast, brightness and mid-tone settings,  but emphatically with NO fiddling with colour,  they show some "grey" areas and some "orange-brown" areas, admittedly an approximate description.

Do you know, Colin, what your software does when you fiddle?

And if anyone says it’s "just" blood, I have another image, ready and waiting, to kick that suggestion into the long grass. (Sorry about the idiomatic English – I only use it when animated,  and I have to say that fellow shroudies sometimes get me animated, not to say pissed-off,  with the dismissive put-down tone of their comments).

[. . . ]

For now, let’s just content ourselves with the two new images, and hang loose for a while, if only to tease my readers (to say nothing of play for time).

Here’s a challenge to fellow shroudies: whose images were these originally, and where did they first appear, before I began to tinker with them in MS Office Picture Manager (legitimately I maintain). ?  (bolding emphasis mine)

You may have a point, Colin; an important point, perhaps. But you also have an attitude. That may be why we are so dismissive. The stink bomb you threw on what was intended as a thank you posting for the organizers of the St. Louis conference will be remembered for a long time. It is why your comments are being moderated for the time being.

Homogeneous or Not? That’s the Question. It is worth exploring.

Note: Image shown here is a screen grab from Colin Berry’s site. Its original provenance is unknown.

Categories: Image Theory Tags:
  1. Thomas
    October 22, 2014 at 5:41 am

    Interesting piece by Colin.

    • Dan
      October 22, 2014 at 5:53 am

      I completely agree. Interesting. This could have an impact on many hypotheses. I’m excited to see where it goes, with Colin and with others who have some graphics background.

      • Thomas
        October 22, 2014 at 6:12 am

        yes. and still in my view does not at all rule out miraculous creation

  2. October 22, 2014 at 6:09 am

    Some of the banding and burn mark borders exhibits the same orange and gray qualities. Makes me think it is an introduced artifact. Good work by Colin. Now we need expertise.

  3. October 22, 2014 at 8:01 am

    What is meant by the image being or not being homogeneous?

    • anoxie
      October 22, 2014 at 10:42 am

      It means:

      “I AM DESPERATELY LOOKING FOR A WAY OUT MY BOGUS SCORCH HYPOTHESIS”

  4. anoxie
    October 22, 2014 at 9:44 am

    Who says the Shroud of Turin image is homogeneous?

    That is the question, because i don’t, Mr Scorch.

    • October 22, 2014 at 10:07 am

      Questioning the assumption of someone questioning the assumption….I like that.

  5. October 22, 2014 at 10:04 am

    I do not know what Colin Berry thinks he is doing. If he can’t tell you where the image came from and how it was processed along the way before his fiddling and he doesn’t care then you tell me, how is this not trolling? How is this not pseudoscience?

    • anoxie
      October 22, 2014 at 10:24 am

      He is going to explain Thibault Heimburger why the image may be a Maillard Reaction, stay tuned.

  6. Yannick Clément
    October 22, 2014 at 10:56 am

    STURP have proven long ago that the majority of the characteristics of the image chromophore IS in fact quite homogeneous in the sense that the thickness of it is roughly the same everywhere (extremely thin), the color is also quite homogeneous and the location and penetration of that color is pretty much also the same everywhere at thread and also at fiber level (whether we look at a direct-contact zone or another area that was most probably not in contact with the corpse at the moment of the image formation, the location is restricted to the surface of the topmost fibers – those that were “exposed” – and there’s no in-deep penetration of color deep inside the thread). Another homogeneous characteristic comes from the fact that the chemical nature of the colored fibers composing the image are identical and, as Rogers said so well, it is a proven fact that every part of this image was produced by the same process.

    The only slight non-homogeneous characteristic of the image chromophore is the density of the image (which depends on the proportion of colored fibers per unit area) that is slightly different depending on the thread. Also, at thread level, we find an important non-homogeneous characteristic for the image when it comes to the distribution of colored fibers, which look pretty much like the results that can be obtained by some low-energy stochastic processes (like a population exposed to a low amount of chemical pollution or a low amount of radiation).

    Berry’s image formation proposal is obviously not able to fully reproduce at once all the homogeneous characteristics of the image I just described, so it’s not surprising that he wants to make believe the image on the Shroud not really homogeneous…

    To conclude my comment, here’s an extract of a previous comments I made concerning the MAA paper I wrote with Fazio and Mandaglio… I think this extract fits very well here:

    “…it’s obvious that if the release of energy would have been important (like in the case of numerous radiation hypotheses that have been proposed over the years, including a corona discharge and a burst of UV light – note: here, I would add “and also any kind of scorch”), we would expect, in theory, to get a coloring result that would shows some important differences of properties than what has been observed on the Shroud. Here’s some probable differences we could expect: a) a yellowing of all the fibers that would have been hit by this high energy in question, which would probably have resulted in a much more homogeneous distribution of colored fibers in the image area, and particularly in the zones of direct-contact where the energy was at his peak (which is not what is seen on the Shroud and which must be considered as a « deterministic process » and not a stochastic process) and/or b) a difference in the level of penetration of the color inside a particular linen thread (which is not what is seen on the Shroud), whether the source of that high energy was located in direct-contact with the cloth (thus producing a more in-deep penetration of color inside the linen threads receiving that energy, because of the presence of more energy there) or at some distance from it (thus producing a more superficial penetration of color inside the threads, because less energy would be present there) and/or c) a difference in the level of penetration of the color inside the structure of a particular linen fiber (which is not what is seen on the Shroud), whether the source of that high energy was located in direct-contact with the cloth (thus producing a more in-deep penetration of color inside the structure of the linen fibers receiving that energy, because of the presence of more energy there) or at some distance from it (thus producing a more superficial penetration of color inside the fibers, because less energy would be present there).”

    • anoxie
      October 22, 2014 at 12:17 pm

      Yannick, the question is not whether his point is relevant (he has not really qualified “homogeneous” and his image is rather pointless), what is interesting is why he tries to make a point: to artificially trigger a U-turn in his theory, saving his face with an “original argument”. And people still buy it.

      Problems are not stinky bombs, as old as Colin on this blog, last one just being under the spotlights, but his empty posts being promoted. Has anyone really understood what he meant by not homogeneous ??? No, because it makes no sense since he does not qualify it.

      See Rogers:
      ” …the statement that all image fibers look the same is not correct: there are some
      significant differences…”
      THIS is not homogeneous, based on a direct observation.

      Now, waiting for Thibault and his pdf n°3.

      • Yannick Clément
        October 22, 2014 at 4:23 pm

        Where do you pick that quote from Rogers? I don’t remember having read this before…

        For example, look at quotes #2, 3, 4, 5, 58, 70, 71, 96 in my paper about Rogers’ work (http://www.holyshroudguild.org/uploads/2/7/1/7/2717873/2014-06-29-yannick-clement-reflections-on-ray-rogers-shroud-work.pdf) and you’ll see that the observation he made indicate a high level of homogeneity for the image chromophore… In fact, beside the two non-homogeneous characteristics I mentioned in my previous comment, I’m not aware of any other significant non-homogeneous properties the image could possess.

        The only other one I can think of is maybe the kind of non-homogeneous distribution of the color that can be found over one particular image fiber, which could be different than the distribution of the color on another image fiber, but we’re talking of microscopic differences here…

      • Thibault HEIMBURGER
        October 22, 2014 at 5:18 pm

        I’m unable to read the entire Colin’s new post, given its length, its nauseating mixture of different “observations”, hypotheses, critics, etc.and the fact that Colin uses the term “homogeneous” in a very particular sense, finally adding the “new” concept of “two-tone” image.

        All of that being based on image manipulations.
        Compare the original pictures given by Hugh
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8612315.stm
        with Colin’s pictures.

        Starting from different pictures of the Shroud, I can show you everything you want. But I will not do that because I know that image processing is a professional work and I am not an expert.

        Anoxie: “Now, waiting for Thibault and his pdf n°3.”

        Recently, I had to prepare my paper for the Saint-Louis Conference.

        My pdf3 will be written as soon as possible.

        • anoxie
          October 23, 2014 at 11:21 am

          I have to ask you Thibault, after Dan’s clarification as regards the accusations of intellectual dishonnesty (https://shroudstory.com/2014/10/23/accusations-of-intellectual-dishonesty/), do you think Colin’s post is based on “image misunderstandings” or “image misrepresentations” or “image manipulations”?

        • Thibault HEIMBURGER
          October 23, 2014 at 6:08 pm

          Anoxie and all,

          I fully agree with Dan.
          Accusations of intellectual dishonesty MUST be definitely excluded except if it is obvious.

          Regarding the Shroud, nobody including myself is completely objective. It is simply impossible. There are too much data, observations, interpretations etc.
          After about 10 years of researches, I can only say that a Middle-age forgery does not make sense for me for many reasons.

          Regarding Colin, as I wrote, I do not understand him.
          I wrote: ” …All of that being based on image manipulations.”

          This does not imply any kind of intellectual dishonesty.
          Simply that he does not know/understand what he is doing while “manipulating” the images.

  7. October 22, 2014 at 12:04 pm

    Colin’s pictures are from Haltadefinizione’s Shroud 2.0 projected as labelled by the BBC at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8612315.stm. Although I can’t swear to having seen them before, they have been there since 2010…

  8. October 24, 2014 at 12:56 pm

    Should a computer graphics expert be doing chemistry experiments?

    • Dan
      October 24, 2014 at 1:46 pm

      Good point!

  9. Thibault HEIMBURGER
    October 25, 2014 at 6:09 pm

    I wrote: ” Regarding Colin, as I wrote, I do not understand him.
    I wrote: ” …All of that being based on image manipulations.”
    This does not imply any kind of intellectual dishonesty.
    Simply that he does not know/understand what he is doing while “manipulating” the images.”

    Colin answered:
    http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.fr/2014/10/the-turin-shroud-tweaking-of-shroud.html

    “Does TH know what’s happening inside his patient’s cells each time he prescribes an antibiotic or some other drug? No, and what’s more he doesn’t need to. What he does is monitor the outward symptoms, and look for changes that can be construed as improvements in the patients’ condition. It’s called intervention. It’s what professionals do. They intervene.
    Well, it’s much the same where image enhancement is concerned. Does TH seriously imagine that the base images available say on Shroud Scope are sacrosanct? Indeed, does he imagine they are the ‘authentic’ representation of the TS image, when 1532 burn holes do not look like burn holes? Well, they do after I have made my very minor adjustments in contrast, brightness and mid-tone value (see how minor they are from my reference tablecloth photo above). No TH, I am NOT the innocent abroad you (or Dan Porter) make me out to be”.

    Colin, can you explain? Particularly “Indeed, does he imagine they are the ‘authentic’ representation of the TS image, when 1532 burn holes do not look like burn holes? Well, they do after I have made my very minor adjustments in contrast, brightness and mid-tone value (see how minor they are from my reference tablecloth photo above”

    • October 25, 2014 at 10:05 pm

      Take a close look at the face of that Halta Definizioni image on the BBC’s site, Thibault.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8612315.stm

      Compare the hair with cheeks, chin, brow ridge etc and you’ll see it is a two-tone image. All I have done is ‘bold up’ the very faint image to make the difference easier to see using brightness/contrast/mid-tone settings only (not colour). I’ve shown how little change those settings produce in a reference photograph. No, I’m not a image expert and make no claim to be. But as a biomedical researcher I do have a lifetime’s experience in probing black boxes, like chemistry (where you can’t see the individual atoms or molecules) and biology (where you can’t see what’s happening inside living cells). One has to be content with a phenomenological approach, ringing changes in a systematic manner to deduce what is happening inside the black box. When it’s totally unfamiliar territory, specialists should be there on tap, not on top.

      On a different matter, have you seen my new imprinting technique, one that I (provisionally) call ‘flour fingerprinting’? Smear vegetable oil lightly on one’s 3D or bas relief template, dust with white flour, shake off surplus, press down into linen, then roast the linen lightly. Hey presto, you get a negative image in the form of melanoidins (Maillard reaction products). See my current science buzz posting for details. It’s not dissimilar from Luigi Garlaschelli’s “frottage” technique, but arguably with more transparent chemistry .

      If this comment gets held up by the blogmeister, then don’t expect any further comment from me for a while. Some of us believe in free speech.

      • October 25, 2014 at 10:45 pm

        Save your breath Mr. Porter. You are not trampling on my rights to free speech – like saying what I think about so-called conferences that make no provision for questions to speakers from the floor, or the distinction between science and pseudoscience.

        You cannot gag me on my own site. That is where I can be found until further notice.

      • Thibault HEIMBURGER
        October 26, 2014 at 6:25 pm

        Hi Colin,

        I have the Halta Definitzoni images in my computer.

        You wrote on your blog:
        “. *And if anyone says it’s “just” blood, I have another image, ready and waiting, to kick that suggestion into the long grass.”

        OK, please show me this “another image”

        Thanks.

        • October 26, 2014 at 7:14 pm

          It’s been 5 days since I penned that posting, Thibault, and much has happened since, prompted I might add by the belated realization that the TS body image is heterogeneous, as judged by the two-tone appearance in the Halta pictures, later detected in Shroud Scope as well.

          Accordingly, I regret to say I’m not 100% certain what was in my mind when I wrote those words. However, I suspect it was a reference to the image that followed next, i.e. third in the sequence. That was a close up of the face, and there one could see the same distinctive rosy coloration that was so prominent a feature of the chest and shoulders in the first two pictures.

          Without the evidence from the face (cheeks and chin especially) the rosy coloration in those first two pictures alone might have been imagined or assumed to be blood from scourge marks. Since there is no blood on the cheeks or chin, and no scourge marks on the face, it can reasonably be concluded that the rosy regions represent something else. which I believe from the pattern of their distribution to be areas of highest 3D relief. Opinions will differ as to why they imprint most strongly, but I’m sure you’ll be familiar by now with my belief that they imprinted most strongly due to highest contact pressure between ‘subject’ (whether or not a real person) and linen.

          Incidentally, I reported (among other things) in a new posting afternoon a novel scorch image obtained with a hot metal template that has fuzzy edge, dare one say TS-like.How was it obtained? Simple: I brushed plain white flour into the linen before imprinting. No doubt that image is heterogeneous too – a mix of linen pyrolysis products and flour-derived melanoidins, with the first of those tending to correspond perhaps with the highest relief of one’s template.

          I have responded to your further point here as a courtesy, but if there are further supplementary questions re this or my other rapidly evolving ideas re two-tone images, dual-imprinting mechanisms etc. then please look to the comments thread of whatever happens to be my latest posting on ‘science buzz’ for further responses. There’s now a link in the sidebar that takes you there quickly.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: