(28-09-2024, 05:48 PM)pfeaster wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What I'm picturing is a split tip that separated progressively into two halves as more pressure was applied to it. I'm also making some assumptions about the strokes used to form each glyph -- i.e., [o] typically seems to have been drawn as two strokes (an [e] plus a second oppositely curved stroke), and not as a single circular motion with an overlap. Higher-resolution images could help disambiguate -- based on the best images I have, I'll concede that the doubled line of the [r] in [dor] could conceivably be a "retrace," although I don't think [r] was ordinarily written that way. The processed MSI images don't clarify this. The raw TIFFs might.
I've cropped a few locations from UB007 MSI (gamma 1.0, black point at 50% since most of the pen strokes are almost white) and from 2014 visible light scans, TIFF versions, trying to keep the scale. To me it looks like the empty space in the downward flourishes of 'y' and 'm' probably has something to do with the tip of the pen, as you wrote. I'm not sure about 'o', to me it looks like this could be either way (stroke overlap or split tip). I'd say 'r' looks more like a retrace. In the tip of the flower both lines are very sharp and clean, to me this looks more like two separate pen strokes, but this is just my intuition that a split tip trace should look a bit messy with no clear point of departure and convergence between two lines, and not symmetrical on both sides as it is in this case.
It's much easier to compare the strokes in the full resolution version: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (3.5MB).