Mytton's shtick is to morph two photos with each other and then just declare "clearly they are the same person". Then morph two other photos with each other and then just declare "clearly they are not the same person". Then claim that his "clear" opinions of the results are "scientific". Keep in mind that every intermediate step in the morph is a completely fabricated image.
![](http://Mytton's shtick is to morph two photos with each other and then just declare "clearly they are the same person".)
I don't declare anything, the images speak for themselves.
In the following two morphs between two very close celebrity lookalikes and the original celebrities, the immediate obvious differences demonstrate just why this form of graphical comparison is so damn effective!
Keep in mind that every intermediate step in the morph is a completely fabricated image.
Exactly, that's the fundamental foundation for this advanced computerized imaging technique, the relative distance of each facial feature from the camera between two people in two photos are by definition mathematically identical therefore when the same person is morphed every consecutive frame reflects the fact that there is a direct relationship between each set of millions of individual pixels
The Apple iphone uses the exact same methodology, it takes a depth mapped photo of someone's face and stores this digital data for comparison with a live face, the same information can be unlocked by viewing two images stereoscopically or combined into easier viewing in a morph.
Much like a human fingerprint, our unique faces can be broken down into a complex 3D shape and from whatever angle all these individual features in 3D space will always be in the exact same ratio.
JohnM
