wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: Evidence in a court of Law - are "stitched" panoramas admissible?
Aleksandar Janicijevic 2010-Nov-10 21:26:00
but! if you present sequence of images [16, 24 or any other number]
together with stitched panorama that should be an evidence clearly.
aleksandar
- - - - - - -
aleksandar janicijevic
multimedia specialist, media production x 2544
On 10-Nov-10, at 4:11 PM, michael crane wrote:
> On 10 November 2010 21:04, northwest_omnipresence
> <#removed#> wrote:
> > Just curious if anyone has had the opportunity to be called upon
> to present a stitched panoramic image as evidence in any level of
> the legal system?
> >
> > Is there a defense against their use - ie: the stitching process
> is sequential and the stitching algorithms may miss elements from
> the actual scene.
> >
> > Are there any tests or examples that can show that a stitched
> panoramic image need not be considered a "doctored" document?
>
> I have considered this before and to come under cross examination as
> an expert (witnesss?) would require complete confidence in one's
> understanding of all aspects of the maths. Which is one reason I never
> approached accident investigators.
> so no.
>
> regards
>
> mick
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]