The Tangled Web: CGG's scan under the microscope.

[Joanna]

I volunteered to post this because I am not currently buying or selling comics, have nothing to slab, and therefore nothing to gain or lose in this debate. Some members of the forum have taken the scan provided by CGG and have done a careful analysis. The following is a side by side comparison between the CGG ASM scan and a known copy of the book.

 

In each jpeg you will find a split screen of two images. The image on the left is the one that CGG posted of the book in question. The image on the right is another book that shows the correct lineart for the area in question.

 

Each picture has an area circled. Look inside the circle to see the black lineart from the book. The lineart in the CGG picture is not correct for this book. There is missing lineart. It was cloned to make the book appear untrimmed.

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

[lighthouse]

[sterlingcomics]

ok, since everyone else is doing it...

[Mephisto]

 

Each picture has an area circled. Look inside the circle to see the black lineart from the book. The lineart in the CGG picture is not correct for this book. There is missing lineart. It was cloned to make the book appear untrimmed.

 

 

So what you are saying is that a clone will once again be the down fall of the comic collecting community?

[supapimp]

[THE_BEYONDER]

PAGING CGG.....PAGING CGG.....

[Ron_Nasty]

 

So what you are saying is that a clone will once again be the down fall of the comic collecting community?

 

The clone was the precursor to Ultimate Spider-Man.

[Joanna]

Here's one more picture:

 

[fantastic_four]

Given the inaccuracy in the algorithms used by scanning software and the burriness of the photo, I believe these examples to be indeterminate. What is more damning is that the picture is blurry in the first place--I haven't seen a scanner do that bad a job in over a decade. I suspect the entire picture may have been intentionally blurred to hide some work, but to be fair, I just can't see using it to make any decision whatsoever unless someone can find more solid evidence in it. If I were a judge, this would be a no-brainer--I'd toss it out as evidence of anything.

[kryptonitecomics]

I can't tell anything from the scans either. I can see where you are going with it, and it appears there are discrepancies, but as fantastic_four pointed out the scans on the left are so blurry, I would have to acquit OJ again?

[supapimp]

if the scans the don't fit, you musf acquit.

[Joanna]

Really? Look at the first picture. How could those two black lines just disappear, yet the black lines next to them are very obviously there? There is solid orange in the CGG scan with no hint of the line art whatsoever, surrounded by solid black lines. Scanning can't eliminate some lines and yet catch the lines right next to them perfectly.

[Joanna]

For those who are wondering the genesis of this post, here is the thread that started it all.

[kryptonitecomics]

I see differences Joanna, no doubt about it, but with the quality of the scans of the left.....It's just difficlt to tell for sure on about half the scans.

 

I guess I missed what we were trying to determine with this thread?

 

The scans on the left prove that the CGG scans have been doctored, correct?

 

Or are we talking about restoration here....or both, sorry if I am a little slow on this I didn't follow the other thread.

[ArAich]

This seems to be a scanner issue...look at the second set of pics...the blue area is almost totally differant in each pic....

 

[FFB]

Well, if those scans haven't convinced you, then take a look at this glaring difference I found in the CGG ASM #68!!!!

 

 

Given the inaccuracy in the algorithms used by scanning software and the burriness of the photo, I believe these examples to be indeterminate. What is more damning is that the picture is blurry in the first place--I haven't seen a scanner do that bad a job in over a decade. I suspect the entire picture may have been intentionally blurred to hide some work, but to be fair, I just can't see using it to make any decision whatsoever unless someone can find more solid evidence in it. If I were a judge, this would be a no-brainer--I'd toss it out as evidence of anything.

[Arty]

Note that the original CGG picture is cropped on bottom edge. This usually happens when book is placed too close at the edge of scanner glass.

This cropping might explain those missing black lines.

 

Also note that details on other areas besides bottom edge have huge differences. If you even compare that original CGG picture and parts of the CGG-picture you posted, there is a big difference because when you saved it as jpg-file you also recompressed it- thus added more compression artifacts.

[Mephisto]

This seems to be a scanner issue...look at the second set of pics...the blue area is almost totally differant in each pic....

 

 

Is someone getting an HJ on this cover?

[fantastic_four]

Really? Look at the first picture. How could those two black lines just disappear, yet the black lines next to them are very obviously there? There is solid orange in the CGG scan with no hint of the line art whatsoever, surrounded by solid black lines. Scanning can't eliminate some lines and yet catch the lines right next to them perfectly.

 

I'd prefer to hear Redhook or BronzeBruce's opinion on this because I only use image editors about an hour or two a week because there aren't but so many snazzy graphics that are needed for my company's web site to dress up drug testing and background checking data. However, I have used most of the adjustment tools and filters built into packages like Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro, as well as done a bunch of scanning, and I can't figure out how the image got so blurry to begin with unless the scanner and computer were as old as the hills or the image has been monkeyed with. Whatever process caused the overall blurriness makes focusing on the fine details a highly inaccurate exercise.

 

I see what you're talking about, but I've had to "undo" enough filters after applying them due to anomalous discoloration results to even try to analyze a picture that looks so generally whacked out. I'd assign around a 60% confidence level to the anomalies you're pointing out being due to poor image editing, but there's too much room for error to be sure.