When I was asked for the settings I used I posted them. You persist in using settings that I did not use.
Now to prevent you from making a complete idiot of yourself in public, try this: take an image such as the x-ray, find settings that give a reasonable 3D effect, and then vary only the angle. That is my methodology in all of the examples I have posted. Anything else is just stupidity.
What you refuse to accept is that despite all the technobabble, all of these renderings are false 3D. They are just interpreting density gradients as depth. There is no guarantee that the interpretation of depth represents anything real.
There is a clue to be found, however, when you discover that a good looking interpretation goes kablooey due to changing the angle control, that the gradients in the original image were the result of incident light.
If you are so stupid to start with an interpretation that doesn’t look 3D, there is no point in playing with the angle.
Now, I have done what grey whiskers asked me to do. I published a series of images showing the effect of varying the angle. How about if you do something for me. Select an image, fiddle with it to make a plausible interpretation, then rotate the angle and show us the results.
That isn't what I asked you to do.
This is a cut and paste of my text, the first time I asked you to do something, in post #255 (italics done by me, right now):
Tell you what. Give us the image in #252, and a link to the original image you fed into photoshop to get that image, and the version of photoshop you used. Then tell us the exact angle you fed in, and let other people try using all that information and the original photo, if they can produce the image you did in #252.
This is a cut and paste of my text, the next time I asked you to do something, in the repeated post #256-257 (again, italics mine just now):
Which is just why he is so suspicious of your image in #252. Can you give a test image (say of Barack Obama, since nobody on this thread is a fan of his), and tell us the settings on the filter you used to get the picture in #252, and we can see what Obama looks like under the artefact of the Photoshop filter?
So, let's identify which posts since 256 and 257 are yours. I see 258 as yours where you posted what looks to my tired old eyes to be the same as post 252. And you posted the following photoshop changes and photos in order:
1) Photoshop auto levels and convert from color to grayscale.
2) Photoshop emboss, angle 125, height 30, amount 150
3) Photoshop emboss, angle -90, height 30, amount 150
4) Photoshop emboss, angle 180, height 30, amount 150
Sword, in 258, you posted something like (italics mine):
JS, Here is proof that your offset is way too large to produce anything resembling the quasi-3D image the technique will produce. As anyone can easily see, you have offset the image far too much. The yellow arrows show the neck crease, the Green, Blue, Tan and Red are blood stains... and the corresponding colors on the non-manipulated 3D image to the same landmarks.
You set the angle to ~18º (I measured it) but the offset is, as I said, not the small offset required by this techique, but rather a gross offset that places unlike objects on top unrelated landmarks.
The problem here is I don't see anything in either JS's post 250 or Sword's 258 which explicity mentions which offsets were used for which picture.
But then we get to Swordmaker's #262 which he links together the angle, the offset, and the picture, for a series of pictures varying the offset.
And in #264 he does the same for Obama.
And in #267 for the pelvic X-ray.
In your post #268, you turned this into the following (again, italics mine right now):
Now, I have done what grey whiskers asked me to do. I published a series of images showing the effect of varying the angle. How about if you do something for me. Select an image, fiddle with it to make a plausible interpretation, then rotate the angle and show us the results.
That isn't what I asked. I asked for *all* the settings.
Swordmaker explicitly showed, for three different photos of three different subjects, from three different sources, that playing with a photoshop parameter *besides* the angle can screw up the image: and in fact can screw it up in the same way as your photo from #252.
Your response was to misquote me and ignore the one parameter which makes all the difference, and then claim that Swordmaker is stupid for using that parameter at all.
The problem is, the 3-D effect you claim is present, varying only the angle, doesn't look so good when the offset is screwed around with.
The reason Swordmaker varies the offset, is not to confuse the issue over the angle, but because he couldn't duplicate YOUR first picture from #252 in any other way.
So for you to claim that "take an image such as the x-ray, find settings that give a reasonable 3D effect, and then vary only the angle. That is my methodology in all of the examples I have posted. Anything else is just stupidity." is in fact a damning indictment of yourself.
Next point.
What you refuse to accept is that despite all the technobabble, all of these renderings are false 3D. They are just interpreting density gradients as depth. There is no guarantee that the interpretation of depth represents anything real.
That is a lie, which I covered extensively BEFORE any of the photos were posted, in #237 and #251.
Real physical interactions of light are physically responsible for gradations of density in an X-ray; and by analogy, if the image is the result of a consistent physical process, and that process is at all dependent on distance (say a temperature or concentration gradient), then the image will reflect real physical information.
A picture will mimic certain features of the physical information, but attempting to extract the information will result in inhomogeneities, artefacts, and things just plain out of scale.
Look at the Obama pictures which are pseudo-3D. They look like a coin, and not a true 3-D depiction of a human face with depth to scale.
Compare that to Diamond's image of the face on the Shroud.
Real 3-D information, not a trompe d'oeil where the brain processes the image, notes similarities, and infers things that aren't there.
Cheers!