picture

[jamiecross]

<IMG SRC="http://www.thirdreichmedals.com/main~1_files/armourer 10.jpg">

[jamiecross]

A Close Up

<IMG SRC="http://www.thirdreichmedals.com/main~1_files/armourer 9.jpg">

[Prosper Keating]

This has also been posted in the 'Juncker' Army Para Badge thread. So have the following observations.

Hmmm. OK. Let’s examine this ‘proof’ or evidence on its merits, in a cool, detached and clinical manner.

These two images are presumably intended to prove that General Heidrich was wearing an Army Parachutists Badge on which the wingtip did not touch the wreath, thereby legitimising the design, at least, of Mr Sheppard’s APB and others like it.

It is quite a well known photograph of Richard Heidrich but this version of it does not match the original for sharpness and clarity. It is perhaps a scan of the photograph as published on low quality paper stock such as newsprint, for instance. It may even be a scan of a scan.

Whatever its provenance, it is a low resolution image in which there are not enough dots, or ‘pixels’, per square inch to render it clear and sharp. The more dots per inch or DPI you have when printing an image in a magazine or a newspaper, the sharper and clearer the image will be. Unless, of course, you are working with an image that is of inferior quality to begin with. Such as a scan of a scan of a photograph reproduced in a cheap journal or book.

Anyway, this image is, as you can all see, ‘pixelated’, to borrow a slang term from publishing. That is to say that you can see the dots, especially in the enlarged view of General Heidrich’s decorations and badges. This is because the DPI count is low so the dots have to be bigger. So the closer in you go in order to study the details, the more blurred and indistinct things become.

Just a side note here to put things in context: the lowest acceptable DPI count for images published in a magazine of reasonable quality in terms of paper stock etc is 300 DPI. The DPI count of these two images offered as ‘Proof’ is 72 DPI. And the DPI count of the images as scanned in order to convert them into these JPEG files may be even lower if the ‘pixelation’ is any indication.

As a result of all of this, definition and detail are lost. In this case, looking at the larger image, the wingtip seems to extend over the wreath in the normal way, as it should. In the enlargement, you can actually count the dots per inch without a lens! The tip of the wing is actually smaller than the dots or ‘pixels’, so it is lost. The pixels cannot reproduce it, thus giving the impression to the unwary or inexperienced that the wingtip, which is a blur, ends short of the wreath.

Here is another well known photograph of General Heidrich. It is very clear and defined. His Army Para Badge is clearly visible. Check that wingtip. The enlargement is beginning to lose definition but is still clear enough to show that Heidrich’s Army Para Badge is just as it should be: with that wingtip clearing the wreath.






I think that as and when we locate a nice, sharp copy of the photograph offered as evidence here to support the claim that wingtips did not reach wreaths on some original APBs, we will find that it in fact shows the wingtip extending over the wreath.

Next please!

Prosper Keating

[jamiecross]

reply

This photo comes from the Ref stated, untouched and available to all with the book!
when seen under a glass it does show a gap. Dress it up any way you want, a gap is visable, there is black between the two, black doesnt suddenly appear when you enlarge a picture.
Your photo also shows this or is it just my Eyes.
I feel that this question has been answered now.
Jamie
PS Notice also that the nose and the top of the eagles wing comes out further on the left hand side than the accepted pattern by Prosper, which it would do as the eagle is placed over to the left more.

[Prosper Keating]

From the same series, shot on the same day in the same place. No further comment needed.

Prosper Keating