|Mark 1 "LUWU" method of imprinting from a heated metal template (Linen Underneath, With Underlay)|
|Mark 2 "LOTTO" method of imprinting (Linen On Top, Then Overlay)|
It's now later. Here's a comparison of frontal v dorsal chest/top of back from Shroud Scope at top magnification in both cases, in my favoured high-contrast settings.
|Frontal chest (left) v corresponding dorsal region (top of back etc) on the right.|
I'll repeat the above exercise with Enrie negatives, and if that doesn't yield a result, maybe call in on Turin, pretending to be there to service the air-excluding, argon-preservation unit ("we've discovered a small contamination issue that can be quickly remedied"). More later
Here's a comparison of the Enrie pictures (from Shroud Scope) with added contrast and brightness.
|Enrie frontal TS chest region (left) v corresponding dorsal (top back) right.|
Nope, I still don't see a difference in character. But I'm not rejecting JPJ's observation either, far from it. Maybe it's visible in the pictures that accompanied his 91 paper. Time to take another look.
The online version on the Jones site refers to Figs 1a and 1b.
Maybe it's the quality of reproduction, but as much as I'd like to see the reported difference in image character (mosaics on dorsal side etc) I personally do not. The presence of all those scourge marks, which are not body image but blood we are told, does not help when trying to look body image alone.
Here are two images that are of interest. The first is a brass rubbing of that of an unknown man and wife, the subject of a letter to the Daily Telegraph in Jan 2009
Has anyone ever thought of performing a tone reversal on that image, to get a better idea not only of the 'look' of the original brass template, but of the couple themselves (recalling that viewing human beings as brass replicas does not always do them justice).
Well, I have, and here's the result:
Straightaway, they look more life-like.
How does that image respond in 3D-enhancement programs?
Purpose of exercise: medieval (and modern folk too) are quite happy to take their brass rubbings, and see them for what they are - negative replicas that have an unusual quality, no longer life-like, but interestingly different. Few if any will feel a need to do what I have just done, using 20th/21st century technology, simply to get more life-like images of the original subjects.
Have just reported this little exercise as a comment on shroudstory.com:
See my earlier postings on the matter of the neck region.
Here's a summary diagram, redone with some (hopefully) clearer labels:
Update: 28 July In a long and some might think excessively wordy posting by Yannick Clement on shroudstory.com we learn that Raymond Rogers also acknowledged that the dorsal side image had more of a 'contact character'. It will take a while to negotiate the many prolix passages to find the key sentences, a task I do not relish. For now I'm simply flagging up the new find. Please be patient
Update: July 29 pm
I've just been given a mild reprimand (yet again) for changing the subject on my blog through use of addendums.
To reiterate: this is my blog, my space, and it's not for other bloggers to act as style police.
The blogger in question has in fact ignored the main content of this posting, the one in the title (LOTTO v LUWU) and chosen to nitpick on a detail of the brass-rubbing addendum. My crime: to make mention of processing the image by tone inversion then 3D-engancement in Image J. I've failed I'm told to demonstrate that the 3D step produced 3D enhancement.
Correct. I never said it did. I simply showed the result after each of the two steps, and invited my readers to form their own judgement. In fact there is a small difference in the 'post 3D' image - i.e. shadiing effects that make the image less like a cartoon, clothing especially, faces too if one looks closely, more like a portrait, BUT I DID NOT SAY THAT. I simply left it at saying that the processed images were more 'life-like' and used that term immediately after the tone-inversion alone.
That site is becoming increasingly vexatious, especially for its constant attempts to trip me up on matters of pettifogging detail, and its systematic attempts to draw attention away from the main content and conclusions.
I shall be giving that dreary lacklustre site a miss from a while, having several ideas in the pipeline that I want to post here. I shan't bother to see how they have been subsequently mushed on that site, as indeed they will.