OK. Fine. I assumed the examples I already posted would be enough for those who could understand what was going on. I could point out your non-responses to direct questions about things that totally falsify your fraud.
Here you go, starting with the original, embossed every 18º, Height = 15 pixels, Opacity amount = 103%:
The effect of CHANGING ANGLES on the Pseudo-3D effect on the Shroud of Turin
Is that granular enough for you, or do I have to do it every 10º or every 1º? The fact is, JS, that your assertion is just flat WRONG. Period.
Now, let's do a similar experiment with changing the offsets to 1, 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, and 100 pixels.
The effect of CHANGING OFFSET on the pseudo-3D effect on the Shroud of Turin
And this is proof that you perpetrated a FRAUD on the readers of this thread. The picture you posted had the offset set to somewhere between 60 and 75 pixels.
That is the ONLY way that you can create this blurry, distorted mess you needed to try to prove your assertion.
Incidentally, JS, I am far from "stupid" nor can I be easily fooled.
You can take off your mask, now, Mr. Biden.
Gov. Palin has offered you a safe conduct if you leave quietly.
...or are you intending to begin channeling The Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail?
To the rest of you:
You have just seen an example of WHY transparent peer-review is so important.
Cheers!
The only way I can see at present that js1138 was being truthful when he said the only parameter he changed is the angle, is the possibility that he might have a different version of Photoshop, and that the respective versions might have different controls for the offset. That might sound farfetched, but since I don't have Photoshop, it would be helpful to see a screenshot of Swordmakers's version of Photoshop version and of js1138's version of Photoshop.
Cordially,