Digital V 35mm

[Key Resolve]

Good evening,
I am enquiring into the upgrade of my 35mm to digital. I have an excellent 35mm and have used it extensively during my previous employment in law enforcement as digital has not yet been accepted in many states for evidentiary purposes. However, I have now found myself in civilian street and would like to know opinions and experiences using the digital medium for photographic work especially on surveillance tasks.

What megapixel is recommended and in use by most people. I understand that the better the mp the better the quality especially when enlarging shots and obviously I would like to get the latest 12 mp job; however, I am no millionaire.

So what are you using...

Regards

[misgroup]

Hi There,



In Queensland digital evidence is excepted by the courts although forensic analysis of the evidence may be required if the evidence is challenged.



I have just gone through this process myself (On a personal level). At work everything is digital, we have the work processes and equipment to prove validity should it ever be questioned etc. That is the key point to it all, have good processes in place and dedicated secure digital storage area's.



As for mega pixels, the basics are, anything over 6mp is suffice. Experts have said repeatedly it's the lens in front of the CCD and not the Mega pixels (as long as it's over 6mp) of the CCD that give quality.



As an example: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=7614 (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=7614) this was taken with a 6.2mp Nikon D40 (Entry level Digital SLR). If you scroll down I prefer the second image.



And: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=7725 (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=7725)



All these photo's have been compressed for that site, but the original resolution was 3002x2008 DPI and each file about 2mb each.



SO if you buy quality you will get quality results. I am about to purchase a 300x Lens which should be really good for surveillance, if and when I have a need for it. Most surveillance these days is done with Video, and there are digital products that work very well for this.



Hope this helps.

[Key Resolve]

Misgroup,

Thank you for your response to my query. I have been looking at the 6.2 mp mark as there are some good quality buys out there. I have a good selection of lenses, all Nikon, from my previous working life when I used 35mm.

From speaking and working with Queensland Police SOC and from the Commonwealth SOC perspective, Digital is not widely accepted for evidentiary purposes, at least 6 months ago when I was working and that is what had led me to ask the question.

It was interesting to read that digital is accepted in legal proceedings as long as it can be verified if required, which is the opinion I have held for some time. In order to verify I would expect that the original medium on which the photograph was taken (SD card, Compact Flash etc) would become the evidence much the same as the negative on 35mm, but this seems an expensive way to keep evidence especially if we can only single use these items. So what do you do?

What sort of set up are you using?

I can't access those photo's that you posted the links for, but I will register after writing this and have a look.

Thanks for your response, it is greatly appreciated.

Kind Regards

Key Resolve

[misgroup]

Hi Key,

The information on digital evidence is accurate as of a couple of weeks ago. We attended a training seminar hosted by the Queensland Police Service where this very topic was discussed.



If you know any of the blokes in Computer Forensics Examination Unit have a quick chat to them, I spoke at length with Acting Senior Sergent Peter Kingsly, he reaffirmed what he spoke to us about in the training seminar and other contentious issue's such as interception laws of emails once on the computer yet not opened, he is the CO of the unit from what I recall.



The original medium is not entirely required, CFEU can tell if an image has been altered (Secondary evidence). Besides it's not usually the digital evidence it's self that is questioned but the images the digital evidence shows.



For work we only use digital video unless photographs are requested. Sony camera's tend to be the best as they have the best "Night Vision" and and best optical zoom.



Personally for my amateur photography I use a Nikon D40 with the standard 55mm lens. It takes beautiful pictures, money well spent for around the $780.00 mark. I will be purchasing a 300mm lens shortly which will greatly increase the capabilities of the camera.

Hope this helps, if you need some contact details for CFEU email me at richard@misgroup.com.au (richard@misgroup.com.au) . We also know the guys from State Crime Operations Command, Fraud and Corporate Crime Group. Brian Hay and his team are doing alot of work and cooperation with industry, so it may well be worth chatting to them.



Anything else we can help with, just let us know.



Richard.

[misgroup]

Misgroup,

It was interesting to read that digital is accepted in legal proceedings as long as it can be verified if required, which is the opinion I have held for some time. In order to verify I would expect that the original medium on which the photograph was taken (SD card, Compact Flash etc) would become the evidence much the same as the negative on 35mm, but this seems an expensive way to keep evidence especially if we can only single use these items. So what do you do?

Kind Regards

Key Resolve

Sorry I didn't see this question when I originally posted my reply. We do everything digitally, unless specifically requested. As soon as the data comes into the office, staff are required to fill out a register for the digital evidence. The data is then transferred to a dedicated digital evidence server. This server has appropriate security so that once the data is transferred it cannot be altered.

If the data is required for proceedings it is written in the register and copied to a writable disc with session closed (Disc can only be written to once).

Although it sounds a little more complicated, it is actually quite an economical and reliable process costing less than .30c/disk and about 2mins worth of time.

The key points are maintaining continuation of evidence (By filling in the register) and maintaining the digital data integrity by having it secured in storage. This hasn't been tested in court on any of our matters yet because as I said before the secondary evidence isn't usually in question. It's what the primary evidence is showing. :-)

Richard.