-=> Quoting Ivy Iverson to Patrick Ford <=-
 
 PF> I doubt very much that what you saw was a `computer reconstruction'
 PF> any more  than the pictures on science fiction covers are
 PF> `reconstructions'. In ten  minutes with PhotoShop, I can reconstruct
 PF> the face on the Sphinx to look  exactly like Elvis Presley. Would the
 PF> fact that it was done on a computer  instead of on paper lend it any
 PF> legitimacy? To el cheapo journalists catering  to
 PF> low-level-consciousness type readers it probably would! 
 II> 
 II> Actually, you are half right.  There are two ways of makng computer
 II> reconstructions such as these.  One is, as you say, to use photoshop
 II> or similar image editing software and edit a picture to what YOU think
 II> it MIGHT have looked like when it was new.  I would expect the results
 II> of this method to be found in the National Enquirer, (where
 II> contributors are rumored to be fired for printing ANY facts!).  The
 II> other method, and I believe this was what I saw, was to take careful
 II> measurements of the object to be "reconstructed," calculate the rate
 II> that the surface was worn away, then in the computer, "reverse the
 II> erosion."  As a check, since the erosion rate is known, the process can
 II> be reversed, starting with the "new" object, then eroding it in the
 II> computer to see if it returns to what it is currently.  About the only
 II> thing that can't be reconstructed on the Sphynx is the nose, unless a
 II> profile picture or drawing can be found which showed it before the
 II> damage occured.
 
In fact, according to the National Geographic article I mentioned, there are
pictures of the sphynx and it's nose.
Drawn and carved by ancient Egyptians.
And the "erosion measurements" were based on assumptions of water damage
that has YET to be confirmed.
 
 II> AAMOF, a similar process, (not the same but similar), is used by the
 II> FBI to "age" pictures of people, such as missing children or wanted
 II> persons, to see what they would look like a number of years after the
 II> last known picture was taken.  The results are usually quite accurate. 
 II> The main things that can't be predicted are such personal variables as
 II> hairstyle, glasses and beard.
 
Wanna see the Geographic article, or would that damage another of your
beliefs? 
 
      Ross Sauer    patch@bbs.sts.net    patch@bytehead.com
 
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]
--- TriToss (tm) 1.03 - (Unregistered)
---------------