[split] Jorge's Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings

[Jorge_Stolfi]

For me nothing changes substantially whether the drawings are mostly original or heavily altered.

Indeed, if true, the MRT would  little impact on the analysis of the text.  In any case we must assume that the transcription contains a certain fraction of errors.  If the MRT is true, then any  analysis that depend on counting weirdos or tracking specific ones would have to consider the possibility that each weirdo may be a retracing error.

However, if the MRT turns out to be true, all handwriting wouldl be invalidated, because  many of the details of plumes and as that are used to distinguish the "hands"  will be attributes of the Retracer(s) rather than of the original Scribe.

There is a Sparse version of the Retracing Theory (SRT), that omits the global restoration pass (Rt1) but keeps the subsequent retouching pass(es) (Rt2 and others).  In particular, it keep the figure of the Boobs Retracer.  Even the SRT could invalidate the handwriting analysis, depending on how many Rt2 glyphs were used in it.

And the MRT (or even the SRT) being confirmed could have a big impact on some analyses of the figures. I believe that many figure details -- like the blue petals of f49r, objects held by the Bio nymphs, the "Habsburg" crown, and maybe even the Ghibelline merlons of the big fold-out -- were added by the Boobs Retracer or other Rt2.

However, many examples I've been shown of "obvious retracing in images" seem consistent with the artist using another much finer tool for parts of the images that require higher precision. Whether it was the same artist or a different one, I don't know.

I don't see this, sorry.  The darker thicker parts of the outlines, which often cover "random" parts of thinner and lighter traces, often make no sense.  Check this clip of f48v:
   
As I see it, the original Scribe understood this part of the figure as two flowers growing out of a circle of leaves, each with its separate calyx (unpainted) and corolla (now blue).  Note that there is the tip of a background leaf showing in the gap between the two calyxes.   The retracing passes. reinforced the left outline of the left calyx (K,Q) and the right outline of right calyx (L,R), leaving the other two outlines (B) unchanged, as if the flowers also had a shared or fused corolla.  Why would the original Scribe himself do that?

By the way, note an instance of (very) imperfect tracing where the original tip of the sepal © was retraced a 

There can be many possible explanations of these dark glyphs: 
- ink defects. For example, gooey droplets of dark ink suspended in lighter ink

If this was the case, we would expect the dark strokes to be distributed much more irregularly, with many more transitions between light and dark occurring at random points in the middle of a stroke.  Instead were mostly see whole glyphs traced in darker ink.  The few cases of transition within a glyph generally occur in larger glyphs, or (more rarely) between whole strokes of the same glyph, like the left and right  of an a of Ch.

- bad vellum surface.

The same objection above applies here too. Moreover, we should see many more cases of dark glyphs vertically adjacent across consecutive lines.  While those cases exist, they are rather rare.

[/quote]- out of order writing. For example, grille based ciphers[/quote]
If true, this would be a huge discovery for those who are trying to crack the "cipher" or prove that it is gibberish.

But it seems very unlikely too. Consider the first qo in that clip.  The o is practically obligatory after a q.  How could the "grille method" say "leave a space after a q to be filled later with a glyph to be determined"?

And, again, it would be sheer insanity to run any encryption method with output directly to vellum.  The author would surely have written a draft on paper first, in whatever order he wanted, and then this draft would be transcribed mechanically to vellum.  From left to right, line by line, without leaving spaces to be filled later...

The simplest explanation is that those dark glyphs were retraced some time (minutes or centuries) after they were first written.  Maybe by the original Scribe, to straighten a glyph that came out malformed or too faint.  Maybe by a later Retracer, because it was too faint. Either way, those dark glyphs are good evidence that perfect retracing is quite possible.

I find each of these three possible explanations substantially more believable than the invisible retracer one.

Well, the Author and the original Scribe are invisible too.  But you do believe in them, right? 

All the best, --stolfi