What the Comparison Screen Does When It Has No Overlay Difference View or Split Screen
The comparison screen’s core behavior is to show one candidate image at a time and switch among candidates. It does not place two images together as a transparent overlay, it does not show them side by side, and it has no draggable split line, so visual judgment is based on successive views rather than a same-screen composite.
This screen displays one image at a time; switching replaces the whole displayed candidate rather than placing two images in the same display layer.
One candidate image is displayed at a time
The display area draws the current candidate as a single image. When another take is selected, the new candidate replaces the displayed content rather than leaving the previous image underneath as a translucent reference. The interface also has no two-image side-by-side layout and no sliding divider for keeping both candidates visible at once; the strip above the image is a group selector, and its thumbnails are not a second comparison view.
The user is therefore comparing candidates across successive views rather than examining two layers inside one composite image. That boundary changes how the visual check works: the previous state has to be remembered while the next candidate is viewed. The interface does not pin two candidates to the screen for simultaneous reference.
The screen does not turn difference into a number to read
The comparison screen performs no pixel-difference calculation and no histogram-difference calculation, so it does not output a numeric measure of “how different” two images are. It also does not mark a region as having a greater amount of difference. Continuity remains a judgment made by the user from the images being shown.
This is a different layer from How Candidate Grouping Works Without an Absolute Threshold: grouping decides which candidates are placed together, while the display stage only draws the candidates inside the group; grouping and alignment are each computed once before anything is shown here. Being grouped together should not be interpreted as the comparison screen having calculated visual consistency. Human judgment remains necessary at both boundaries.
The comparison screen is a candidate-switching view, not a source of a difference score; what changed and whether it matters for continuity are human judgments.
There are two ways to switch candidates
One route is the segmented take selector, which lets the user move directly to a candidate. When the candidate set becomes larger, those selector labels become short numeric labels so the choices still fit. The other route is a press-and-hold gesture that starts repeated switching among the candidates.
Each switching step draws a complete image, and the previous and next candidates are never merged into one layer. How the behavior stops on release, and what each of the two timing values controls, is the subject of a separate article, What the 0.2-Second and 0.5-Second Flicker Timings Control; this article only defines what is displayed.
Why alignment has no visible switch on this screen
Some candidates are already processed, aligned to the reference image, before they reach the view, and the interface simply draws whichever image it receives; that result is not stored and is gone once the screen is left. This screen has no status indicator saying that alignment is on, and it has no switch that lets the user toggle between an original and processed image. The visible interface alone therefore does not tell the user whether a candidate was aligned beforehand.
Alignment is also not the same thing as showing two images on top of each other. Even when the displayed image has been processed, the screen still draws one image at a time. Processing happens before display and does not become a user-controlled transparent overlay layer.
Which other tasks do not belong to this screen
This screen performs no timecode synchronization and no sound synchronization, so it should not be used as a tool for establishing picture-to-sound timing. Its job is to show the candidate images in sequence, not to prove that two media items occupy the same time position. Record ownership has to be verified from the record fields instead.
Whether a photo is linked to the correct shot and take is another separate question. How Continuity Photos Should Link to Shots and Takes covers that relationship; this article is limited to the display boundary. The comparison conclusion is made by the viewer, while record ownership and photo association should be checked in their respective data locations.
FAQ
Does the comparison screen place two images together as a transparent overlay?
No; the screen displays one candidate image at a time. Another candidate replaces the current display when selected.
Does the page show a numeric difference score?
No. This screen performs no pixel or histogram difference calculation and does not display a degree of difference. The user makes the judgment from the images.
Does repeated switching show two images at once?
There is no blending of two layers: each step draws a complete image, and the previous and next candidates are never shown together as two translucent layers.
Can this screen be used to establish picture-to-sound timing?
No, the screen does not perform timecode or sound synchronization. Timing relationships need to be verified from the relevant records and media information elsewhere.
Axiom One LLC — SlateX. Figures current as of 24 September 2026.