In essence, Jackson & Jumper took the crude photo of the Shroud, determined location of 13 characteristic points on the face, determined their vertical coordinates on the model, determined the relative intensity of those points with VP-8 (much more primitive than ImageJ we use today), plotted linear regression, obtaining as a parameter max range of 3.7 cm, calculated correlation coefficient, determining that almost certainly there is at least some correlation, and then compared it with the profile for the whole front image of the Shroud. Simple technique, but remarkable achievement.
That paragraph above is from the 29th slide in a self-paced, fully explained, fully comprehendible four-part presentation, 3D properties of the Shroud revised by regular participant O.K.
- Take the time to read this presentation carefully.
- Is this the definitive final word on the 3D properties of the shroud? No. For one thing it is unfinished, as O.K. tells us. O.K. promises to respond to our comments and questions and add to the presentation. So look for more.
- In my mind, this a very important presentation on the 3D properties of the shroud, perhaps the most important one so far.
Am I convinced? Yes and no. I am convinced that the 3D means data is there. Smooth the image data, but not too little or too much, and you have, in essence, a height-field (my terminology, not O.K.’s). Sure, it easy to imagine that this means that the data somehow represents body to cloth distance. A carefully calculated correlation doesn’t make it so, however. It could be that there are other possible reasons even though I don’t have any strong ideas about what they might be.
By-the-way: I love the slide pictured to the right and the wording in the very next slide. It demonstrates that O.K. clearly understands the smoothing issue. Not many people do:All right, I cheated. Here is the same image, but this time using ‘Thermal LUT’ instead of ‘Original colors’
[See Part 1, slides 19 & 20 ]
As you can see, the image is blurred too much -too high smoothing applied, and a lot information is gone. We have a handy image in original colors, but actually disastrous 2D resolution.
Dear O.K.
On behalf of Centro Português de Sindonologia I congratulate you on this excellent work
It’s indeed a great contribution for the scientific study of the Shroud and I suggets it to be included in scientific papers in http://www.shroud.com
Now Shroud scholars are provided with information that thoroughly includes everything studied on the 3D properties of the Shroud Image and in a comprehensive way.
thank you for your gift and God bless you
Antero
P.S. I’ll keep your precious work in my Shroud archives
Wow. I learned a lot. Thanks.
It is not only a matter of having 3d info encoded. Although at first sightbno significant difference can be detected, if there is a linear relationship between intensity and distance, this would be completely different from having either a quadratic or exponential relationship. However, due to the small distances, below 4 cm, all the 3d encoding patterns would yield similar images and significant correlation coefficients. Most 3d images are based on a linear relationship between intensity and distance. If the relationship in the Shroud were different, lets say exponential, this would very clearly indicate the nature of the mechanism involved.The exponential relationship between distance and intensity is only possible with one type of formation mechanism
Most 3d images are based on a linear relationship between intensity and distance. If the relationship in the Shroud were different, lets say exponential, this would very clearly indicate the nature of the mechanism
Linear relationship always can be taken as a first approximation.
I am not certain whether Shroud image properties allow higher order approximations. To make so, you need to gather many more points (selected in unbiased, representative way) than just 13.
Ok, I just wanted to highlight the idea that if it can be properly and undoubtedly determined the nature of that relationship, the type of mechanism that originated the image can be clearly established.
This is fantastic but it is a lot for folks like me to digest at one sitting.
Have you an interesting idea or an answer about
the possible connection: “flax wax” – “banding phenomenon” ?
I think that treating with petroleum ether (or another solvent for wax)
and cleaning your linen clothes you can show what happens
(in your possible experiments)…
Another idea: you can show what is the result about the Image
(in particular: the Face) trying to equalize (using a proper software, etc.)
the “banding phenomenon”…
I do not consider chemistry here, Piero. Just image properties.
Another idea: you can show what is the result about the Image
(in particular: the Face) trying to equalize (using a proper software, etc.)
the “banding phenomenon”…
See part 3.
See dynamic equalization, Castex 2012.
http://thierrycastex.blogspot.fr
See the discussion following “banding on the shroud” by Hugh Farey.
Thank you for your answer.
Yesterday I wrote an unsuitable message, in a hurry…
without a proper second reading.
The fact that I forgot to mention the starched hanks, etc.
seems to be an obvious error … and then this error
had turned my short intervention in a rude message.
— — —
B.T.W.:
I noticed three orthographic errors
(reference: Part 3, slide n. 12):
>…while darker bands seem to be present between
the chheks and hair. …
Instead the correct word is “cheeks”:
>while darker bands seem to be present between
the cheeks and hair. …
Here the other banal error (slide n. 16 of 27):
>Twice run with suppresion of both vertical and horizontal stripes
Instead, with the correct word “suppression” the phrase is:
>Twice run with suppresion of both vertical and horizontal stripes
The other wrong words are: “flattened”
instead of “flattener”
and “dimmed”
instead of “dimmer”
(See: slide n. 17 of 27):
>What can be seen at first glance is that the right one is much
broader and dimmer and flattener. …
In any case I believe you forgot to take into account
what wrote Ray Schenider on this subject (“banding phenomenon”)
B.T.W.:
I noticed three orthographic errors
Thanks, corrected.
In any case I believe you forgot to take into account
what wrote Ray Schenider on this subject (“banding phenomenon”)
Where exactly?
If this id not the definitive word on 3D I wonder if there will ever be one.
I’m surprised skeptics have not yet «attaked»
Wise explanation of the banding effect I’m truly amazed!
AWESOME!!!
Antero de Frias Moreira
In the past Rogers indicated us that:
>Each hank of yarn was bleached separately, and each was little different…
Then the chemical study of linen fibrils is an important question
in order to discover the exact differences (and then to try to complete the study of the problem…).
— — —
I think it should be interesting to publish something,
in short, IFF (if and only if) that is really a new approach
about the problem of “filtered image”…
Here a vague example of short bibliographic reference:
“MTF resolution of images obtained without an acquisition system”
by Giulio Fanti and Roberto Basso
Here an excerpt from the 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. …
etc. …etc. …
— — —
Do you know “The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion” (JSSR)?
It is a multi-disciplinary journal that publishes articles, research notes,
and book reviews on the social scientific study of religion.
Unfortunately “JSSR does not publish review articles or
articles geared toward clinical or other practitioner audiences”.
>Substantive areas include both micro-level analysis of individuals’
experience with religion and macro-level analysis of religious
organizations, institutions, and social change. …
Other journal for publication?
Just to throw something out,not that I understand the technical aspects of this post but at one point in my life I took a severe whack on the forehead by a cement side walk and had egg shaped bump that was a good one inch high.Could this cause the discontinuity next to the blood stain on the forehead?
Probably due to a wrinkled forehead.
OK’s paper is interesting in that it warns against some use of ImageJ.
For now, I have read carefully Part 1.
I don’t understand why OK is writing about the halftone effect. The halftone effect, per se, has nothing to do with the 3D problem.
OK wrote: “The 3D effect is actually an optical illusion. Or better saying -it was
intended to be an optical illusion.”
I don’t understand.
OK wrote: ” In essence, Jackson & Jumper took the crude photo of the Shroud, determined location of 13 characteristic points on the face, determined their vertical coordinates on the model, determined the relative intensity of those points with VP-8 (much more primitive than ImageJ we use today), …”
No they used a microdensitometer for these 13 points (not the VP8).
Why did they not use this method for the whole TS image ?
Because they calculated that the number of data would be prohibitive (about 1700).
That’s why they used another visual method based on the VP8.
There is much more, BUT..
Before writing anything about the so-called 3D properties of the TS image, we must clarify what it means.
Here is the challenge: how can we scientifically define a 2D image having intrinsic 3D properties (“encoded” 3D data)?
Hello Thibault. I think it is very important to discuss halftone when using Ernie’s positive image. The reversal film clearly distinguishes the Shroud’s image by dot amplitude modulation rather than screen builds. Ernie’s original negative which yields a positive print one can distinguish the screen values that are not present in the positive negative image that OK is using.
If you observe Durante’s image, the photo’s resolving power alone is not detailed enough to present amplitude modulation but instead it resembles stochastic screening with trapping (overlays of color) to create the photo image. This is why it’s difficult to produce a 3D effect with ImageJ.
“how can we scientifically define a 2D image having intrinsic 3D properties (“encoded” 3D data)?
I can only answer your question as an enduser. By converting correlating screen values (distant to cloth as an example) to dots amplitude modulation and with displacement mapping you will achieve 3D rendering. Simple techniques can be see on youtube using “After Effects” and other rendering programs.
The question I have is how the amplitude modulation dots are abundantly centered on the linen without falloff giving the illusion of lensing which is why we have dots in the first place.
I was given to understand, perhaps wrongly, that the orthochromatic film that Enrie used that accentuated dark and light would have created an artificial three:d effect, not seen , for instance, in the Durante photographs. I leave it to the experts to comment.
Poor Dan must be having a hard time with the weather in his region. I am posting something that is off-track, but it is news:
Our “hermanos” at the Centro Español de Sindonologia, Spain are holding the:
IVth National Convention of the Spanish Centre of Sindonolgy: The Cloths of Christ: Passion, History, Art and Science on 10-12 this month.
Among those who will present papers, on the Sudarium of Oviedo, is Dr. Alfonso Sánches Hermosilla, who is in the field of forensic medicine and teaches Anthropology and Forensic Genetics at the University of Granada.
He appears in:
https://www.academia.edu/11804110/Is_the_Sudarium_of_Oviedo_the_key_to_unraveling_the_mystery_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin
Dr. Sánchez Hermosilla will talk about his latest research. For the rest of the scholars who will be presenting papers click on “programas” in the link:
http://convencionces2015.com/
My apologies for not having commented on OK’s paper yet, and more that even now I am not able to do so in the detail I would like, but briefly, in spite of, or perhaps because of, its detail and clarity, there are are several assumptions in it which do not stand up to scrutiny. I can only deal with a few here, and even then I must ask readers to check my sources for themselves rather than have everything laid out for them.
1) The halftone effect is largely a myth.
OK’s attempt to demonstrate the representation of the halftone effect on the Shroud is made using a scanned halftone image from the cover of a book. Actually even that doesn’t work very well, but it is hardly surprising that a halftone image has a halftone histogram. Now look at Mark Evans’ micrographs side by side. In spite of different exposure and development, it is clear that the individual fibres on the darker parts of the Shroud image are darker than the individual fibres on the lighter parts of the image. The idea that all the coloured fibres are the same colour, and that the darkness of the image is achieved simply by massing more of them together is quite simply wrong. But don’t rely on me, check it for yourself by screengrabbing the micrographs from Shroud Scope and laying them side by side on a Word document or something similar. The differences are obvious.
2) The ‘banding’ between the cheeks and the hair is largely a myth.
OK claims that there are two bands of lighter warp threads on either side of the face, and removes them with some digital manipulation to achieve his wider and more ‘realistic’ image. I invite the reader to try to track these light warp bands upwards and downwards beyond the extent of the Shroud face. It can’t be done. The two light bands are not a feature of the cloth, but a part of the image, and should not be treated differently by darkening them up.
3) OK’s comparison between my examples of 3D qualities and the Shroud is grotesquely unfair.
In Part 2, Slide about 18, OK places the Shroud and five examples of photos of forward facing faces lit from in front in a single group, and by manipulating ImageJ to suit the Shroud image as best it can, shows that the others are not as satisfactory as the Shroud image in 3D terms. This is disingenuous. Why manipulate all the images using the Shroud’s parameters? They are all differently lit and have different contrasts. If each of the photos is made the best of (as they were in the post where I originally posted them) then it is easy to see that they are at least as good as, or better, than the Shroud image.
That will have to do for now. OK’s paper is excellent in many ways, and is particularly ccommendable for its clarity, detail and references. It is, however, very selective as to its evidence, and few of its conclusions are altogether justified. Do try my ideas out for yourselves, however, before agreeing or disagreeing.
Hello Hugh,
Here is my observation,
The original negatives were made from glass plates 40×50 cm; roughly, 15.75 x 19.7 inches. The plates were a very fine grain orthochromatic film designed for copywork due to it’s exceptional resolving power, high contrast, linear characteristics, visual development inspection and good dynamic range. The second generation negative was made from duplicating the glass plate. I do not know what type of film was used but visually the film was probably the same orthochromatic type used for his original photograph. Using the same type of film to create the negative image to produce a positive print greatly reduced the dynamic range giving the second generation print a “litho look”.
“This image (UPLOADED) was created from the Enrie’s full size enlargement made from the duplicate negative from the original glass plate. I applied noise filter only on the extreme shadows which ranged from 90% to 100% K reading”.
As you can see the image does resemble AM modulation varying in frequency sizes. If you zoom in and out you can see how the different frequency size effects the image. Again, this uploaded image is not from a offset publication scanned, but from the actual Enrie collection of BXW fiber base prints.
IMHO, The problem I see with OK’s work is he demonstrating his 3D hypothesis from a representation captured on silver and not from the actual Shroud.
(SEE IMAGE)
http://www.holyshroudguild.org/ok.html
Yes, Giorgio, your image is a really good one. It is all the more strange, then, that in order to demonstrate the supposed halftone qualities of the Shroud image, OK selected a scan of a halftone print off the cover of a book. I do not know who first proposed the halftone idea, but it is one of those accepted pieces of doctrine which, after a moment’s comparison of actual fibres from image areas (which can only easily be done using Mark Evans’ photos), can be seen to be quite unjustified. The darker areas really do have darker fibres.
Hugh, I’m not sure who started the half tone theory. I know it has been around for many years dating back to 1979 when Fr. Filas used the half tone idea as an artifact (noise) that has to be removed in order to see the Lepton coin.
What I found interesting in both first generation prints (Pos & Neg) from the Enrie’s collection is how the “image” falls off in density abruptly following the uniformity of the herringbone weave. Without the herringbone weave as a substrate, the image would not appear like it is lensing (Based on the photos), which is why the dot patterns appear. This tells me that 3 to 1 herringbone bone weave is very important for the image formation and if any other substrate (smoother in texture) was used, a more continuos tone would have appeared, diminishing the details we see on the Shroud.
I do have in my possession some 35 mm slides of Mark’s close ups that were released to the Guild. Observing them, some densities follow the regression pattern (abrupt fall off in density based on the herringbone weave) seen on the Enrie’s image and some do not. But the problem I have is I don’t have an idea what the markings are. If they are the water stains, I would not expect them to have the same regression as the image formation. And if this is the case, it is possible a substrate (receptor) was added over the shroud to help in the formation. The substrate concentrated on the highest ridges of the weave producing the lensing effect during the image formation.
To answer Charle’s question, Orthochromatic is not relevant to produce the 3d. According to a few color experts I associate with at work, they all agree that the 3d effect has to do with the lensing like appearance of Enrie’s prints.
I forgot to add that I might have came up with different observation if I only use Mark Evans images and never saw the Enrie’s. And this is why in IMHO, relying just on photographs become problematic.
Giorgio, Do you know the ULF camera type and model used by Enrie? Did he use a yellow filter like Pia? Do you have any information regarding the camera lens he used,,e.g, glass or quartz? Enrie removed the glass window from the Shroud case before he took his photos. Do you suspect that his orthochromatic emulsion was exposed to some UV? Thanks for any insight..
R2SB, I do have a list from Aldo Guerreschi as well as the Enrie’s book that does contain important info. I’ll be happy to get you the information.
Give me a few days.
Other myth: linear regression.
There is not any correlation (neither 3,7 or other) that matches with the pictures of the real simulations body-coth. In any position, some portions of the cloth will be in contact with the body (both in front as in the back) that would produce regular areas of intense coloration. And the natural wrinkles produced on the cloth and, accordingly, in the image are nonexistent.
good point David.
Hi Giorgio
Do you think the microphotographs in Turin could provide better information or do we know know very little about what exactly they contain because nothing is known about the process that was used?
Sorry Louis,
I don’t have any knowledge about the microphotographs. Maybe, David Rolfe or Emmanuel can help you get some prudent information about the process.
Speaking only from a “technical point of view”,
I believe should be an interesting contribute
the following intervention:
“FLUORESCENCIA de Rayos X en el Sudario de Oviedo”
by Dr. D. Jesús García Iglesias.
(Excatedrático del Departamento de Explotación y prospección de Minas. Univ. Oviedo. Miembro del EDICES).
Link:
http://convencionces2015.com/programa-eventos-convencion-ces-2015.php#sthash.JXOXZgUx.dpuf
In any case, see also the title of the previous
Conference in USA (10-Oct-2014):
“New Discoveries On The Sudarium Of Oviedo”…
Here an excerpt from the Abstract:
>… we describe the X-ray fluorescence analysis carried
out on the Sudarium and how we found a new fascinating
coincidence with the Shroud.
>Among the chemical elements detected, the most reliable was calcium.
>Being associated to soil dust, it shows a significant
higher presence in the areas with bloody stains.
>This fact allows correlating its distribution with
the anatomical features of the corpse.
>A large excess of calcium is observed close to the tip of the nose.
>It is atypical to find soil dirt in this zone of the anatomy,
but it is just the same zone where a particular presence
of dust was found in the Shroud.
>The detection of very low strontium traces in the
stained areas matches also well with the type of
limestone making up the rock of Calvary in Jerusalem. … …
Link:
http://www.stlouisshroudconference.com/program/new-discoveries-on-the-sudarium-of-oviedo
— — —
>…El lienzo se mantuvo durante el descenso de
la cruz y el cadáver fue puesto boca abajo, por eso
el líquido pulmonar se vierte en gran cantidad sobre él.
>Luego, en el sepulcro, el Sudario fue retirado. …
Rough translation:
… The canvas was maintained during the descent
from the cross and the body was turned upside down,
so the lung fluid is poured into lot about it.
>Then, in the grave, this cloth (= Sudarium) was removed. …
Link:
http://www.lne.es/oviedo/2013/10/15/garcia-iglesias-podremos-demostrar-sudario/1483995.html
— — —
“OK” wrote:
> … The quality is indeed amazing and unexpected.
Yes. I agree on that…
But we have to avoid strange claims.
Here, for example, a first thought that
came in my mind:
It’s an image that I have seen in the book (Chapter one,
Italian edition. I don’t know if it appears in the “translated edition”)
by Fanti and Malfi (defined as “hypothetical image” coming out
from a [rough] settlement) and it’s inherent to the image of the
Face and the cadaveric emissions coming from the area
of mouth and nose…
We already know that Oviedo’s Cloth was put in contact
(or, perhaps, more properly: it was pressed [or tightened]
against the head) on the Face (during/after the Deposition
from the Cross) in order to clean the beloved Face of Jesus
(the Divine Master). Perhaps this fact can pull away (… or,
at least, only in part…) the observation (written by Fanti)
around the bad resolution of the Image (in the case of
“disturbing cadaveric emissions” coming from mouth and nose,
that can ruin/spoil the useful Image resolution), that claim
(by Fanti) can be questioned because some amount of time
(1 hour and half???) had elapsed from the instant of death
and the proper cleaning for the Face of the Corpse under
this famous “Spanish Sudarium”.
Sorry. In origin this message was a only a reply
sent as an answer to the message by Louis
(October 4, 2015 at 9:13 am).
I don’t know what happened…
— * — * —
Here a short message for “OK”.
Well, leaving aside this “noise”,
I can continue and then I remember that one of the things
I observed in 2002 and impressed me was the effect
obtained (probably this fact derives from the vision of
herringbone structure) observing the Holy Shroud
in longitudinal sense… I saw as a sort of accurate straight rails.
In other words, it seems to me that you can try
to improve the attention of your mind on this interesting
fact, perhaps you can improve your work…
— — —
Here another banal orthographic error detected:
“Acurate”
instead of
“accurate”
Slide n. 18 of 19 Part 4
— —
Anyway, your work seems to be interesting.
I hope to find the time to deepen your work.
You hit the nail on the head….
I want to add that I believe the hypotheses about a presumed “survival after crucifixion” (See also: H. Felzmann, Kersten & Gruber, Ahmadiyya sect claims, etc. …) can be rejected and then I believe this “basic problem” was the main reason for the publication of the “hypothetical image of the Face” in the book by Fanti, G. & Malfi, P. Sindone: primo secolo dopo Cristo (Ed. Segno, Udine, Italy, p. 403, 2014), in other words: an exact illustration for the rejection of the idea of bodily survival under that famous linen cloth…
But this idea/concept is a different kind of fact with respect the other assumption:
a more general rejection of cadaveric emission role in “Body Image Formation” process, that is mainly based on presumed effects on linen coming from disturbing/confusing image’s noise happened with emissions of the corpse, coming from the area of mouth and nose… because this second concept (in my opinion) requires more substantial proofs. Instead (until now) there is the lack of these accurate medical proofs!
Moreover we have some interesting images (with resolution not well focused) obtained in the past (= Romanese, Rodante).
Where are the simple comparison experiments?
Thank you OK for your interesting presentation. You are going in the correct direction OK. Today Astronomers get more information about our Universe from images. So image on the Shroud is giving us a lot of information.
My interests go for the Slide 7 of Part 3. I think most probably either possibility of 1 or 2 or the combination of 1 and 2 was the cause for the formation of image on the Shroud of Turin.
My imagination is during the process of Resurrection some sort of radiation emitted from the body of Jesus and that was the reason for the image formation.
Thanks folks for your responses. I will try to adress at least some of the issues raised. Sorry I have little time nowadays to adress all.
piero:
Here a vague example of short bibliographic reference:
“MTF resolution of images obtained without an acquisition system”
by Giulio Fanti and Roberto Basso
http://tinyurl.com/orgjg3x
Thank you for the paper, and a careful orthographic check of my paper. A lot of good papers get lost nowadays in the flood.
Hugh:
3) OK’s comparison between my examples of 3D qualities and the Shroud is grotesquely unfair.
In Part 2, Slide about 18, OK places the Shroud and five examples of photos of forward facing faces lit from in front in a single group, and by manipulating ImageJ to suit the Shroud image as best it can, shows that the others are not as satisfactory as the Shroud image in 3D terms. This is disingenuous. Why manipulate all the images using the Shroud’s parameters?
If you want, try yourself and show us results. I can assure they cannot produce 3D images on the order of accuracy of the Shroud.
2) The ‘banding’ between the cheeks and the hair is largely a myth.
OK claims that there are two bands of lighter warp threads on either side of the face, and removes them with some digital manipulation to achieve his wider and more ‘realistic’ image. I invite the reader to try to track these light warp bands upwards and downwards beyond the extent of the Shroud face. It can’t be done. The two light bands are not a feature of the cloth, but a part of the image, and should not be treated differently by darkening them up.
The bandings on the Shroud are real and evident. See:
http://shroud3d.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/facetransbands2-BARRIE-12.jpg
or http://shroud2000.com/ImageGallery/Set2/027_27.jpg
See also your own paper https://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/banding.pdf The presence of lighter and darker bands is clearly visible on both Durante and Enrie, extending beyond image areas.
Halftone:
Of course the scanned image I used is not perfect, in that it is much overcontrasted. I put it here merely as demonstration. But has a very good spatial resolution, below single threads. Giorgio, that’s why I discourage using jpegs for comparisons (like the one you presented), as they filter out higher frequencies of the image for compression of the data. Thus micro details of the image (like individual threads color) are diluted.
The max practical resolution of the Shroud image is about 0.3 mm -the average Shroud thread diameter. This is the size of a single dot. As I demonstrated, it is easily possible to obtain realistic 3D rendering out of dots image I used, with the use of blurring filters. Without this, you get only a “needle forest” of peaks roughly the same intensity in the place of dots. That’s the halftone. And whether the color intensity of individual fibers is the same everywhere, or varies by a few percent around the cloth, is a secondary issue.
More later.
As a curiosity: magnifications and histograms of several Shroud images:
Enrie, scanned by me from Paul Badde’s book cover, bmp
http://i.imgur.com/mGsRmUD.png
http://i.imgur.com/tTez5mv.jpg
Enrie, presented by Giorgio, jpeg:
http://i.imgur.com/u7pIMsh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/RdHQFAZ.jpg
Durante, obtained from Shroud Scope, saved as bmp:
http://i.imgur.com/AVUHUIk.png
http://i.imgur.com/AszOH5l.jpg
Unfortunately imgur seems to reduce the max resolution of those images. But it is clear that in the case of Durante and Giorgio images, their bad resolution due, due to the compression results in greater greyscale range. The intensity is not concentrated in dots (even though those dots are overcontrasted in case of scanned image -but still printer dots there are far smaller than the size of the threads) but dissolved away to the neighbouring pixels, resulting in various intensity among them.
And here is magnification of Enrie taken from Marion & Courage book:
http://imgur.com/qkcQesE
So let me get this straight, your saying your scan from a litho which is screened has a better resolution than a JEG file because of comparison? And what is the target of the histogram of the Shroud? A regenerated image representation or the Shroud itself? We have no standards. No standards you can’t measure actual. If you do it’s your own interpretation.
Here’s why it is a fallacy to assume what appears to be soft has less resolution.
Photographic unsharp masking
“Simplified principle of unsharp masking
The technique was first used in Germany during the 1930s as a way of increasing the acutance, or apparent resolution, of photographic images.[citation needed]
For the photographic process, a large-format glass plate negative is contact-copied onto a low contrast film or plate to create a positive image. However, the positive copy is made with the copy material in contact with the back of the original, rather than emulsion-to-emulsion, so it is blurred. After processing this blurred positive is replaced in contact with the back of the original negative. When light is passed through both negative and in-register positive (in an enlarger for example), the positive partially cancels some of the information in the negative.
Because the positive has been blurred intentionally, only the low frequency (blurred) information is cancelled. In addition, the mask effectively reduces the dynamic range of the original negative. Thus, if the resulting enlarged image is recorded on contrasty photographic paper, the partial cancellation emphasizes the high spatial frequency (fine detail) information in the original, without loss of highlight or shadow detail. The resulting print appears more acute than one made without the unsharp mask: its acutance is increased”.
I define this definition above, “apparent sharpness”.
Offset prints have a high degree of acutance. I’m assuming the cover that OK used was printed at either 133 dpi or 175. That means there are either 175 or 133 halftone dots in a line per inch. By definition, an offset print at 133 or 175 dpi is far from high resolution.
But in his defense, I believe OK is correct to state that the Shroud acts as a half tone. The results of the half tones do increase the image formation contrast and acutance. If the image mechanism produced a continuous tone, most of the body’s details would be lost.
Hello Ok
I would like to inform the you and the readers that the original file I have is over 1 gig raw RGB scanned. I converted this file only as a jpg to reduce file size for quick access viewing. But just like film scanners too have dynamic ranges and other anomalies. Without standards all we’re doing is evaluating images with different characteristics that leads to additional issues that have to be measured. This anomalies seems to me That it’s never taken into account.
An interesting collection, but none of them demonstrate that the Shroud image is a halftone image, whereas a simple comparison of two Evans photos is sufficient to demonstrate that it is not.
As to the previous post, I stand by my conclusion to my banding paper, which was that the bands on the Shroud are artefacts of the photographic lighting and of the image formation itself, and are not colour differences in the cloth. The transmitted light photos OK shows above are spectacularly irrelevant. The banding they show is firstly as much due to the Holland cloth as to the Shroud (look at how the lateral ‘bands’ continue across the burn patches, where there is no Shroud at all), and secondly is not due to any variation in colour but entirely to the combined thickness of the two cloths at any one point.
And yes, my 3D examples are much better than the Shroud, as I have shown several times on the blog. For what it’s worth, this is from a photo of me!
http://i.imgur.com/T7wZSAQ.png
Beats the Shroud hands down, doesn’t it?
Hugh, haven’t you read my presentation thoroughly? Had you, you would know that I do not accept monocolor perspective images, as they are misleading.
As to the transmitted photographs, as far as I recall they were made when Riggi ripped off a part of the Holland cloth from the Shroud to have a look at the backside of the latter. The lightbulb was placed between Shroud and the Holland, if I recall correctly.
Yes, I know your insistence on the Thermal LUT version, but it doesn’t shows anything more than a simple grey scale, as it merely converts shades of grey into colours. The image above works just as well in both. Like many photos so converted. it is considerably better than the Shroud.
http://i.imgur.com/zIjAgE7.png
The transmitted light photographs at http://shroud2000.com/ImageGallery/Set2/027_27.jpg clearly show that the banding is continuous right though the areas of the burnmark patches, and is therefore an artifact of the Holland cloth. Your recollection that the photos are composites of Riggi’s endoscope device are incorrect.
Clever, Hugh, but good eye would catch several anomalies (“fatal errors”) where face features are wrongly positioned:
http://i.imgur.com/Kdh5SBY.png
Maybe if you paint your whole face white, the results would be better.
The transmitted light photographs at http://shroud2000.com/ImageGallery/Set2/027_27.jpg clearly show that the banding is continuous right though the areas of the burnmark patches, and is therefore an artifact of the Holland cloth.
This does not prove the bandings are not present on the Shroud cloth. Non sequitur.
The bandings are clearly visible on transmitted light, UV, Enrie and 2002 Durante (check your own paper) when the Holland cloth was replaced.
https://shroudstory.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/i8.jpg
Thus they are not artifacts of Holland, nor lighting conditions, nor anything but are really present on the Shroud cloth -and affect (modulate) our perception of the Shroud body image. Whether in active or passive way (that is whether they have theirs role in image formation process) is another issue.
I can but beg to differ.
I do not say that my picture above is a perfect 3D representation of my face. You have spotted that my ears appear to be at the same level as my cheeks, and that the irises and pupils of my eyes are too sunken in, for example. However I do say that my photo is a much better 3D representation of a face than the Shroud is.
Similarly, I do not say that there are no bands on the Shroud. There clearly are. What I do say is that these bands are not bands of differently coloured threads. They are made up of the different shadows of the two different directions of herring bone ribs, of clusters of threads of different thicknesses, particularly at the spines of the herringbone. They do not indicate that the cloth is differently coloured, so that some sort of correction factor needs to be applied to make the image more accurate. All that is needed to observe this is to magnify them using Shroud Scope – or better still Shroud 2.0.
Furthermore, a photo by transmitted light owes rather little to the colour of the cloth itself. Even if every single thread were exactly the same colour, a transmitted light image would still show bands, as the intensity of the transmitted light depends on the thickness of the threads, which vary quite a lot.
It is true that the fact that the Holland cloth is significantly banded (as can been seen by the bands appearing through the patches over the 1532 burn holes) and that those bands are clearly visible through the Shroud as well, does not preclude the possibility that the Shroud is also banded, but it does mean that the transmitted light photos cannot be used as evidence of that supposition.
Finally, regardless of any of the photos or reproduction styles used, the half-tone hypothesis says that no image-bearing fibre on the Shroud image is lighter or darker than any other image-bearing fibre. This is demonstrably untrue, just by looking at them in Mark Evans’ micrographs.
Hello Hugh, I think I am getting what your saying about the image bearing fiber.
You state ” Finally, regardless of any of the photos or reproduction styles used, the half-tone hypothesis says that no image-bearing fibre on the Shroud image is lighter or darker than any other image-bearing fibre. This is demonstrably untrue, just by looking at them in Mark Evans’ micrographs”.
I think I understand what you mean. However, I am considering the absent of image fiber in conjunction with the image fiber as the total summation that makes up the image that gives the appearance of halftones (AM). By the time you scan an image or reproduce an image it will be impossible to maintain the purity of the original dynamic range that will result too a gain in contrast and a loss in the tonal range. This is why the AM (halftone) appearance occurs.
Hugh:
However I do say that my photo is a much better 3D representation of a face than the Shroud is.
Can you justify your view?
imilarly, I do not say that there are no bands on the Shroud. There clearly are. What I do say is that these bands are not bands of differently coloured threads. They are made up of the different shadows of the two different directions of herring bone ribs, of clusters of threads of different thicknesses, particularly at the spines of the herringbone. They do not indicate that the cloth is differently coloured, so that some sort of correction factor needs to be applied to make the image more accurate.
Whatever those bands are, they clearly affect our perception of the Shroud image. In case of the face, if you remove effect of their modulation, you will get much more flat and broader representation of the face. This is what we should have expected from body-cloth vs intensity relation regarding the sheet loosely wrapped around the face scenario.
With bandings modulation applied, the face looks much more face on photography-like, with its illusion of shadowing to create a visually attractive portrait. As you can see from transmitted light photographs, for example, the darker and brighter vertical bands are positioned in exactly right places to make emphasis on protrude, extended nose (due to its higher intensity on negative images), attenuated sides of the cheeks, left hair more intense (forward) than right (to give -a correct -impression of right tilt of the face).
This is very hardly a coincidence!
Finally, regardless of any of the photos or reproduction styles used, the half-tone hypothesis says that no image-bearing fibre on the Shroud image is lighter or darker than any other image-bearing fibre. This is demonstrably untrue, just by looking at them in Mark Evans’ micrographs.
Can you post two most striking examples?
It is very hard to determine whether all image fibres are indeed the same intensity. But this is not so crucial, as the visible structure of the Shroud body image is created at thread level, not fibre level, out of those halftone “dots”, in the places where threads form a herringbone weave. The more colored fibres, the greater dot size, and thus we have a halftone amplitude modulation, which results in image and its apparent 3D.
Hi Hugh I agree the banding has more to do with the deverging weave angles. Not to sure if the image has to do with it though.
Hi Hugh,
Is you face really so flat ? ;-)
More later.
Thibault.
There is an explanation for the banding on the “Definitive Shroud of Turin FAQ” page.
Giorgio:
We have no standards. No standards you can’t measure actual.
I agree, we have no standards. It is because we do not compare actual photographs here, but digital reproductions of photographs, in various file formats and various, unknown parameters. That’s why it is hard to make definite conclusions here about actual parameter values.
That’s why I wrote in Part 1, Slide 5: “Caveat: As the image from the
cover is already set at max contrast, this is not a proof of the
halftone effect of the body image -it is merely a demonstration of
this usually accepted property.”
I would like to inform the you and the readers that the original file I have is over 1 gig raw RGB scanned.
It would be good to share -or at least present some of its fragments (perhaps high magnification) in other formats than jpegs.
Offset prints have a high degree of acutance. I’m assuming the cover that OK used was printed at either 133 dpi or 175. That means there are either 175 or 133 halftone dots in a line per inch. By definition, an offset print at 133 or 175 dpi is far from high resolution.
I think it is a little bit higher. But this is largely irrelevant. As the average Shroud thread diameter is about 0.3 mm or 0.01 inch, the max practical resolution of the Shroud image is about 100 dpi. And if photographs can reach further, this doesn’t matter actually.
But in his defense, I believe OK is correct to state that the Shroud acts as a half tone. The results of the half tones do increase the image formation contrast and acutance. If the image mechanism produced a continuous tone, most of the body’s details would be lost.
And that’s the main and most important conclusion regarding this particular issue, we both agree with. The body image acts as a half tone, which affects 3D rendering.
Here is 3D rendering out of your photo, with 0 smoothing. The “needle forest” is apparent:
http://imgur.com/cBD8xuw
Hello OK
My response
“Offset prints have a high degree of acutance. I’m assuming the cover that OK used was printed at either 133 dpi or 175. That means there are either 175 or 133 halftone dots in a line per inch. By definition, an offset print at 133 or 175 dpi is far from high resolution”
Your response,
“I think it is a little bit higher. But this is largely irrelevant. As the average Shroud thread diameter is about 0.3 mm or 0.01 inch, the max practical resolution of the Shroud image is about 100 dpi. And if photographs can reach further, this doesn’t matter actually”.
It does matter. Lets use your histogram as an example. I would expect a major difference in dynamic ranges when one compares offset reproduction vs continuos tone images. As you recall, fingerprinting has to be done since my image came from a second generation negative scanned from a fiber base print. The second generation negative has lost it’s dynamic range compared to the original negative which I do have also a 1gig scan of. Your image came from a half tone printed book that inherently has much less resolution and dynamic range to any normal photographic process including the second generation print I used. Any comparisons between the two files can’t be done without a standard. Wouldn’t you agree the target has to be the Actual Shroud and if so any reproduction becomes only a representation that simulates correlations but in reality have no relations whats so ever with each other? So at the end of the day, we’re comparing reproductions that have no real relation with the Shroud.
You may be saying that, and the problem is our heuristics in our interpretation is what’s causing the confusion.
As for your halftone hypothesis, I never doubted that. The halftones (AM) from the reproduction is what gives the unique lack of dynamic range causing a lensing effect. I do see lensing effects on many areas of Mark Evans images but the wider dynamic range from his photos makes it harder to distinguish and the water stains will undoubtedly not have any correlation with the actual image making it harder to evaluate.
IMHO, if the imaged substrate was not on the herringbone linen, Dan and I may not be hosting websites about the Shroud.
Giorgio.
The dynamic range is problematic (and actually largely irrelevant here), because each photography would have it different. But the 3D property is intrinsic property of the Shroud’s body image, that is largely irrelevant on exact photography parameters (assuming of course that the photography is not spoiled, and you can get any relevant info out of that).
If you can just reach the individual thread level with your photograph (any photograph), you can reproduce 3D rendering out of it. You can overcontrast, or saturate your image dots (like in my case of book cover picture), but as far as you can see individual threads (so the image is not blurred at the begining like most of the low resolution pictures available in the Internet) on your photograph, you can reproduce (with appropriate smoothing) 3D rendering.
This is due to the halftone, AM of the body image.
IMHO, if the imaged substrate was not on the herringbone linen, Dan and I may not be hosting websites about the Shroud.
Exactly. The weave of the cloth is a substitude for the lack of precise contours.
OK were definitely on the same page. However I do stress that resolving power and dynamic range is extremely important. this is the reason why Hugh and Thibault are misunderstanding what you’re trying to state. When they look at Evans picture they see a very high resolving power and a very wide dynamic range image making it very difficult to interpret the halftone modulation effect. If Evans macro image was captured at the same focal distance in relations to the film size of Enries the severe reduction in the resolving power would reduce the tonality forcing a contract build up that will resemble the AM modulation. We are also in agreement that the herringbone is crucial to the formation of the image So what is your theory on the image mechanism? Or do we have to buy your book.
Ps i’m using speech to text so pardon if there’s typos
Sampath:
My interests go for the Slide 7 of Part 3. I think most probably either possibility of 1 or 2 or the combination of 1 and 2 was the cause for the formation of image on the Shroud of Turin.
Definitely neither 1 nor 2 way of projecting the body image on the cloth. I discussed why not 1 on Slides 22-26. And 2 would result in large, contact like 2D distortions, particularly for the nose area (see leftmost picture on Slide 3).
Mario Latendresse in his paper https://www.academia.edu/9063899/The_Turin_Shroud_Was_Not_Flattened_Before_the_Images_Formed_and_no_Major_Image_Distortions_Necessarily_Occur_from_a_Real_Body wrote
We have also conjectured that the mechanism of projection is probably neither normal to the skin, nor to the sheet, and not really perpendicular to gravity, References
but is probably following the shortest path to the sheet.
and I agree with him that this is most likely way of projection.
“but is probably following the shortest path to the sheet”. – Yes that is a very good assumption.
Thank you OK.
The isometric of Hugh’s mug and Joseph Accetta’s death mask plays havoc with just about everything we ever heard about the Shroud’s 3D encoding. We quickly realize that the notion about some sort of body-cloth distance is the epitome of begging the Circulus in Probando question, “it is so because I think it is so”.
OMG we don’t know jack about 3D and body-cloth distance. Everything done in Padua and Colorado is based on this odd bit of imagination posing as science.
Colin, your delivery maybe in question; however, what you are saying has truth. Since we’re plotting from an actual not the target that’s dependent on resolving power, dynamic range and displacement mapping, you have a point. What I gathered back in 2012 wasn’t the importance of the 3D encoding rather the importance of the herringbone weave. Without it, we have no detailed image.
Funny you mention Circulus, because that’s how I feel about Hugh’s claims that his face images are better than the Shroud’s. If it is, I don’t see it.
That’s alright, David; the question is subjective. To you, and for all I know many others, the image on the left looks more like a 3D representation of a human face than the image on the right. To me, it’s the other way round.
http://i.imgur.com/DrNjT8E.png
In this example, they both look about the same. Yours being brighter. The one you posted above is not as good. Eye of the beholder?
Actually, it is a death mask used by Accetta to illustrate the point that a regular photograph can have the same 3D properties as the shroud. Joe is very much among us.
I don’t think so.
Here you have death mask from Joe Acetta’s paper:
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stlaccettapaper.pdf
http://i.imgur.com/FVQy5sZ.png
And 3D plot:
http://imgur.com/a/L5dUO
Although it may be visually impressive, there are clearly some “fatal errors” which distort the 3D rendering of the face.
Sorry:
http://i.imgur.com/9BjT9HP.jpg
http://www.holyshroudguild.org/uploads/2/7/1/7/2717873/fvqy5sz-1.png
Horizontal Banding, Why?
http://www.holyshroudguild.org/uploads/2/7/1/7/2717873/img_0431.jpg
http://www.holyshroudguild.org/uploads/2/7/1/7/2717873/ok.png
Reflecting on what Diddly Squat stated, at the end of the day, he’s correct.
I would like the viewer first read this quick explanation how we perceive images compared to still images.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm
Now allow me to explain visually by this uploaded file, why I conclude that there is AM modulation on the image formation. I come to this conclusion based on heuristic experience of over 40 years in film and digital industry and still at it. One might think that can be an advantage but in fact that may be my downfall. I am entering this discussion with a preconceived notion why AM modulation exist based on years of experience with film and scan characteristics. However, I can be totally off base because there may be no relationship comparing my work and studies with this hypothesis.
If you observe my reconstruction simulation .png file which is not at all scientific, only being used to visually explain the hypothesis of AM modulation in the image.
Important to note, I used filters and curves to achieve the results of the background images of Dr. McCrone so I can simulate dynamic range and resolving power.
The image is divided in three panels. The first shows a Dr. McCrone macro photograph of the Shroud. The image shows blood on the left side and image formation on the right side. The background simulates the same image photographed (stepped and repeated) at a further distance that would result in a major reduction in resolving power and dynamic range (that is why in my IMHO, any observation must include these factors). The background image is converted to black and white to achieve the lose of dynamic range more easily. The center panel is the same as the left panel only inverted. The Right panel illustrates the mask in halftone, and a scanned positive fiber base print of the Enrie glass plate negative of the nose bridge. If you notice, the Enrie’s image seems softer than the mask image, but I can assure you, the Enrie’s resolution is far greater than the mask. Also very important to note is that the most predominate feature in the AM modulation is not the image but the shadow of the over lapping 3 to 1 threads that combines with the image if the characteristics are correct. So I conclude, based on my own preconceived notion, that the dot by dot body to cloth correlation is flawed, since the cloth is convex and concave.
Giorgio:
So I conclude, based on my own preconceived notion, that the dot by dot body to cloth correlation is flawed, since the cloth is convex and concave.
The dot by dot body-cloth distance correlation makes no sense, because it would create a “needle forest”. You need to get smooth image, by blurring or averaging several neighbouring dots to get some 3D results.
The whole correlation approach is actually flawed, due to several reasons. I briefly analysed them in Part 2 (see Slides 10ff.). The first reason is that merely calculating correlation coefficient is not everything to describe 3D. And another reason is that its value can be biased, depending on the (non-representative) selection of body points taken for account. One weakness of Jackson & Jumper paper is that they took into account only 13 points. While this is enough to show there is some correlation, it still should be treated as preliminary result. Following claims about precise maximum range, for example, should be treated as overstretching of the results, beyond their reliability.
I would like the viewer first read this quick explanation how we perceive images compared to still images.
This show us that while analysing Shroud images, we must eliminate influence of our subjective perception as much as possible. That’s why insist for example on using color scale (‘Thermal LUT’ mode) instead of merely rendering of the 3D shape. The scale is much more objective, although does not guarantee absolute objectivity.
And another thing we should remember -the scale is relative, and not absolute. Uncalibrated. As I mentioned above, there is no max range reliably determined -we can clearly throw out 3.7 cm from Jackson&Jumper based on simple and little accurate linear regression on small sample. To get a reliable value of max range we need to build a model of body shape, determine how the linen wrapped it, determine the body-cloth distances, determine the relative intensity of corresponding areas (not merely points!), and compare the results. And go to the second and further iterations… Extremely laborous work.
But to make things even more complex, there is more. The image is not merely a body-cloth distance map. As I have shown, the intensities of several areas are modulated by bandings, and there are likely other effects at work.
The body image of the Shroud is extremely,/B> sophisticated and complex. Not some kitchen science Joe Nickell, Luigi Garlaschelli or Colin Berry could make. Negative image composed of several halftone dots, amplitude modulated, with isotropic distribution, resulting in apparent 3D effect corresponding to the body shape, with no contours and boundaries, composed of several bundles of surface colored outermost fibers on the surface threads. Add to this operating by bandings modulation, inherent to the cloth due to the diferently bleached yarn batches, for the purpose to give the body figure (and particularly face) a more visuallly attractive apparent look. Incredible mastery.
The fact is that the Shroud body image fools our eyes. It was meant to do so. The body image shows us details (like nose swelling for example), that technically are not there. The Creator of the Shroud plays jokes with our perception. He wants us to perceive the image in appropriate way. He watches whether we resolve His riddles, for example about correct position of the Man’s of the Shroud hair. Whether we are smart enough to play His game.
Diddly Squat:
We quickly realize that the notion about some sort of body-cloth distance is the epitome of begging the Circulus in Probando question, “it is so because I think it is so”.
OMG we don’t know jack about 3D and body-cloth distance. Everything done in Padua and Colorado is based on this odd bit of imagination posing as science.
But in the science 90 % of it is actually such a “Circulus in Probando” approach! And it’s no problem! Had you any experience in this field, you would know that! For example: why there is a periodic shift in radial velocity of a star? Because there is an extrasolar planet in orbit around it! Why there is extrasolar planet around some star? Because there is a periodic shift in radial velocity of that star!…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_spectroscopy
It is what we call a working hypothesis. We assume some explanation of a phenomena, and test its reliabilty, as well as explanatory power. We test also other, alternative hypotheses. If a working hypothesis works, we stick to it, otherwise we adopt some alternative explanation.
In the case of the Shroud and 3D effect, we suppose that there is a relation between image intensity and the distance between the cloth and supposed body wrapped within it. The data show that this is clearly a case, definitly there is such a relation.
But I cannot in absolute manner prove that such relation hasn’t been faked and there has been no body wrapped within a sheet at all. Similalry, I cannot prove in absolute manner that such a periodic shift in a star’s radial velocity is due to the interaction between it and planet(s) orbiting it (and not due to some other effects). All I can do, is to test this hypothesis, and test alternative solutions to the problem.
So far, all attempts to “fake” the body-cloth vs intensity relation of the Shroud, have failed.
OK –In the case of the Shroud and 3D effect, we suppose that there is a relation between image intensity and the distance between the cloth and supposed body wrapped within it.
I am fully agreeing with you OK.
Fair enough. We both agree there is no target. So my questions are, is your look up table depended on the degree of blur the operator applies? Wouldn’t you expect different calibrations from a photograph shot on a 40×60 cm film at 8.17 meter from the target than a 35 mm macro film at a few inches from the target? Did you apply a formula for this calculation in your look up table?
Another confusing element is your certainty that it is bleaching that has caused the banding. How do you explain that the banding appears when the stitches alternate. Are you saying that every time the threads alternate in different directions the threads are from a different lots, or they have been naturally bleached many years later because of the diverging symmetrical angles?
I believe there is so much more to this than we’re anticipating. I certainly don’t want to come across as a nay-sayer. In fact all great discoveries are normally achieved with resistance and skeptics, and I encourage you to continue; with all sincerity. And if we ever get a chance to meet and talk with the comfort of beer, possibly 2 ,3 ……, I’m sure we have more in common about this discussion that is being revealed within these posts.
Giorgio
Hello Giorgio,
My email address is rrsbarnard@verizon.net. When you have a moment and and wish to send the Ernie camera information please use this email address. I may have an idea as to why the image is impacted by the weave direction. .
Hope to hear from you soon,
R2SB
The Shroud Of Turin reveals the true love of Lord Jesus Christ to his people and the nation of God. Lord Jesus wanted us to remain with his precious Image that we as believers can remember forever. I am so proud to see the Holy Face of Our Lord Jesus and this image had increased my faith and assured my salvation.