OK, not quite sure where you're going with this...
all you did was change the gif extension into jpg. When you increased the image's size, your graphics program changed the lines 'just a bit'.
Are you claiming that when my professional image editing software performed a simple resize on the jpeg, it made such changes as to render the resulting image unrepresentative?
Or, to reiterate Belz's incredulity "Is.... is... is he saying that JPEG compression can alter SOME lines but not others, even when they purportedly overlap with the former ????????"
In several places, where your rendition shows daylight, my old gif shows contact between the respective lines. Plus, the total area of your line has grew in proportion to the total area of the engraved line.
First, my image is not a rendition, it is simply a magnification of your image, with no alteration other than recolouring for emphasis.
The gif in your posts is approximately half-size, so using that is pointless, the original, in your hosted images, shows clearly the areas I have highlighted. The line has not grown, anti-aliasing in the original may give the appearance of a pixel thickening on the recoloured image, but this is certainly not a distortion of the relative proportions of the engraved and forced lines.
Your point blank refusal to accept any honest assessment of you analysis is at best disingenuous and at worst, and currently most likely, blatantly dishonest.
The other gif, the one with the 5-pointed Pyrostar shows the same contested area on line 'b' under magnification thusly:
And quite clearly shows your line not even touching the edge of the engraved line, making you a liar and the line totally invalid.
At twice lifesize, after reconstruction of the idea of Pyrostar from the Square, the four lines 'a','b''c''d' exist right where we want them in relation to the engraved lines.
Interesting, nowhere in that sentence does it mention any lines being created by the actual engraving; only
reconstructed from your arbitrary square and existing where you want them.
Note, how let's say the line 'd', so maligned by you, approaches the multiple intersection at the top marked by a red arrow. It hits seveeral engraved points in an exact manner, more self-confirmation for the line.
It doesn't hit any exact engraved points at all, and it only intersects with your other fudged, fiddled and invented lines because you want it to. In fact, the arrow points to the intersection of one dishonestly incorrect line and two which appear to come from, and go to, nowhere.
Another look at my work then:
If we must...
Obviously, line 'd' is the best line here.
Obviously, you are on, or need, some kind of medication.
It follows the edges of the engraved line in several placesm better than any other line could.
Given the quality of your interpretive work, that's not much of a recommendation. Also, the effect is rather spoilt by the fact that half the line is entirely without the engraved line.
In view of the fact that it is computer regeneration, the result is most satisfactory (Picture perfect).
Computer or not, entirely misrepresenting the original image is not
most satisfactory, it even breaches your own rules, and that's saying something.
What you say is another line, is a part of line 'd', especially on the life-size scale.
Scale has nothing to do with it; the doubling of thickness, the continuation away of the second line and the upward final curve of
d all demonstrate the deliberate creation of two separate, but partially contacting, lines.
A paleontologist would opine that the artist had used two strokes to engrave it.
I would imagine that he would say that many strokes would be required to produce each line.
This engraving had been made in a lab. It was not chiselled by primitive tools. It is not random.
To quote you; "Were you drunk when writing this rubbish"?
