Bluecat6

Bluecat6: Guthries is even bigger than the image after the clipping mask is removed. And the two ‘dots’ on the right side of the backgroup with the clipping mask do not show up in her ‘photo’.

You have to be careful because you are now looking at a document which is scaled based on the distance of the camera. You can calibrate this by measuring a known distance on the PDF or jpeg such as the length of one of the boxes on the LFBC.

Bluecat6: All three are physically different and can easily be verified by the cross hatch pattern.

That is correct, remember that the Xerox removed 0.12” of borders, which explains why the photographs show more information.

Bluecat6: But clipping mask was applied to create an 8 1/2 by 11 document. The background is wider. How is this if the original document was only 8 1/2” wide? How or why would a document ‘grow’ by being scanned only then to have clipping mask applied to ‘shrink’ it back to 8 1/2?

It was not the clipping mask, but the edge erase. This has puzzled me a bit as well but if you carefully count the weave marks, you will see that it starts to make sense. Note that the clipping mask does not remove data, it just hides it.

Bluecat6: It would appear the Xerox machine is filled with magic to do such things.

Which is why some rushed to a conclusion of forgery perhaps?

8 thoughts on “Bluecat6

  1. NBC

    “That is correct, remember that the Xerox removed 0.12” of borders, which explains why the photographs show more information.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    You can’t square that statement with the Xerox 7535 / Preview PDF image.

    There is no evidence supporting your claim that 0.12 in. was removed from the border.

    To the contrary the outermost clipping path has dimensions W = 8.1667 in. x 10.6667 in. This clipping path is 0.1667 in. smaller than the artboard border all all four sides. The artboard dimensions are 8.5 in. x 11.0 in. The page size of the background image layer is W = 8.5333 in. x 11.09333 in. Thus the outermost clipping path is 0.18333 in. smaller than the background page on the left and right sides and 0.21333 in. smaller on the top and bottom sides.

    As a point of reference, the outermost clipping path of the WH LFCOLB PDF image is W = 8.0 in. x 10.6 in. This clipping path coincides with the outer edge of the Green basket-weave safety paper background on all four sides.

    This clipping path is 0.25 in. smaller than the artboard on the left and right sides and 0.20 in. smaller on the top and bottom sides.

    To the contrary, there is no clipping path that limits the outer boundary of the Green basket-weave safety paper for the Xerox 7535 / Preview PDF image. The white border around the Green Basket-weave safety paper is widest along the right side of the artboard. The outer edge of the Green background is ragged along this edge.

    And once more the evidence reveals that the Xerox / Preview forger does not have the right stuff.

  2. It is astounding what little clue the Freepers have regarding simply everyday things like photocopying from a bound volume onto security paper. Bluecat6 is now completely confused by the shadow of the page curvature. He seems completely unaware that the photocopy was made from the paper original which is in a bound volume and not on security paper. The original is not removed from the bound volume; the bound volume is laid directly on the copier platen. The security pattern is already printed on the paper that the copy is them printed on.

    How is this so hard for them to understand?

  3. You can’t square that statement with the Xerox 7535 / Preview PDF image.

    There is no evidence supporting your claim that 0.12 in. was removed from the border.

    Well, there is certainly something removed from the border because we see a white border. The question is: What was the setting for the edge erase function? I addressed this already here as part of my scoresheet

    I have seen 0.1 and 0.12” and the latter one fully falls in line with the observations.

    Perhaps you are confusing clipping path and edge erase

    This clipping path is 0.25 in. smaller than the artboard on the left and right sides and 0.20 in. smaller on the top and bottom sides.

    Yep that is completely in line with my findings as well. You are a clever guy sometimes but now you confuse some simple things.

    As to the edge erase, you are right, I need to redo my calculations. Other than to observe that there was edge erase.

  4. The edge erase is applied directly to the raw image by the scanner. It is the white border in the background jpeg. The only way to determine what it was is by counting pixels of white in the background jpeg, but the compression can obscure the exact edge of the border. There is no easy way to find it. The clipping mask applied by Preview is a different matter – you can find it in the layers list in Illustrator.

  5. NBC says:

    August 16, 2013 at 04:24

    “”You can’t square that statement with the Xerox 7535 / Preview PDF image.””

    “”There is no evidence supporting your claim that 0.12 in. was removed from the border.””

    “Well, there is certainly something removed from the border because we see a white border. The question is: What was the setting for the edge erase function?

    “I addressed “this already here as part of my scoresheet

    “I have seen 0.1 and 0.12” and the latter one fully falls in line with the observations.

    “Perhaps you are confusing clipping path and edge erase

    “”This clipping path is 0.25 in. smaller than the artboard on the left and right sides and 0.20 in. smaller on the top and bottom sides.””

    “Yep that is completely in line with my findings as well. You are a clever guy sometimes but now you confuse some simple things.

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    So here comes NBC, that slippery guy, to argue with the hard facts. I put the numbers right in front of his nose and he has no answers.

    So he can only obfuscate. Here’s a few of his best efforts.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    “Well, there is certainly something removed from the border because we see a white border”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Right genius ! — The white border is the artbord in the WH LFCOLB PDF image. Why don’t you tell us what it is in the Xerox 7535 ? Preview PDF ?
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    “The question is: What was the setting for the edge erase function?’

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    You produced the Xerox 7535 / Preview image Dude so why don’t you tell us what the setting was for the edge erase function. And while you are at it maybe you can tell us what an edge erase function is and which object is it in the PDF. And then we can find it in Illustrator.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    “I have seen 0.1 and 0.12” and the latter one fully falls in line with the observations.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Translation: I remember that I saw 0.1 and 0.12 on some of my trials from the Xerox or was it Preview ? But these trials didn’t have the right stuff so I rat holed them.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    “Perhaps you are confusing clipping path and edge erase”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Sure ! I’m the one who is confused. When pigs can fly !

    So let’s clear this up. Why don’t you post the PDF object numbers for the clipping path and the edge erase in the Xerox / Preview file. I will be waiting for those two numbers. And then maybe we can make some sense out of your Xerox 7535 / Preview image
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    “As to the edge erase, you are right, I need to redo my calculations. Other than to observe that there was edge erase.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    What’s there to calculate ? Didn’t you tell us that edge erase is a setting entered by the operator ? And weren’t you the operator for the Xerox 7535 /Preview trials ?

    So how many shots does you fleet of Xerox Workcenters get before one delivers the right stuff ?

  6. Why don’t you post the PDF object numbers for the clipping path and the edge erase in the Xerox / Preview file. I will be waiting for those two numbers. And then maybe we can make some sense out of your Xerox 7535 / Preview image

    The clipping mask and edge erase do not have their own PDF object numbers. You have to look within other objects to find them.

    In both the 7535 Preview and the WH LFBC, the clipping mask can be found in the decoded bitstream from Obj 4 (using deflate)

    In the 7535 Preview:

    q 12 12 588 768 re W n

    In the WH LFBC:

    q 18 14.40002 576 763.2 re W n

    The edge erase can be seen (requires visual inspection of the image) in the background jpeg, which is Obj 7 in both the 7535 Preview and the WH LFBC. Note that compression obscures the edge erase in many cases.

  7. So let’s clear this up. Why don’t you post the PDF object numbers for the clipping path and the edge erase in the Xerox / Preview file. I will be waiting for those two numbers. And then maybe we can make some sense out of your Xerox 7535 / Preview image

    Poor Hermitian does not realize that the edge erase is much harder to obtain as it actually ‘erases’ the image, so it has to be inferred from the image itself. It’s the ‘white band’ around the security paper. Remember that there is no such band on the photographs?…

    The Clipping Mask is simpler. you just look at the clipping function xx xx xx xx re W n q

    Since the edge erase can be set by the operator, we do not know necessarily the settings for the WH LFBC.

    Somehow our friend is still struggling with these concepts, in a long list of confusions and fails.

    So funny….

  8. The test document I ran through the WorkCentre 7535 already had a white border since it was printed using the WH LFBC. I would be a trivial exercise to demonstrate the operation of the Edge Erase function.

Comments are closed.