31-03-2026, 12:32 AM
Ok, after looking at the NSA scan. I'd be a bit more cautious.
It is surprisingly close to the 2004 scan, but appears more flattened. The text in the 2004 scan appears curved downwards, and even more so in Fabrizio's copy. It's amazing how the distance between words and their curvature shift between the NSA and 2004 scan. I think this is more due to wavy parchment than lens distortion. The effect is not as huge as between other scans and hard to see in overlay images. It is much better visualized in videos:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Plant-wise the NSA scan is a very good match for Fabrizio's copy maybe even better than the 2004 scan, yet not perfect. The barely readable text of the NSA copy would also explain some errors, including the fancy gallow serif in the area blacked out. However, I think overall the 2004 scan is a better match for the text.
What does this mean?
I'd revise my assesment that it's highly unlikely Fabrizio's copy was NOT copied from the 2004 scan. I am still convinced it was copied from a projection, but not necessarily from one of the scans we have looked into. The waviness and the downcurve of the last line in Fabrizio's copy as well as word-spaces do not match any known scan so far. I had attributed this to the artist re-writing the text free-hand but looking at the different scans, it may very well have been an extremely faithful copy of the text's position (but not the letters) on a more curved / less flat page of the VM. However the optical setup must have been quite close to the one used in the 2004 scan. So - no idea. Are there any other known images?
It is surprisingly close to the 2004 scan, but appears more flattened. The text in the 2004 scan appears curved downwards, and even more so in Fabrizio's copy. It's amazing how the distance between words and their curvature shift between the NSA and 2004 scan. I think this is more due to wavy parchment than lens distortion. The effect is not as huge as between other scans and hard to see in overlay images. It is much better visualized in videos:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Plant-wise the NSA scan is a very good match for Fabrizio's copy maybe even better than the 2004 scan, yet not perfect. The barely readable text of the NSA copy would also explain some errors, including the fancy gallow serif in the area blacked out. However, I think overall the 2004 scan is a better match for the text.
What does this mean?
I'd revise my assesment that it's highly unlikely Fabrizio's copy was NOT copied from the 2004 scan. I am still convinced it was copied from a projection, but not necessarily from one of the scans we have looked into. The waviness and the downcurve of the last line in Fabrizio's copy as well as word-spaces do not match any known scan so far. I had attributed this to the artist re-writing the text free-hand but looking at the different scans, it may very well have been an extremely faithful copy of the text's position (but not the letters) on a more curved / less flat page of the VM. However the optical setup must have been quite close to the one used in the 2004 scan. So - no idea. Are there any other known images?