+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: News (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-25.html)
+--- Thread: [Blog Post] MSI at last! (/thread-4363.html)
RE: MSI at last! - oshfdk - 18-09-2024
I thought the symbols under the ?s were a capital L and a capital N (or maybe M)
RE: MSI at last! - Bernd - 18-09-2024
(18-09-2024, 08:35 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I assume that when Marci was writing, his own alphabet likely included the "j".Does he use "j" in his letters? Do we have any non-latin texts from him? His own name started with "j" but signatures might be a different matter.
(18-09-2024, 05:44 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.the "scribble" seems pretty clearly to be the result of someone writing the same form over and over again. They have written it at least 6 times, and appear to be "practice writing" to perfect the writing of a particular letterWas this a normal scribal practice? Are there similar examples in other contemporary manuscripts? I would assume drawing a large letter over and over is something a pupil learning to write would do. At least I did in primary school.
RE: MSI at last! - LisaFaginDavis - 20-09-2024
Hi, everyone,
You may enjoy this presentation by Roger Easton, who was part of the Project Lazarus team that captured the MSI images in 2014:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
He presents some background on the imaging and provides technical details.
RE: MSI at last! - oshfdk - 25-09-2024
(17-09-2024, 08:19 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Edit: about the A, it is quite similar indeed. If we assume for a moment that this was indeed writing, could it have been A for anno? (And thus perhaps have been followed by numbers).
I've seen a number of An.'s indicating years in the last two days. Some of them have a similar shape. However, it seems to me a bit strange to write anno at the very bottom right of the page and in such huge letters. I've seen quite a few signatures bigger than the squiggle, but I've never seen the metadata (I guess there should be a more appropriate word?) written in huge letters.
Just a random An. for illustration.
RE: MSI at last! - Bernd - 04-11-2025
Which software can read the raw tiffs? All I get is a black image.
RE: MSI at last! - Bluetoes101 - 05-11-2025
(04-11-2025, 10:15 PM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Which software can read the raw tiffs? All I get is a black image.
I just use "windows photo viewer".. though not helpful if not windows
RE: MSI at last! - RobGea - 05-11-2025
Gimp is cross platorm that should do it.
Please excuse me for asking but have you downloaded one of the multispectral ones like
Voynich_71r+MB365UV_007_F.tif because that one is very dark on my windows system
RE: MSI at last! - Bernd - 06-11-2025
Thanks! I assumed this was a software error since all the images appear massively underexposed. How did that happen? Is this a profile issue? I can't imagine the original images were underexposed like that.
RE: MSI at last! - Jorge_Stolfi - 06-11-2025
(05-11-2025, 12:15 AM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Please excuse me for asking but have you downloaded one of the multispectral ones likeVoynich_71r+MB365UV_007_F.tif because that one is very dark on my windows system
Those images were taken with a "technical" camera (which must capture accurate colors), not with a "consumer" camera (which must only look good, at any cost).
Those images are 16-bits-per-pixel, but because of the light levels and/or the camera sensitivity the values in each image range from 0 to some "maxval" limit between 1000 and 4000 or so. Thus, the brightest pixels are less than 4000/65535 = 6% of "white". Which looks like black when viewed with any software designed for "consumer" images. Yet those images have at least 10 times as many gray levels as a common image.
I could not find the parameters of the images, but after a lot of mucking around I am guessing that the pixel values are proportional to physical brightness ("gamma = 1.0" in image processing parlance), and the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. images in particular have the following "white" pixel values>
Code:
# Spectral bands for page 116v1 - revised
# Last edited on 2025-11-05 23:29:21 by stolfi
# Line format:
#
# "{band} {wlen} {illum} {slo} {shi} {wmd} {whi} {vlo} {vhi} {maxval}
#
# See {band_table_funcs.py} for the meaning of these fields.
# See ../00-Notebbok.txt for justifications for the {maxval}
# band wlen illum slo shi wmd whi vlo vhi maxval
# {slo} = peak of histogram of scale patch 0.
# {shi} = peak of histogram of scale patch 5.
#
# {wmd} = 0.99 quantile of grref patch.
# {whi} = 0.99 quantile of whref patch.
# {maxval} = {whi}
MB365UV_007_F 365 0 65 265 1260 2120 55 725 2120
MB450RB_001_F 450 0 83 2225 1250 2373 113 1000 2373
MB470LB_002_F 470 0 83 2253 1263 2380 130 1097 2380
MB505CN_003_F 505 0 85 2337 1315 2465 160 1240 2465
MB535GN_004_F 535 0 85 2380 1365 2523 180 1360 2523
MB570AM_005_F 570 0 80 2250 1340 2425 225 1455 2425
MB625RD_006_F 625 0 80 2185 1305 2330 243 1485 2330
MB700IR_008_F 700 0 85 2040 1233 2180 360 1532 2180
MB735IR_009_F 735 0 93 2023 1233 2163 413 1560 2163
MB780IR_010_F 780 0 100 2055 1235 2190 475 1630 2190
MB870IR_011_F 870 0 110 2075 1297 2210 540 1687 2210
MB940IR_012_F 940 0 127 1993 1273 2125 567 1645 2125
MB365UV_029_F 365 1 20 167 855 1395 47 497 1395
MB450RB_023_F 450 1 67 1867 1115 2050 93 940 2050
MB470LB_024_F 470 1 70 1930 1145 2095 107 1045 2095
MB505CN_025_F 505 1 70 1920 1143 2087 123 1115 2087
MB535GN_026_F 535 1 73 1990 1195 2150 155 1225 2150
MB570AM_027_F 570 1 67 1875 1167 2063 215 1295 2063
MB625RD_028_F 625 1 67 1890 1183 2067 260 1355 2067
MB870IR_030_F 870 1 120 2300 1480 2453 755 1860 2453
MB365UV_037_F 365 2 65 180 855 1505 50 527 1505
MB450RB_031_F 450 2 63 1725 940 1865 90 857 1865
MB470LB_032_F 470 2 60 1690 915 1807 100 910 1807
MB505CN_033_F 505 2 67 1850 1010 1967 125 1087 1967
MB535GN_034_F 535 2 75 2020 1125 2165 160 1270 2165
MB570AM_035_F 570 2 67 1915 1105 2080 315 1355 2080
MB625RD_036_F 625 2 63 1717 985 1830 233 1267 1830
MB870IR_038_F 870 2 125 2300 1435 2507 705 2000 2507
# {whi} = 0.99 quantile of "txref.png"
#
# {maxval} = {whi}
TX450RB_039_F 450 3 0 0 0 2667 150 1470 2667 # 3150 6621
TX535GN_040_F 535 3 0 0 0 1850 10 705 1850 # 2153 1211
TX570AM_041_F 570 3 0 0 0 1800 20 810 1800 # 2137 1194
TX625RD_042_F 625 3 0 0 0 1700 35 805 1700 # 2040 1020
TX700IR_043_F 700 3 0 0 0 2673 145 1495 2673 # 3325 1662
TX780IR_044_F 780 3 0 0 0 3333 215 1945 3333 # 4180 2090
TX870IR_045_F 870 3 0 0 0 2433 203 1485 2433 # 3085 1542
TX940IR_046_F 940 3 0 0 0 1595 170 1005 1595 # 2040 1020Ignore anything after a "#".
The max effective pixel value (maxval) is the last column. (As usual, this horrible bboard software messes up spaces even in code...)
The image I posted had its pixel values scaled from 0-2120 to 0-65535 and then to 0-255 for display.
The "MB" images are taken with light of a relatively narrow range of wavelengths centered on the number after the MB (in nanometers). The three images with the same wavelength are taken with oblique light -- coming from the front and top of the page, from the front and bottom of the page, and with both lights at the same time. From the shadows, it looks that the light is about 45 degrees from vertical, but with a large uncertainty. The "TX" images are taken with transmitted light. There are also "WB" images that may be combinations of various wavelengths, but I haven't looked at those.
Hope it helps, --stolfi
RE: MSI at last! - Bernd - 06-11-2025
(06-11-2025, 03:45 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Those images are 16-bits-per-pixel, but because of the light levels and/or the camera sensitivity the values in each image range from 0 to some "maximal" limit between 1000 and 4000 or so. Thus, the brightest pixels are less than 4000/65535 = 6% of "white". Which looks like black when viewed with any software designed for "consumer" images. Yet those images have at least 10 times as many gray levels as a common image.I understand that - but isn't this a huge waste? 94% of the available tonal range just is not used. It means the image is underexposed about 5 stops and this sensor headroom is wasted. Why not expose the image in a way that the histogram spans most of the range 0-65535? There's the spectralon target which has much higher albedo than the manuscript so there's no danger of blowing out highlights.
Also this is a still image. I understand that within a narrow wavelength band you might not have enough illumination with a moving target where exposure time is limited. But this is not the case here. If I have to push an image ~8 stops to get a decent exposure, then something's not right. And this both induces noise in mid-tones and shadows and reduces dynamic range. This has nothing to do with 'consumer's software. No software can recover the signal-noise ratio of a decently exposed image.
So why? Conservatory issues (exposing the VM to the minimum of light necessary)?But this is negated by the amount of images taken under different angles and wavelengths. I assume whoever made these images knew what he was doing but one should never assume. I learned that the hard way more than once. I still think we could pull significantly more information from a properly exposed UV image with better SNR and dynamic range.