If they actually used the existing scans (which we have access to), then there will be no additional information to be gleaned from this facsimile. If anything, any differences with the scans will be unreliable distortions.
(Of course, this is not the case if they made new pictures of the manuscript for this facsimile, but this scenario sounds unlikely).
(22-10-2022, 06:53 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If they actually used the existing scans (which we have access to), then there will be no additional information to be gleaned from this facsimile. If anything, any differences with the scans will be unreliable distortions.
(Of course, this is not the case if they made new pictures of the manuscript for this facsimile, but this scenario sounds unlikely).
I agree, of course. But still... That part is not too clear in all three versions (new Beinecke's oneand both Ros files in Jason Davies's viewer). They all contain much of noise. Unfortunately. The view under the new angle made me see that a little elsewise. Maybe, this is a reason. Anyway, I'd like to take a look at it in a high quality printed version.
I will show my new supposition later.