Two small rosette-like images and their labels are the main evidence. They are protected from the annotation mask, but their physical interpretation and celestial identity remain unknown.
The apparent Arcturus label, June 1901 date, two exposure labels and focus settings support a focus or image-quality experiment. The two target images are protected in the writing mask. They are evidence to analyze as structured images rather than a miniature star field; physical focus units and instrumental interpretation remain unverified.
The regions associated with “Exp 1” and “Exp 2” contain structured, rosette-like images. Their shapes should not be treated as pen strokes merely because they are extended.
The enlarged margin appears to name “Arcturus”, a date beginning “1901 June”, and “Focus” beside 21.95 and 42.05. The internal images are labeled “Exp 1” and “Exp 2”. These readings support a focus-test hypothesis, but the units, exact date and target identity remain unverified; the numbers are not used as angular measurements or magnitudes.
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 2.54% of this scan (775,711 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 321,571 to 775,711 pixels (2.41×). The photographic remainder uses a separate 3-pixel exclusion margin, covering 6.38% 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.
There is no confirmed star-field solution. Two target images do not supply enough independent reference positions to determine an unconstrained celestial transformation.
The apparent Arcturus label, June 1901 date, two exposure labels and focus settings support a focus or image-quality experiment. The two target images are protected in the writing mask. They are evidence to analyze as structured images rather than a miniature star field; physical focus units and instrumental interpretation remain unverified.
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 useful present measurement space is native scan pixels. Profile shape, asymmetry and relative intensity can be examined once scanner response and any saturation are understood. No wavelength, photometric or angular calibration is established.
The ink mask was restricted to preserve the rosette-like photographic regions. No WCS or distortion correction is supplied. The annotation PNG is a candidate selection of observed marks, not a semantic transcription.
Select a numbered pin or a note. Locations are editorial review pointers, not measured confidence contours; plate-wide limitations also apply.
The source and origin of the structured profile are unconfirmed. The exclusion from the ink mask is intentional.
The relation to the first target and the role of exposure conditions remain open.
“Exp 1”, “Exp 2”, “21.95” and “42.05” need historical context and verified units before quantitative comparison.
Check the tentative Arcturus and focus-test readings against the observing log, build matched profile measurements for the two images, and inspect saturation in the original 16-bit scan. Establish the physical units before interpreting the focus settings.
The report preserves the distinction between extended photographic signal and writing. The specimen is unresolved astrometrically and still useful for a targeted morphology study.
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.
