Microsoft 3D Builder

3D Builder

I’ve been playing with Microsoft 3D Builder for Windows 10. It recalculates heightmap projections so quickly you can jiggle your mouse or your finger on a touch screen and jiggle the image. That helps with spotting features.

The software is free and apparently only runs on Windows 10.  It took less than two minutes to install and only a few minutes to figure out.  It is designed for preparing images for 3D printing but it works well as a quick visualization program. You can rotate views and change viewing angles by simply dragging the object on the screen.



10 thoughts on “Microsoft 3D Builder”

  1. But the bloodstains in Dan’s graphic (white pinnacles on forehead and hair) responded as well, indeed, arguably better, than the body image to the 3D-rendering software.

    So what earthly use is this latest box of tricks?

    It simply elevates whatever image density it “sees” on the xy plane ‘vertically’ onto an entirely artificial z axis (as indeed does ImageJ).

    It’s time the 3D obsession, hangup (call it what you will) was consigned to the dustbin of history…

    The focus should be on confirming/denying the radiocarbon dating with a repeat visit to Turin, and on chemically identifying the image chromophore (“oxidized cellulose”? Maillard-derived melanoidins?).

    Why bother discussing and digitally-processing a scarcely-visible body image, accompanied by questionable “blood”, when you still don’t know what it is chemically (40 years post STURP and its STERA successor!).

    1. There are fascinating questions about the blood stains. But by questionable “blood”, i guess you question the very nature of the blood stains, which is no longer healthy skepticism if any one had still any doubt about that.

      And we are fortunate to have dr kelly’s take on blood stains in the side bar of this blog for those interested. That’s actual science and raises relevant questions about the blood on the shroud.

  2. They have found nothing about how the image got on the 14 foot piece of linen. They know it was like an x-ray which radiated out from the body. Solve that and you will have made contact with the Lord. Why do skeptics need a housed to fall on them before they believe. The pollen they found on the shroud could only have come from the area of Judea. Christ left an image of his tortured death to tell us something. Try looking for the message.

    1. It’s really a matter of faith, isn’t it? However,when you compare the gospels with the shroud, How Our Lord was beaten and scourged, the picture falls together. Since it is a matter of faith,I feel sorry for those who do not believe.

      1. Hi Mrs. Giansante ,
        I had a look at your Linkedin profile and learned something new , i.e POD (Print on demand). Thanks for that.
        Concerning faith, I consider it to be a byproduct of evolution.

  3. Still on the subject of blood (or “blood”) I did a second posting on the subject of blood, way back in July 2012.

    It makes brief reference to an extraordinary quote attributed to Savoy courtier Antoine de Lalaing in 1503, referring to the (“holy”?) linen having been “tested by fire, boiled in oil, laundered many times”).

    Apart from one aside by Ray Rogers, I know of no one in sindonology who has picked up on on that seemingly bizarre reference to the Linen’s history.

    Yet, armed with my current findings (Model 10, now with plus ink-modelling these last few days of an oh-so-subtle image, lurking largely unseen within the central cores the SCW (at least under bright microscope illumination), only visible clearly in cross-section at cut ends, then all three of those “tests” can be accounted for.

    No, NOT as tests, sorry Antoine, but as garbled references as to how the image was PRODUCED.

    1. Development of a flour imprint using heat from an open FIRE
    (glowing charcoal embers)

    2. Use of OIL as an accompaniment to flour imprint (aiding initial adhesion of flour to skin AND additionally assisting subsequent image development)

    3. Obligatory laundering, not just to to remove loose surface encrustation of the roasted flour imprint, but to wash out the coloration BETWEEN linen fibres, leaving just that pigment that has found its way INSIDE fibres.

    The latter then resists being washed out, leaving a faint coloration visible to the unaided eye, but difficult to discern /make out under the microscope ( given the light-reflecting wrap-around mirror-like properties of the PCW).

    Sindonology has mistaken that oh-so- faint and subtle residual post-laundry coloration for an ultra-superficial chromophore confined to the primary cell wall only. I say wrong. Repeat WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!

    That so-called “confined to the PCW image chromophore” fits the description “chimera” if I’m not mistaken.

    1. PS: Here’s a result I obtained just yesterday, using nothing more than plain linen, Quink blue-black ink and water.

      I consider it goes a long way towards explaining why numerous researchers, failing to do cross-sections, or even looking at 3D cut edges, have been deceived into thinking that the body image is ultra-superficial, confined we are solemnly assured to the PCW.

      No, NOT my largely ignored/derided Model 10 – merely linen, ink and water…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: