Thank you very much for your encouragements.

But YOU have invented this kind of analysis, and if I have been quick it's because you gave me all informations as a result of your long way work to find what to do to have what you have.

Thank YOU!

Here I give a link to download my Delphi software. I transformed it in something usable by anybody. There are 3 JPG files joined to work on it when downloaded.

The greatest thing to do would be to share you results here if you use the software with your own leaf pictures (or other pictures with phantom structures inside).

The software is destined only to Windows platforms (Windows 2000,Millenium, XP, 7, ...)

Link to download PhantomStructures version 1.01:
Phantom Structrures

I took new pictures with 2 new leafs.

Webcam, median picture from 10 pictures taken:


After using my software:


The background is perfectly uniform everywhere, all pixels have the exact same intensity. No structure at all.

Other leaf, numeric picture camera, other place at home:


After using software, there nothing visible at all; with many settings changed, only thermic noise and random noise:


I took a picture with the leaf, and an other one without the leaf, only background (same exposure time and focale) and I subtracted the two pictures. I then multiplied by a factor 10 the results to spread color palette. I got only noise too:


Conclusions: my pictures today all gave a null result. Last time they all allowed me to see a kind of vein structure.

But there is a big difference in the conditions for taking pictures: last time there was a blue sky with sun, and some white little clouds; but it was the blue sky that lighted my room (with indirect light sun, nit direct sun rays but sky luminosity). Today the weather quite different, there are very thick grey clouds all over the sky, not a piec of blue; we thought that It could rain all the day. The sky luminosity is quite uniform, white/grey coming from all the sky.

So, conditions may be (or not) important to have hudden structures; to have an interference pattern between the light and the leaf vital field. To know wether light conditions is important or not, I will do the same experiment another day with a blue sky and will tell you if I get structures back visible again; or not.

Today, one thing is sure: there is nothing, webcam or numeric picture camera, with background subtraction with a separated picture or study within one alone picture.

Maybe a new parameter is to be discovered to have such structures; more when next experiment will be conducted.

That's a very good idea. I didn't think in moisture.

Yes the air is very different since last time; "heavy" air. I don't have hygrometer so I can't say how much moisture there is but there is a lot I think.

What's more, the windows were opened this time to have a brighter light, so outside air was inside air too.
Last time it was a sunny and dry and "light" day, this time was a very clouddy and "heavy" air day.

Sorry for my bad english, I translate my french expressions in english, maybe this is not very clear in the english formulation.

Good idea, moisture. Maybe moisture attenuates the effect, because of air conductivity increase, so that electromagnetic variations interactions with leaf vital field are attenuated.

I think that Bruce did his experiments on clear sunny days, without any moisture. Am I wrong?

Pascuser wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 4:47pm:


Pascuser,

I have been away for a while and busy with other things, primarily I have been watching the death of democracy in America, and its movement toward a "Kings and Peasants" country.  It is a terrible thing to watch.

I'm so happy to see such progress in your work, it's a breath of fresh air for the soul, and I find it fascinating.

I have adopted a basic philosophy I follow when researching the unknown. For as long as possible I attempt to delay coming to any concrete conclusions or explanations to account for what I observe from my experiments.  I attempt to see each new observation as evidence that might not be fully understood in the context of the specific, whole, unknown I'm researching.  In a sense I am only gathering pieces of an upside down jigsaw puzzle and trying see if any of them fit together.  And I try to always remember that when exploring this kind of unknown the experimenters' beliefs can have a very strong influence on the outcome.

Your observation that the air is" very different since last time; 'heavy' air" is one I find interesting.  It is evidence that moisture level in the leaf, and perhaps the air, or both, may be a factor in obtaining clear digital phantom leaf images.  Maybe it has something to do with the ability of the plant to sustain its phantom energy pattern? Maybe whatever the phantom energy pattern is affects water molecules in the air causing them to coalesce within that energy pattern? Maybe as these water molecules coalesce they form the optical equivalent of lens structures?  Maybe these lens structures bend, reflect, or refract light passing through them? Maybe that's why sunlight with its broad spectrum (especially its red, green and blue components) appears to yield better results than sunlight filtered through clouds into shades of gray?

With my philosophy of exploration I look at all those questions as "open questions."  Rather than reasons to form conclusions I see them as reasons to ask more questions, to look for more puzzle pieces.  As a pragmatic engineer I would be looking to run tests at at least three levels of humidity in the air and perhaps the leaf.  I be looking for more observations to determine if air humidity manipulation can be used to enhance digital family photographs.

I also wonder if the fact that direct sunlight is highly colminated, that is its waves are all very nearly parallel to each other, is some factor in getting better digital phantom leaf images. Since all these "light beams" are parallel to each other before passing through the missing leaf energy field maybe we are detecting the disruption in their parallelism. In essence sunbeams passing through vein structures may be bent causing a reduction in light intensity in that area and perhaps greater intensity and another area. These differences in intensity are what we are measuring, perhaps?

As a side note, in your software, is there a way that I can create my own lookup table, or color palette file? The random approach has its advantages, so to does a more structured approach. For example is there a way (Excel, text editor, or?) That I could create a palette with a repetitive pattern of colors? For example could I use the seven colors of the rainbow? For example, I could start with red representing some pixel intensity value, and continue progressively through increasing pixel intensity values to violet and then repeat that rainbow pattern over and over with increasing pixel intensity values. The reason I ask is . . .

The phantom leaf image below used to this sort of color palette. It was a leaf with a large portion of the tip cutaway photographed against a white background in direct, cloudless sunlight. Aside from the hint of a phantom leaf this image also clearly shows the variation of light intensity on the white background.  Near the center of the photograph this image was made from the light intensity had saturated much of the camera sensors' pixels.  It may be that taking the photograph close to saturation ( too bight a light level) has some positive effect on obtaining digital phantom leaf images.  Questions, more upside down puzzle pieces.




Keep up the great work, and to others, join in!

Bruce

PauliEffectt wrote on Jul 15^th, 2012 at 2:20pm:


There are several factors that so far appear to be important to obtaining photographic evidence for the existence these nonphysical leaf structures.  In my view the image data capture (taking the picture) is most critical.  The evidence is either in the data or it is not.  I think the work shared here by Pascuser in his images clearly demonstrates that the evidence is in the image data at least at a "proof of concept" level.  By that I mean that even using simple web cam images there's enough evidence in the image data too at least warrant further, perhaps more sophisticated, experimentation.

Of importance on the image data file side . . .

1.  Minimize camera sensor random signal noise levels.  We are ultimately looking for very subtle differences in pixel intensity values.  They may be easily buried in high level sensor noise.

2. Image lighting.  Variations in random background light intensity can be thought of as a form of optical noise.  ( Note: To the extend that this noise is non-random it can be dealt with later with software.)

3.  The camera sensor itself.  Digital cameras use a "Bayer array" of tiny color filters (one per pixel) to split the image data into its red, green and blue (RGB) intensity components.  These RGB intensity values are used by standard image software to construct a color photograph from the data file.  For digital phantom leaf  photography it would be better to have the Bayer layer filters removed from the camera sensor.  Resulting intensity valves could then be analyzed more directly in software.

4.  It is probably desirable to use a camera that can output a RAW image date file.   Standard JPG files created by most cameras have altered the data to make the image file smaller.  This discards data and alters what data it outputs.  The phantom leaf structures are still evident in JPG format files, as my early work and Pascuser's work demonstrate, but RAW image data files contain more data that is closer to what the camera sensor actually recorded.  At present I am experimenting with a piece of software called "dcraw" (dee see raw) to get 16 bit per channel image data that is completely unaltered by my Cannon G2 Powershot in-camera and data conversion  (to TIF image format) software.

5.  Other factors such as humidity, lighting frequency content, lighting direction, colmination , time between leaf harvest and image capture, and other factors may also be important.

On the software side . . .

1.  If phantom leaf structures are in the data they must be made to be clearly visible over a range of many different photographs.   So far the best approach has been with pseudo coloring of minute differences in pixel intensity values using digital cameras.  Still, the choice of pseudo coloring schemes can make the structures of interest more visible or less visible.  To date only custom programmed software filters have been capable of making these structures visible.  It is not a task that standard software filters is designed to do.  Standard filters are designed to make pretty pictures rather than be used for scientific analyses.

Bruce

Scott,

There isn't an available ImageJ plugin.  I've working on a macro to process the image data, but it's a pretty clumsy approach.  A plugin would be a far better method.

Might you be interested in working together on a plugin for ImageJ?  It would be my intent to make such a plugin open source and free to anyone interested in experimenting with this digital phantom leaf technique.

Bruce

Kim,

I will be happy to communicate with you about Digital Phantom Leaf Photography.  My goal in developing this process is to give people a tool anyone can use to prove to themselves that realities beyond the physical exist.  So, I would ask that you treat this as an open source project.

I'll do my best to answer your questions and help you make this new form of photography work for you.  Do you have a schedule you must meet for your project?

It will be very helpful if you have someone on your team with the ability to write plugins for image editing software such as ImageJ (Java  language) or another image editor.

With that, how can I help you?  We can communicate with email and with Skype.  I live in Florida, USA, in the Eastern Time Zone.  I think Korea is 13 or 14 hours ahead of my time zone.

Bruce