I've really enjoyed your tutorials on figure height. I am a graduate student for Marshall University Forensic Science Program. If you've ever watched Court TV, you'll see a lot crime scene reconstruction using poser. Documentation is a valuable key to demonstrating a correlation amongst pieces of evidence at a crime scene. In addition, being able to make a presentation that is as detailed and coherent as poser would be beneficial to a jury. As it stands now, the crime scene class curriculum doesn't incorporate any presentation skills beyond photoshop, photography, and sketching. Just wanted to gauge your interest in this area. Let me know what you think of this project as I am about to approach the chair of our department about purchasing poser.

Hi Papa,

I think that is an excellent idea and, also, surprised that Poser is not used.

Please feel free to email me
geep@cybertrails.com
... if I may be of assistance.

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

One reason poser my not be used is in crime recunstruction acurate details are important. It is very easy in 3d to manipulate reality thus manipulating the facts of a case. Snce poser has no reality constraint presentations made with it could be taken apart easily in cross examination. An ex boss of mine now works for a lawers firm and helps run the graphics department. In talking to her I've learned that they use the higher end 3d programs because they have reality based physics and measurements. Don't get me wrong I love poser and I think it has many uses but in a court case where reality and facts are paramount the program could be a dangerous tool.

I've been using Poser for collision reconstructions for years. Haven't had any trouble with court. -Even on death penalty cases. I think it all depends on your presentation, and how well your court testimony skills are tuned.

Essentially in order to incorporate a 3d program into a curriculum for non-artist it must have an interface which is easy to use. That is why I suggested Poser. At this level, I don't think we would need the reality based physics since we are only placing the evidence in the scene. The physics would be crucial if we were doing blood spater or projectiles. We are currently using Crime Zone software, which has two major problems. The first is that the interface is difficult to use and the second is that not all of the objects placed in the scene in sketch mode can become 3d. There is a plus to the Crime Zone software which I would like to see incorporated into a Poser/DAZ Studio plugin. That is the ability to create walls of a certain height and length with windows and doors. Also the program has a measuring tool.

re: " ... That is the ability to create walls of a certain height and length with windows and doors. Also the program has a measuring tool. "

Both of these can be done in Poser.

I would be glad to provide details if you are interested.

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

Definitely interested. I'll email you some details about our graduate program. BTW, I sent a message to Court TV asking about their use of poser on Forensic Files. If I hear anything I'll forward it to you :)

Actually, I just had another thought. Another thing that Poser MIGHT be useful for is something along the line of a 3D "composite sketch" program. You could have a virtual 3D representation of a suspect ... that would be very cool stuff. Think of this ... a complete set of injection morphs for facial features (eyes, nose, ears, ethnicities, etc) and head shapes; another library with various hair styles and colors; other props such as hats, eyeglasses, etc. This is something I actually started to work on ... but it is very time consuming to cover all the bases. It may take me years! LOL

I f poser has no real measurement tools and imported items are always guess work and constant adjust ment. How can the images created be reliable in proving facts. Drawings and higher some other 3d programs have controlable measurement tools to keep objects realative in size and distance. I can see using poser in conjuction with other 3d programs, the figure posability is much quicker than some othe 3d programs. It also seems like a dangerous tool in presenting facts. I can see entertainment programs or the media using the programs to present ideas to the public. But, the idea of programs like photoshop and poser or other 3d programs being used in a court of law when it is so easy to alter reality with them. Unless the images are obviously recreations the possibilties of decieving a jury seems very dangerous. I'm intersested in hearing how those of you who do use the programs keep the presentations reality and fact based. It should be intersting how these tools affect the courts in the cases to come.

Dangerous? First, obviously you have not kept up with image processing otherwise you would know that Photoshop IS used for court evidence. Its frequently used to make laboratory and field images more visible for a jury. Second, as long as long display a scale in the scene and try to represent items in the scene as proportional to one another you are fine. Third, no matter how meticulous you are you always have to state that the measurements in the sketch are not to scale. That is because of the chance of incongrutous measurements when you record your findings at the crime scene. Fourth, a sketch or 3d view is never used without photographs to document each type of evidence found at the scene.

I'm not in the field only talked to an ex coworker who now works for a firm and we were only talking about the use of 3d not photoshop. That said I'm not surprised that it is used, I'd be surprised if it wasn't. What I think has the potential for danger is the difference between a sketch and a photo or 3d is a sketch is obviously a representation. When you start playing with 3d or photoshop the line between reality and fiction quickly get blurred, and the potential for misleading people. Deliberate or not. The more advanced the technology the greater the danger. I create images quite often placing objects in scenes that aren't there and have been surprised by how easy it is to fool people. I work in advertising and deal with laws that have been created to protect the public from the deceptions, for example it used to be common practice to create fake food that photographed well or held up under the hot lights. Now there are laws that prevent that. I can only shoot the products as they exists. but you'ld be surprised how much retouching still occurs to create a perfect reality. My concern is that in advertising the public expects the lies and still they get fooled in a court of law truth should take presidence. The danger comes in when the tools make it easy to alter what apears to be the truth. People believe what they are told and if you can create a visual to back it up they'll believe it even more quickly. I can see how the tools can be helpful and used to clarify the truth but I can also see how easily they could be used to blur the truth. Like any tool they can be used to help or misused and cause harm.

When you start playing with 3d or photoshop the line between reality and fiction quickly get blurred, and the potential for misleading people. I recently attended a forensic animation class, and one of the things that the instructor stressed was that you do not want animation to be too realistic, for exactly that reason. In fact, if an animation is too realistic it may not be admissable in court at all. On the other hand, as otaku says, it is accuracy that is important - and if you need detail in the thousandth of a millimeter or inch, Poser won't cut it like a higher end animation program will. Poser is great for constructing characters, but you'll probably have a much easier time with production, and with admissability, if you use the lower polygon characters. At least it will be clear to the jury that it is a representation of an event, rather than misleading them into thinking that is the actual event itself.

You're on the right track Deecey. We were told in our crime scene class to keep the representation as generic as possible. No textures could be applied to anything in a Poser scene. The goal is not to recreate, just represent. Too much detail can be considered prejudical especially with violent crimes. In some cases, due to the amount of blood at the scene, it is asked that it be presented as either a different color, a generic outline, or just numbered in terms of evidence.