In fact the computer merely scans the digitized image for light and dark regions, and then "raises" the light and "lowers" the dark to create a 3D relief.
Yes, we are told that ordinary photographs and paintings do not respond in this fashion, but the fact that the 1532 burn marks do should be sufficient to show that there is nothing unique about the image of the crucified man. Anything, late-acquired burn marks included, that gives tonal contrast is interpreted as differences in relief and displayed accordingly. There may well be intensity differences that are related to 3D properties in the original image, but they are not selectively processed, nor does the computer tell you anything about how the image was formed on the cloth (beware explanatory diagrams that show a sheet of linen held above a picture of a crucified man, suggesting projection across space with no lens or other imaging system shown).
In fact there are many aspects of the Shroud image that are hyped in my view, often misleadingly so as to suggest paranormal phenomena, and others that are strangely overlooked, or at any rate, rarely commented upon.
A particular one that bothers me right now is the size disparity between the ventral (front) and dorsal (rear) image.Why should there be a size disparity if the v&d images on the shroud are from the same subject or representation thereof?
Here's one picture that accompanied a Daily Mail article that made the point well, but was strangely not commented upon in the article:
But it does not end there. I have been told to go and consult a "real science" paper ("15 pages" no less, as if papers were judged by their length), and in case I fail to do as told, there is a diagram from the paper, showing how a computer analysis of the front and rear images reveals that the two are "superimposable" (sic) and entirely "consistent" (the term was in fact "compatible", but let's not quibble over semantics. Either way I have been told by a science teacher to go back to school. (I used to be a science teacher myself once - to A-Level and beyond, but never mind).
Well, what do you know? The two images are "superimposable", provided you line up at the head end, and overlook the small matter of the feet being in different places. So how was that conjuring trick performed, in such a way that a 7cm difference in length vanishes? Was it a muscular spasm in a supposed cadaver that kept the toes extended when measuring the dorsal length but conveniently turns them up when measuring up the ventral?
It's achieved my friends with computer "re-imaging" of course, and as always where computers are concerned, one has to look carefully at each and every assumption that is programmed in if one is to avoid the dreaded "GIGO" syndrome that so afflicts the world of megabyte jiggerypokery.
Let's do that, shall we? Let's go through that paper with a toothcomb, and see how the conjuring trick was performed that either adds 7 cm to one length or subtracts it from the other (take your pick). Or does it add 3.5 cm to one length, and subtract it from the other? Anything to do with the paper in question is in blue.
Computerized anthropometric analysis of the Man of the Turin Shroud
"Till now, the studies carried out have been based on more or less subjective hypotheses
admitted also in consequence of the thesis that the various authors tried to show: some
researchers favourable to the authenticity of the Shroud are inclined to provide the lowest
values for the height, while those who are anti-authenticity are inclined to provide the highest
Ah, we are still in the Results section and you are starting to question the objectivity of others. Should you not be keeping that for Discussion. You would not have been allowed to get away with that when I refereed papers for the Biochemical Journal etc. And lo and behold there is a red exclamation mark against the yellow security "padlock" icon that says "Beware. contains unauthenticated content". Surely not. This paper came recommended from a school science teacher as "real science", 15 pages no less, and we are still only at page 2.
This is not science. This is merely religious apologia masquerading as science.
It may be good enough to fool a particular science teacher cum internet-busybody, the one who held it up as "real science". But it does not fool this retired researcher science bod, one who actually reads and evaluates papers first, instead of using them as weapons with which to browbeat total strangers on the internet... :-(