Shroud Scope 10: my very own gallery of 20 close-up views of the Shroud – all lightly photo-edited for optimised colour-differentiation

Note added October 7, 2016

This posting from some 4 years ago is one of my most visited, and indeed I use it myself quite often when needing, as is often the case, to differentiate between blood and body image . (Elsewhere I have speculated on reasons why Mario Latendresse’s Shroud Scope image looks essentially monochrome –  dare one say ‘washed-out’- which I attribute to someone having decreased image contrast, which Mario himself denies). However, the main reason for adding this preamble is to flag up my final model for the Shroud image. I believe it to be of  medieval provenance, consistent with the radiocarbon dating (1260-1390), one produced by imprinting a whole man’s body onto wet linen using a simple but ingenious imprinting medium – vegetable oil and flour. (The subject is first smeared with oil, then dusted with white flour, then has wet linen pressed against his body contours). Here’s a recent result, using a 1/12th human scale plastic toy as subject, before and after 3D-rendering in ImageJ.

galaxy-warrior-before-and-after-3d

Centre: Galaxy Warrior, approx 15cm high. Left: flour/oil imprint of warrior onto wet linen, then  gently oven-roasted to 200 degrees C. Right: tone-reversed, i.e. ‘positive’, 3D-rendered imprint (ImageJ).

I’ll add an image of my hand later to show the method works with human skin, at least in principle. My wife has been spared the sight of  naked male volunteers wandering round our living quarters thus far.

Here’s the original posting from 2012:

These images were all obtained using Shroud Scope, with subsequent colour enhancement in MS Picture Manager using the brightness/contrast adjustment ONLY.

In other words, no new colour bias was introduced, except through a standardised re-processing of the existing RGB values (see my previous post for details of how the optimised  and STANDARDIZED settings were selected). No wisecracks please about rose-tinted spoectacles, even if the piccies do all have a rosey hue (which helps to differentiate blood from body image   – or maybe just a side-effect).

I will insert the pictures first, and then add captions later at leisure.  Most if not all should be instantly recognizable by those familiar with the Shroud image.

I am deliberately keeping this post free of my own interpretation aka deeply biased misjudgements, its purpose being to serve as a neutral resource for everyone’s use.

Image

Fig. 1  TS head.  Needs no explanation

Click on any image to enlarge

Image

Fig.2: Eyes, brow ridge and nose. A handy image for comparing blood stains on image-free area (top left) and eyebrow.

.

Image

Fig 3: Epsilon-shaped (‘reversed 3’) blood stain above subject’s right eye.

.

Image

Fig.4: Region between nose and chin

.

Image

Fig.5: Chin region

.

Image

Fig.6: Bloodstains in hair at top right of subject’s head

.

Image

Fig.7:  Question mark-shaped bloodstain in vertical hair on left of head

..

Image

Fig.8: Another bloodstain on hair, left side of head, crease in linen

.

Image

Fig.9: Top of head

Fig.10: Dorsal view of head with bloodstains

.

Image

Fig.11:  Right eye. What is often interpreted as junction between eye lids (“closed eye”) is in fact an irregularity in the weave that extends beyond the eye area.

Image

Fig.12: Blood on right wrist. Maybe you can spot the nail wound, maybe not.

Fig.13: Problematical foot region, frontal view, with large bloodstain

.

Image

Fig.14: Blood patch, left side of torso, adjacent to 1532 burn hole. Spear wound?

.

Image

Fig.15: Top of right forearm

.

Fig.16: Left forearm

.

Image

Fig.17: Bloodstains, feet, dorsal view

Image

Fig.18: Bloodstains, dorsal view, small of back

18 images displayed so far. Two more still to be added for a nice round 20.

Now for the last two:

Fig.19: Scourge marks on back

And finally:

Fig.20: close-up of crossed hands

Technical postscript: all these pictures were obtained by loading Shroud Scope images into Microsoft Office Picture Manager, and resetting brightness/contrast/midrange values to -7/100/15 respectively.

Here is the process stepwise, going from default (0,0,0) to (0,100,0) to (-7,100,0) to (-7,100,15)

Fig. 21:  Stepwise photo-editing from default setting to maximum contrast, then slightly decreased brightness, and then a modest increase in mid-range tones.

In other words, the major difference between these and the default-setting Shroud Scope images is down to use here of maximum contrast, the first step above, the rest being fine-tuning. Simply raising contrast to maximum setting  reveals, unexpectedly perhaps,  cryptic encoded information on colour differences between, say, skin, hair, blood etc. One might almost say that my off-the-shelf photo-editing package does for colour what ImageJ and other 3D-effect software (VP-8* etc) do for encoded information on topological relief, real or apparent. See my previous posting, Shroud Scope 9 in this series, for some more background.

Postscript added 12 Nov 2012: here’s another view of those crossed hands.

Fig. 22: Crossed hands, adjusted brightness and contrast (-7,100,15)

Would readers agree (one in particular!) that there is clear evidence of “tenting”, i.e. the linen has failed to make contact with those parts of the torso (notably the abdomen) that are in the vicinity of the crossed hands. What’s more there is evidence of tenting in the region where one hand crosses over another.

Fig. 23: Note pale zone immediately below the upper of the two hands. Tenting?

Update: 8th March 2017 (yup, not far short of 5 years since this posting!)

I’ve stumbled on an amazing image filter called ‘Zeke’ – a recent addition to Windows 10.

Rather than try to explain what it does (that can come later) let’s display some before-and-after Zeke results first, to allow you, dear reader, to judge for yourself.

First, let me say that I had re-enlisted onto the International Skeptics Forum site a week or so ago (it was formerly the James Randi Skeptics Forum) with a view to getting my current Model 10 (flour-imprinting) more widely known.

So here’s how my first release of the Zeke finding appeared on the internet:

zeke first post skeptics forum 5 march 17 meccanoman

Here’s a link to the comment in question (to save having to strain one’s eyes):

Let’s now patiently take each of the first 20  contrast-enhanced images in this posting, and show them before-v-after Windows 10 Zeke.

Here’s Fig 1 for starters. More will follow in due course:

Fig 1 pre post zeke

Fig. 1 from earlier, before v after applying Zeke filter.

Note the accentuation of PARTICULATE material on both body image and blood without, I repeat, WITHOUT  introduction of artefacts!!!!

Fig 2 pre post zeke

Fig.2, before v after Zeke filter

fig 3 pre post zeke

Fig.3, before v after Zeke filter

fig 4 pre post zeke

Fig.4, before v after Zeke filter

…..

fig 5 pre post zeke

Fig.5, before v after Zeke filter

…….

Fig 6 pre and post zeke

Fig 6, before v after Zeke filter

……….

fig 7 pre post zeke

Fig 7, before v after Zeke filter

…….

fig 8 pre post zeke

Fig 8: before v after Zeke filter

……

fig 9 pre post zeke

Fig 9: before v after Zeke filter

…..

fig 10 pre post zeke

Fig 10: before v after Zeke filter

…..

fig 11 pre post zeke

Fig.11: before v after Zeke filter

fig 12 pre post zeke

Fig 12: before v after Zeke filter

….

fig 13 pre post zeke

Fig.13: before v after Zeke filter

fig 14 pre post zeke

Fig.14: before v after Zeke filter

…….

fig 15 pre post zeke

Fig.15: before v after Zeke filter

….

fig 16 pre post zeke

Fig.16: before v after Zeke filter

fig 17 pre post zeke

Fig 17: before v after Zeke filter

fig 18 pre post zeke

Fig.18: before v after Zeke filter

….

fig 19 pre post zeke

Fig.19: before v after Zeke filter

fig 20 pre post zeke

Fig.20: before v after Zeke filter

Update: March 9 2017

Here are two more images, needed here as halfway house for transplanting to another site (details later):

halta pre post zeke

Haltadefinizione “reversed 3” bloodstain forehead, pre v post Zeke filter

scope reversed 3 pre post zeke

Shroud Scope face only vertical image of same reversed 3, pre- and post Zeke

key comparison

blood in hair v body image moustache after scope, ms and zeke

Update 12th March 2017:

 

Here’s an image which will (probably) be the centre point of my next posting, since I suspect it will prove to be a game-changer (after first being overlooked by sindonology, Google e-commerce trade listings – oops, read “search engine”,  etc etc for months, probably years!).

I’m only adding it here since I need a halfway house in order to post to another site (international skeptics forum).

 

best trio composite unlabelled

 

These images were all obtained by inputting a Shroud Scope image into Microsoft Office Picture Manager and adjusting brightness/contrast ONLY.

All 5 controls were used , keeping the first 3 constant, but ringing the changes using  the slider contol on the last two ONLY between 0, 100 and -100! In other words – discrete  adjustment to a very limited range of settings.

 

 

……

 

 

….

Advertisements

About Colin Berry

Retired science bod, previous research interests: phototherapy of neonatal jaundice, membrane influences on microsomal UDP-glucuronyltransferase, defective bilirubin and xenobiotic conjugation and hepatic excretion, dietary fibre and resistant starch.
This entry was posted in Shroud of Turin and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Shroud Scope 10: my very own gallery of 20 close-up views of the Shroud – all lightly photo-edited for optimised colour-differentiation

  1. Adrie says:

    Thanks! It’s interesting.

  2. colinsberry says:

    Thanks Adrie. Even if the Shroud were a hoax/forgery and/or gallows, correction, barbecue humour on the part of the disbanded Templars, it’s a very interesting and infuriatingly elusive hoax/forgery.

  3. About seven years ago I attended a prayer meeting at a catholic church in Abercynon . We were praying the holy rosary, at the end of prayer meeting the holy face of the shroud appeared around the crucifix on the altar. There were ten people present eight were able to see it, two were unable to see it. If you look at the face on the shroud you will notice a cross of light across the forehead and down the nose area. This is exactly where the crucifix also appeared to line up with it in the church.

    • colinsberry says:

      Fascinating. But did all 8 see it simultaneously, or did one say “Hey, do you see what I see”? One always has to factor in impressionability, regardless of whether there’s a real phenomenon there or not. Scientists are as prone as anyone else to seeing what they are supposed to see, provided they look hard enough (or feel left out of things if they can’t) as witnessed by those who rushed to say they too had confirmed ‘cold fusion’ back in the 1980s..

      I love “Magic Eye”. For a long time I thought it was some kind of con, but can still recall vividly the first time one of those in depth 3D images suddenly leapt out the page. Correction – into the page and “behind”. Now that’s not just eery, but totally reproducible, once one has acquired the eye for it.

      • Hello Colin, (I apologize for the late reply). A lady by the name of Helen asked if anyone could see anything on the altar. We all looked, I saw nothing at first, then looking at the crucifix I suddenly saw the face of the shroud appear in soft light form. There was a man by the name of Paul present there and we simultaneously said together, “it’s the face from the shroud of Turin” we all saw it, with the exception of the priest father Michael Cronin and another man. Eight of us witnessed it.
        Roger.

  4. Rospo says:

    Do you know your galaxy man is not a negative, right?

    • Colin Berry says:

      It is actually, since all contact imprints are tone-reversed negatives (the parts that are darkest in tone through being most prominent, thereby making easier contact with the linen, are the ones that by the same token ( prominence – sticking out most) would reflect most light in a photographic positive).

      Are you maybe matching up the darker parts of the imprint with the seemingly darkest parts of the man? Beware: being dark red, all parts of the man tend to look dark in my small-scale photograph. But that wouldn’t be the case in a larger scale photograph where it would be easier to spot small variations in tonal density, especially if the light came in from one side such as to create better shadows.

      • Rospo says:

        Oh, maybe you are right. I’ve been deceived by the color of the puppet which is dark. You should try with a more human like doll. What about the back of the linum? Is the imprint only on superficial layers of the fibers like in the Turin shroud? Before finding your post here I had the idea that maybe the shroud is the result of a chemical process caused by the scented oils they used on corpes in ancient times. The possible combination with special conditions inside the burial place could have triggered this particular reaction, similar to your experiment (there are many examples of weird things happened inside tombs due to particular chemical reactions). Maybe the shroud is not a false, maybe it’s just a singular object. I’m pretty sure that your results can be obtained experimenting with some resin’s oil (myrrh or something similar) and dust (produced by stones?). I think this is a more realistic hypothesis than the fraud idea because if a technique like this was known in the middle ages we would have found traces of it in art for sure. But we know that people like Leonardo or Michelangelo had to use physical models in order to paint the human body in a realistic way. I mean: the use of this technique for artistic purposes It would guarantee more gains than a shroud almost unknown to the vast majority of people. By the way I think the chemical reaction hypothesis is the more realistic.

  5. Colin Berry says:

    Oh, maybe you are right. I’ve been deceived by the color of the puppet which is dark. You should try with a more human like doll.

    No offence, but why get hung up on “positive” versus “negative”? That only became a talking point post Secondo Pia, and the startling results of his doing a negative back to positive tone reversal (phrased in modern post-photography jargon). But I doubt whether the first viewers of the Shroud were at all puzzled by what today we call a negative, or given to lengthy speculation as to how that image was formed. They would simply have recognized it instantly as some kind of “imprint” left by pressing a solid object, correction, person into linen. It would have seemed no more mysterious than a muddy footprint on a clean white floor. It may have taken them a little longer to figure out the nature of the imprinting medium, but blood would have supplied a clue. They would have arrived finally at one answer only – bodily sweat!

    What about the back of the linum?

    There is a a faint reverse -side coloration on my current linen imprinting. It varies from one experiment to another and it’s tricky to pin down the precise reasons why, there being so many variables to consider. I suspect it’s to do with the distance that a hot brown LIQUID cocktail of Maillard products/melanoidins migrates into the fibres via capillary movement between the fibres.

    However, it’s probably not worth spending too much time to that aspect until I get some herringbone weave linen instead of the plain 1:1 I’ve been using thus far. The 3:1 weave of herringbone allows for a longer migration on the contact side before the thread runs through to the opposite non-contact side of the fabric.

    Is the imprint only on superficial layers of the fibers like in the Turin shroud?

    Certainly it’s a relatively few fibres in each thread that are coloured. That much I know by teasing out a single imprinted thread with its 200 of so fibres under the microscope. Teasing out destroys the initial geometry of course, but it seems reasonable to assume that few coloured fibres equates to highly superficial coloration at thread level, though not necessarily at fibre level. It’s a tricky area, and one that has not been properly addressed by other researchers in my view.

    Before finding your post here I had the idea that maybe the shroud is the result of a chemical process caused by the scented oils they used on corpes in ancient times. The possible combination with special conditions inside the burial place could have triggered this particular reaction, similar to your experiment (there are many examples of weird things happened inside tombs due to particular chemical reactions). Maybe the shroud is not a false, maybe it’s just a singular object. I’m pretty sure that your results can be obtained experimenting with some resin’s oil (myrrh or something similar) and dust (produced by stones?).

    You’re entitled of course to hold your pro-authenticity view. For my part I rejected it years ago on two chief grounds. The first is the radiocarbon data which while unsatisfactory from a statistical sampling standpoint seems to me more likely to be closer to 1260 -1390 than 1200-1500 years earlier. The second is the small detail as regards the iconic double head-to-head body image. It never appeared until the Lirey pilgrim’s badge in the same ‘radiocarbon’ ballpark, namely the 1350s. The earlier so-called sightings of the Shroud are never of a two-fold body image that folk quickly interpret as a frontal/dorsal imprint on an up-and-over sheet of linen. Taken with the too-good-to-be-true bloodstains, scourge marks included, I regard a 14th century provenance the default position, and am frankly astonished at the number of folk, yourself included, who still hold to a different view.

    I think this is a more realistic hypothesis than the fraud idea because if a technique like this was known in the middle ages we would have found traces of it in art for sure.

    But it’s not about art, or at any rate mainstream art. It’s about a top-secret forgery (expressed crudely) that had to be a customized one-off. Any loose talk would have resulted in loss of months, probably years of patient development and testing of the simple but entirely novel imprinting technology.

    But we know that people like Leonardo or Michelangelo had to use physical models in order to paint the human body in a realistic way. I mean: the use of this technique for artistic purposes It would guarantee more gains than a shroud almost unknown to the vast majority of people.

    Why are you bringing “painting” into the discussion. The Shroud body image is not painted: nobody can be expected to paint in those negative reversed tones, even if deliberately intending to imitate the appearance of an imprint, and do it so well as to result centuries later in the spectacular effects of tone restoration by Secondo Pia.

    The Shroud body image is/was clearly perceived as a body IMPRINT, so why is it so unreasonable to go one step further – provided one accepts a medieval date of manufacture – and assume that if intended to be seen as an imprint it was decided to was produce it by imprinting (as distinct from free-hand painting). Is imprinting any more difficult in principle than painting? Is it not simpler, requiring no artistic skill, just attention to technical detail. What was difficult was finding an imprinting medium that simulated ancient sweat. I say they found the answer in their kitchen larders – white flour and vegetable oil, with the thermal-processing equipment nearby – a bread baking oven.

    By the way I think the chemical reaction hypothesis is the more realistic.

    Have you done any hands-on experimentation to determine what is “realistic” and what isn’t? I have – 5 years worth no less- and my current flour-imprinting model is the 10th model to be examined in detail! I consider it simple and realistic. Anyone with an hour or two to spare can test it out for themselves in their own home. All they need, as stated, is white flour, vegetable oil, linen and a hot oven, not forgetting plain old soap and water for the final rinse.

    Thanks for your interest. There’s been a dearth of visitors to this site of late. I spend increasing amounts of time on other sites (which shall remain nameless for now!).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s