wwp@yahoogroups.com:
RE: Evidence in a court of Law - are "stitched" panoramas admissible?
Greg Nuspel 2010-Nov-10 21:26:00
Would you not be able to show the individual images as the evidence and the
stitched image is only for visualization?
From: #removed# [mailto:#removed#] On Behalf Of michael
crane
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:12 PM
To: #removed#
Subject: Re: Evidence in a court of Law - are "stitched" panoramas
admissible?
On 10 November 2010 21:04, northwest_omnipresence
<#removed# <mailto:northwest_omnipresence%40yahoo.ca>
> 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]