Guthries is even bigger than the image after the clipping mask is removed. And the two ‘dots’ on the right side of the backgroup with the clipping mask do not show up in her ‘photo’.
All three are physically different and can easily be verified by the cross hatch pattern.
But clipping mask was applied to create an 8 1/2 by 11 document. The background is wider. How is this if the original document was only 8 1/2” wide? How or why would a document ‘grow’ by being scanned only then to have clipping mask applied to ‘shrink’ it back to 8 1/2?
It would appear the Xerox machine is filled with magic to do such things.
Here is the substantive part of NBC’s reply to bluecat6:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/bluecat6/
Bluecat6
Posted on August 16, 2013 by NBC
Bluecat6: Guthries is even bigger than the image after the clipping mask is removed. And the two ‘dots’ on the right side of the backgroup with the clipping mask do not show up in her ‘photo’.
NBC: You have to be careful because you are now looking at a document which is scaled based on the distance of the camera. You can calibrate this by measuring a known distance on the PDF or jpeg such as the length of one of the boxes on the LFBC.
Bluecat6: All three are physically different and can easily be verified by the cross hatch pattern.
NBC: That is correct, remember that the Xerox removed 0.12” of borders, which explains why the photographs show more information.
Bluecat6: But clipping mask was applied to create an 8 1/2 by 11 document. The background is wider. How is this if the original document was only 8 1/2” wide? How or why would a document ‘grow’ by being scanned only then to have clipping mask applied to ‘shrink’ it back to 8 1/2?
NBC: It was not the clipping mask, but the edge erase. This has puzzled me a bit as well but if you carefully count the weave marks, you will see that it starts to make sense. Note that the clipping mask does not remove data, it just hides it.