Routine Photography of Injuries: A Comparison Between Smartphone Cameras and Digital Single-Lens Camera-A Pilot Study.
Journal
The American journal of forensic medicine and pathology
ISSN: 1533-404X
Titre abrégé: Am J Forensic Med Pathol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8108948
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jun 2023
01 Jun 2023
Historique:
medline:
8
5
2023
pubmed:
4
4
2023
entrez:
3
4
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Ten lesions were photographed with an entry-level (HUAWEI P smart 2019), a midrange (Samsung Galaxy S8) and a high range (Apple Iphone XR) smartphone camera and with a digital single-lens camera (DSLC). Images were independently rated by 3 pathologists, based on comparison to the real lesion and "visual impact." Difference of perceptual lightness coordinates between smartphones and the criterion standard (DSLC) was calculated.The highest ranking for adherence to reality was obtained with DSLC, while the highest ranking for visual impact was obtained with the Iphone. The color representation better reflecting the criterion standard (DSLC) was obtained for the entry-level smartphone.All the devices allow to assess the general features (ie, the color, the shape, and the main characteristics) of an injury during a forensic autopsy. However, results might be different when photos are obtained in suboptimal, such as low-light, conditions. Moreover, images acquired through a smartphone camera might be unsuitable for later image exploitation, such as enlargement of a portion of the image to magnification of a detail, which seemed not relevant when the photo was shot. Only a raw image, acquired using a dedicated camera and deactivating images manipulation software, might allow the preservation of the true data.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37010986
doi: 10.1097/PAF.0000000000000825
pii: 00000433-202306000-00003
pmc: PMC10184793
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
83-89Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflict of interest.
Références
Oliver WR. Considerations for gross autopsy photography. Acad Forensic Pathol . 2011;1(1):52–81.
Wright FD. Photography in bite mark and patterned injury documentation—part 2: a case study. J Forensic Sci . 1998;43(4):881–887.
Belanger AJ, Lopes AE, Sinard JH. Implementation of a practical digital imaging system for routine gross photography in an autopsy environment. Arch Pathol Lab Med . 2000;124(1):160–165.
DPREVIEW. Why smartphone cameras are blowing our minds. 2018. Available at: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8037960069/why-smartphone-cameras-are-blowing-our-minds . Accessed June 10, 2022.
Morikawa C, Kobayashi M, Satoh M, et al. Image and video processing on mobile devices: a survey. Vis Comput . 2021;37(12):2931–2949.
Nuzzolese E, Di Vella G. The development of a colorimetric scale as a visual aid for the bruise age determination of bite marks and blunt trauma. J Forensic Odontostomatol . 2012;30(2):1–6.
International Commission on Illumination (CIE). ISO/CIE 11664-4:2019. 2019. Available at: https://www.techstreet.com/cie/standards/iso-cie-11664-4-2019?gateway_code=cie&product_id=2078733 . Accessed June 10, 2022.
Krippendorf K. Reliability in content analysis: some common misconceptions and recommendations. University of Pennsylvania. 2014. Available at: http://faculty.washington.edu/jwilker/559/Krippendorf.pdf . Accessed June 10, 2022.
corGae. Tools corGae. 2015. Available at: https://www.corgae.it/index.php/documenti/tools-corgae/scarica-i-tools-corgae . Accessed June 10, 2022.
Gouse S, Karnam S, Girish HC, et al. Forensic photography: prospect through the lens. J Forensic Dent Sci . 2018;10(1):2–4.
Sadler D. Better clinical and post mortem photography: a crash course in ten technical tips. J Forensic Leg Med . 2019;67:49–60.
Connolly A, Finkbeiner W, Ursell P, et al. Autopsy pathology: a manual and atlas . Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2015
Irvine JM, Nelson E. National Imagery Interpretability Rating Scales (NIIRS): Overview and Methodology. Proceedings Volume 3128 of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering . Airborne Reconnaissance XXI, San Diego, CA; 1997.
Quora. How do Ektachrome and Kodachrome differ? Available at: https://www.quora.com/How-do-Ektachrome-and-Kodachrome-differ . Accessed December 20, 2022.
Scientific Working Group on Imaging Technology (SWGIT). Overview of SWGIT and the use of imaging technology in the criminal justice system. 2010. Available at: https://www.theiai.org/docs/SWGIT_Guidelines_0221.pdf . Accessed June 10, 2022.
Pitts R, Wei M, Yu J, et al. Empirical comparison of DSLRs and smartphone cameras for latent prints photography. WIREs Forensic Sci . 2021, 2021;3:e1391.
Faculty of Forensic & Legal Medicine. PICS Working Group Guidelines on photography. 2019. Available at: https://fflm.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/PICS-Working-Group-Guidelines-on-Photography-Dr-Will-Anderson-Dec-2019.pdf . Accessed June 10, 2022.
Rose-McGuckin K. Institute of Medical Illustrators (IMI) National Guidelines. A Guide to Good Practice, Photography of Non-Accidental Injuries. 2018. Available at: https://www.imi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2018_Jan_IMINatGuidelines_Non-accidentalInjuriesV1x.pdf . Accessed June 10, 2022.
Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC). OSAC 2021-S-0013, Standard Guide for Post Mortem Examination Photography. 2022. Available at: https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2021/09/07/OSAC%202021-S- . Accessed June 10, 2022.
Van der Rijt R, Hoffman S. Ethical considerations of clinical photography in an area of emerging technology and smartphones. J Med Ethics . 2014;40(3):211–212.
Gillam B. Perceptual Constancy . In: Kazdin AE ed. Encyclopedia of psychology . Oxford, UK: American Psychological Association and Oxford University Press; 2000.
MacEvoy SP, Paradiso MA. Lightness constancy in primary visual cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A . 2001;17, 98(15):8827–8831.