The dominant structure resembles a repeated focus or exposure test. The broad disks are photographic content and are deliberately excluded from the written annotation selection.
Several extended images and an apparent 7/8 October 1949 date suggest a deliberate target or focus study. Their dimensions are measurable in scan pixels, but neither a sky identity nor angular or focal units have been established. Repeated disks alone do not distinguish focus changes, exposure changes and optical structure.
Five broad circular images sit within a larger illuminated circular field. A focus or exposure sequence is a working visual interpretation, not a confirmed object identification.
The right margin appears to read “1949 Oct 7/8”. That image-based date extends the apparent collection chronology well beyond the initial circa-1930 description. A shape-only segmentation could confuse disk rims with strokes; inspected regions keep the disks out of the ink selection.
The revised layer uses local contrast in both polarities, expanded inspected writing regions and contextual recovery of short fragments and round digits. Known photographic targets and sampled spectral apertures are protected. It is not OCR and does not reconstruct hidden sky or invent pen strokes.
The selection covers 1.69% of this scan (514,341 pixels). Faint marks, scratches and contacts between ink and photographic images remain ambiguous. The cyan overlay shows the wider exclusion footprint used by the photographic remainder; the stroke mask is supplied separately.
The writing PNG is a white, contrast-rendered stencil of bright and dark observed marks. The observed-pixel PNG preserves their stretched scan appearance. Both use original scan coordinates. The photographic remainder displays excluded pixels as black holes. It is neither a clean-sky reconstruction nor a new photometric product. Keep the mask alongside any measurements. Native original-intensity TIFF/FITS products, where generated, remain in the analysis workspace and are not duplicated in this handoff.
This revision recovers short letter fragments, round digits and inspected dark marks, with broader writing regions. The stroke selection grows from 146,012 to 514,341 pixels (3.52×). The photographic remainder uses a separate 3-pixel exclusion margin, covering 3.57% of the scan.
The wider selection deliberately favors removing writing. Nearby stars, scratches and ambiguous fragments can also be excluded. Explicit photographic protection regions retain known target images and sampled spectra; this does not establish perfect separation elsewhere.
No direct astrometric field solution is claimed. There is no basis here to call the disks planets, moons or distinct stars, or to infer a focal length from their scan sizes.
Several extended images and an apparent 7/8 October 1949 date suggest a deliberate target or focus study. Their dimensions are measurable in scan pixels, but neither a sky identity nor angular or focal units have been established. Repeated disks alone do not distinguish focus changes, exposure changes and optical structure.
Across these scans, repeated photographic images need not imply the same mechanism. Shutter timing, guiding offsets, objective optics and different pointings can leave related patterns. Establish consistent component membership before fitting a smooth warp. No result here isolates glass deformation from telescope optics, emulsion, scanner geometry and centroid bias.
The disk sequence can support comparisons of radial profiles and sharpness in scan pixels. Turning those differences into physical focus, exposure or angular units requires observing metadata and a known imaging response.
The delivered layers isolate candidate margin writing. They do not remove or flatten the circular photographic field, and no geometric distortion correction has been inferred.
Select a numbered pin or a note. Locations are editorial review pointers, not measured confidence contours; plate-wide limitations also apply.
Their identity and the variable changed between exposures remain unverified.
Vignetting, illumination and image support are not independently calibrated; this boundary is not a measured distortion contour.
Faint or overlapping strokes may be incomplete in the extracted layer. The margin is a useful target for historical transcription.
Measure normalized radial profiles, disk diameters and background illumination on the original scan; compare them only after the focus or exposure sequence is established from the notes.
Preserve the disks as signal. The useful next result is a calibrated profile comparison, not a forced celestial solution.
All scientific numbers are snapshots of the saved analysis products. The original 16-bit scans remain the measurement source. JPEG derivatives, contrast stretching and masked previews are inspection tools; do not derive photographic density or absolute response from their appearance.
