3D AND THE SHROUD -  testing the three-dimensional effect

The Turin Shroud is the most famous relic in the world. Millions believe that it is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ bearing his crucified and bloodied image. The cloth is kept at Turin in Italy. The cloth is an enigma. Many say it is a miracle.

Believers say the image is not a painting for paintings do not have 3D qualities. This is true - but the exception would be if the painting is two-toned. So the jury is still out.  This one, if it is an artist's work, does try to pose as a contact print but with a twist.  It poses as a sort of vision on the linen.  It is ghostly.  That is meant to trigger people's imagination.  A shameless painting would be nothing special.
 
The claim that the Shroud image is 3D sounds impressive. But 3D is easy with a painting or image that is two toned. The shroud is two-toned. The idea is that if you depict an object in two tones, you make the part of it that is closer to the canvas lighter and progressively make it darker the further away you go. It will look fairly 3D when completed. And when it is scanned, you will be able to get a 3D image using the relevant software.
 
The Status of Research into the Authenticity of the Shroud by Niccolo Caldararo
http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/as/caldararo.html is a good site to read.  This outlines the fact that the computer testing on the Shroud to test the three-dimensional effect is wanting in many respects. Most damning of all is the fact that it is not the Shroud itself that is used in these tests but a picture of the Shroud! The tests boast of finding no brushstrokes on the Shroud though the same tests can find no brushstrokes on Leonardo’s paintings! The fact medieval artists could sometimes paint without drawing the shapes to be painted in so that no lines show up is ignored. The 3D element is plainly far from supernatural because the back image has little of this 3D quality.
 
The three dimensional effect would necessarily come from the image on the cloth getting the lighter the closer it gets to the skin supposing a body was in it. But the fact that there was no body in the shroud can be shown from the fact that this rule is often broken by the shroud. For example, the neck shows up well meaning the cloth would have been pushed down into it but then why is the beard hanging down undisturbed? It was long enough to have been pushed into another position. It should look flat with the cloth pressing against it and should be pushed under the chin but it isn’t. And why does the Shroud tuck into the neck and not touch the legs between the feet and the knees? It should have sunk down. Why does it sink down and touch the hair down past the neck when the hair should have been lying flat down and out of reach? Those who use the three-dimensional evidence to support the Shroud are being selective.
 
The three dimensional elements of the Shroud means nothing more than that the parts of the image that stick out most like the nose and forehead and chest and toes are better imaged for they were possibly closer to the cloth. The three-dimensional aspect of the Shroud has got much exploration from many experts using different computer systems and instruments. Needless to say the results are seldom similar. It depends on how the programs are set. One school will make dramatic claims that another will dispute and on it goes. But the only reliable instrument is the human eye. We can see the three dimensional aspects for ourselves. The problem for shroudies is that anybody at all can make something that has the same effect with pencil and paper. It is a mistake to emphasise the three-dimensionalism because it would only prove at most that the Shroud is a strange picture not that there was a body inside it. The three-dimension aspect is in every photograph and image we have – it is just that it is more obvious in some images. For the Shroud to have the three dimensional effect implies that the Shroud floated flat above the body without touching it to make the image which is very strange. For if it touched the body it would be cleaving into the groves on the body so it wouldn’t make any difference if one part of the body were higher up off the ground than another. The Shroud would be unable to give out such realistic three-dimensional images assuming these tests are trustworthy. The floating could not have happened because the front image of the head and the back image of the head nearly meet in the middle of the cloth so there was not enough cloth for the top to float above the man lying in the Shroud implying there never had been a man in the Shroud. So the front image was made by being suspended over the front of the body without touching it and when that was done they turned the man over to get the back image on. The floating idea suggests the Shroud is not the relic of Jesus but was deliberately created. The strongest evidence, the evidence that we can see and sense, tells us so.

The 3-D analysis is doubtful. The attempt was so disappointing that it was reasoned that it was down to wear and tear and the age of the image. The solution was to combine the result with a 3-D information from a man wrapped in a similar cloth to enhance and to “clarify.” The 3-D imaging was imposed. It is so speculative that it is worthless. It is like touching up a fingerprint to accuse someone of murder.

QUOTE: The above-mentioned property stunned the whole world of Shroud-watchers, but the joy was short-lived. John Dee German, a former member of STURP team and an expert in optical physics eventually made it clear that it is easy to make 2D images which have such 3D qualities. He demonstrated that if the object being photographed is illuminated from the front and if some sort of non-reflective diffusing medium exists between the object and the camera, then the 2D images produced show the same 3D behavior. All the excitement about the uniqueness of the 3D characteristic of the Shroud image died with that.

Quote is from The Shroud of Turin!! Is it Genuine or is it a Forgery? Dr Johnson C Philip, Dr Saneesh Cherian, Edited by Gregory Anderson. Creative Commons. Copyright Philip Communication. First Edition 2014.