it is presumptive to think the 3D information represents cloth-to-body distance.
It is presumptive because you must have a method in mind
Colin Berry’s method may provide synthetic cloth to body information represented by varying color density for close together body features such as fingers beside each other. It cannot provide proper relative spatial information for disparate features related to each other at a distance such as the tip of the nose and the outer edge of each cheek. Dr. Berry’s method cannot generate the sort of spatial information we see in Petrus Soon’s 3D renditions.
You are possibly right that Colin’s method cannot produce meaningful, relative 3D information for “disparate features related to each other at a distance.” That seems obvious when looking at his method. But is that 3D information really contained in the shroud image in the sense you suggest? Does it represent reality?
1) I’m still not convinced that the 3D information represents cloth-to-body distance. It works out, it seems to me, to somehow represent body shape but it is presumptive to think the 3D information represents cloth-to-body distance. It is presumptive because you must have a method in mind to even suggest it.
2) I certainly have serious reservations about the 3D work undertaken by Petrus Soons. I suspect that the real 3D information on the shroud is more like what we see with ImageJ, the VP8 and John Jackson’s 3D corrugated cardboard plot exhibited at the U.S. Air Force Academy Chapel in Colorado.
Might Colin’s method produce that kind of 3D data? I don’t think so, “synthetic” or otherwise. But I don’t know that. I think we need to wait and see.