(06-06-2025, 01:51 PM)Jorge_Stolfi wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Sorry, how come? In the last three examples, the original (valid) glyphs can be seen under the (invalid) retraced ones. They are very faint (and that would explain why they were retraced), but are definitely there.
In each of the first two examples, the original trace cannot be seen under the darker stroke, but it is there before and after it. Whether the original had a gap there or not, it it is obvious that the dark stroke was penned only after the whole nymph was outlined.
Unfortunately I still can't see anything definite. In the image below the top is a screenshot from your post, the bottom are (what I think) the corresponding parts from the TIFF, with the curves correction set to try boosting faint lines. I tried not to cut any blacks or whites, set the black to the darkest part and white to the brightest pixel and then use gamma to make it darker.
I can see that the tip of the weird e glyph in y keeody wasn't very visible and that the plumes of r and n were very faint, but it still looks like a single character written once and not a retracing, but that's about it. Could you maybe mark on these images the specific lines that you see? There appears to be some kind of barely noticeable faint outlines around all dark strokes, but these are very uniform in width, so probably it's due to minor chromatic aberration or post-processing effects.