On 30 Dec 2002 11:27:00 -0000
owner-olympus-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (olympus-digest) wrote:
> Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 13:05:24 -0500
> From: "Walt Wayman" <hiwayman@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [OM] Cameras Don't Lie
>
[snip ..snip]
> I tell them they should strenuously object based upon the
> generally common knowledge of the trickery possible through
> digital photographic manipulation and demand that an original
> negative or transparency be produced to authenticate the picture
> being challenged.
Actually, I don't even think a negative or transparency would be
sufficient proof. Who is to say that said evidence is the "original"?
One could manipulate the image digitally and then just dump it back out
to film.
> Whether or not the objection is sustained by
> the court, it still provides a great point to raise in argument to
> the jury, because almost everyone nowadays has at least seen
> enough tricked up TV commercials to realize you can't necessarily
> believe it just because you saw a picture of it.
Tal
--
Tal Lancaster
talrmr@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.renderman.org/RMR
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|