observations made to date on the manuscript Humanistic Writing

[Hider]

I managed to put a first image in 17832 x 22596 400ppp and I show you a before and after with the quality increased on the writing.

With such clear edges of the ligatures, it is already possible to accurately state their content.

[pegalac]

I managed to put a first image in 17832 x 22596 400ppp and I show you a before and after with the quality increased on the writing.

With such clear edges of the ligatures, it is already possible to accurately state their content.

By increasing the quality you can see things from another point of view.

[pegalac]

I managed to put a first image in 17832 x 22596 400ppp and I show you a before and after with the quality increased on the writing.

With such clear edges of the ligatures, it is already possible to accurately state their content.

The only problem is that the image is now 157 mb xd 

---

[Hider]

The only problem is that the image is now 157 mb xd 

Nice! Very good!
How do you manage to get sharp edges on a low resolution image?
The size (157 MB) doesn't matter much in this case.

[pegalac]

The only problem is that the image is now 157 mb xd 

Nice! Very good!
How do you manage to get sharp edges on a low resolution image?
The size (157 MB) doesn't matter much in this case.

In fact, you need a really good computer with at least 128 ram and a good 20 GB video card to use ia to improve image quality.

[pegalac]

Let me know if the image quality is good   You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

[R. Sale]

The image on the right certainly appears to be clearer, but the areas of clarification seem to be almost exclusively in the background (which is irrelevant) and I'm hard-pressed to find specific differences in the glyphs themselves. Is there something you have spotted?

[pegalac]

The image on the right certainly appears to be clearer, but the areas of clarification seem to be almost exclusively in the background (which is irrelevant) and I'm hard-pressed to find specific differences in the glyphs themselves. Is there something you have spotted?

Not yet because I'm going to use the images in a python program that will do Natural Language Processing (NLP) and will use comparisons with other scripts thanks to trained Deap learning.

[Aga Tentakulus]

It's nice once you've seen it. But what do you want to achieve with it?
The only thing you can judge now is the fleece behaviour of the ink on the surface of the parchment, given by pores and small folds between the skin flakes. But that has nothing to do with handwriting.

Changes in writing due to mosquito bites?

Remember, the scribe or reader may only have had a cut crystal, reading stone or perhaps already glasses as an aid. Strong enlargements will not help.

[Aga Tentakulus]

   
@Rene
"Dies ch a single character? What about the version with a little hook on top: Eva sh?"

Imagine EVA "ch" means "er", which is quite a common usage. If I cut and turn it, I get "re". That is also a common use.

If I were to look at it in German and consider EVA "ch" as "in", then EVA "sh + M" = "nim" which is quite a common word. So "shc" would also be considered "nie" and Eva "ch" simply "in".
All are often used words.

For the PC. It would never look for an "s=E" because "E" is already occupied by "c".

Small things, big effect. And there are 4 variants and not two.