Forensic Assocation
8 messages in this thread
Dear Fellow Animators;
We have a choice! We can organize and function like other professionals or
have it done for us. There are currently no guidelines or standardized
training courses in our specific field. Very soon, the attorneys are going to
figure out how to effectively cross-examine what we're doing. If someone gets
caught doing it wrong, it will effect how we do business.
The market for computer animations in the court room is wide open and offers
many opportunites in the coming years. Unless we take steps to educate, and
set standards like other professional organizations, we may see our market
limited by some easily avoidable adverse rulings.
The Society for Automotive Engineers has already started discussing the
question of whether our product should be called Scientific Visualizations
rather than Animations. The problem steming from a desire to avoid being
confused with the cartooning process instead of demonstrating an experts
scientific calculations.
WHAT I DO ISN'T FUNNY!
Like many of you, I go to great lengths to guarantee the accuracy of the
animations which I produce. It's really easy to produce something that looks
good, yet is grossly inaccurate. Like you, I don't want to see the market
messed up by before we really get started.
Four months from today I would like to see the following goals achieved:
1) A group of 4-5 functioning committees.
2) An approved test for setting standards of professionalism.
3) A minimum of 5 sites for on going training and accreditations.
4) National Seminars answering all questions regarding animation production.
5) Special incentives to be announced.
6) Newsletter
Associate membership will be $50.00
Cost for testing and accreditaion will be $150-$250.
The Following Committees Are Now Forming:
Executive Board: Will schedule meetings, seminars, and set goals for the
upcoming year.
Ethics Committee: Set standards regarding the use\ misuse of graphics and
animated graphic evidence.
Curriculum Committee: Board to formulate a standardized examination for
members to attain a Professional Status Designation. Courses to be developed
for training and continuing education in areas related to computer graphics and
animation.
Editorial Group: Editors and contibutors will be compensated for
participation.
If you are interested in joining and participating in this group, please reply
in some manner to me at the follwoing:
Richard J. Lapidus
SE FLorida 3D Studio User's Group
Video Production Marketing Inc
P.O. Box 811558
Boca Raton FL. 33481
Telephone: 407-241-2961
Compuserve: 71172,1451
i'm interested in being involved. I'm a civil p.e. by trade and came into the
animation from a technical background, wanting to illustrate some of my roadway
and site designs
i've tried the forensic market but found nothing but resistance here in
phoenix. they've all seen it, but they don't want it in THEIR courtroom.
let me know how to proceed.
mark crigler
Mark, I believe the source of resistance stems from the following:
1. Distrust of anyone under contract from a naturally biased attorney.
The result is a feeling that the person getting paid by the attorney
is going to give him what he wants.
2. Distrust of the animation process. i.e. anyone can make a pretty
picture and set motion to it, but is it _accurate_?
3. Too many people doing forensic animations that don't have the
background to understand the mechanics behind the event that they are
trying to reconstruct. In other words, the judge's resistance is
well founded in many cases.
The bottom line is that it must all begin with thorough, complete, and
accurate _analysis_ of an event, utilizing a complete set of known
information. It is only after an accurate analysis is completed that
an animation should even be considered. After all, the whole purpose
of courtroom animation is to illustrate what _actually happened_, and
not an approximation of what one person might think happened.
I am telling you this because too many incomplete analyses end up on
film, leading ultimately to general distrust of forensic animations.
If only solid engineering analyses end up on tape, and forensic
engineers are honest to themselves and the attorneys who hire them,
this business would flourish IMO.
I agree with you . In talking to some attorneys, I emphasized that I could
illustrate what the accident report stated. But i was not proficient, for
example, in physics and dynamics enough to say at what point a car in a skid
going off into a ditch rolled up enough so the forces involved exceeded the
center of gravity, flipped the car and crushed the occupants. This is what you
go hire a phd for.
Some of the resistance i've encountered has been the "cumulative effect" of
showing the video; in some cases they will only allow it to show once. In other
cases, the judge feels regardless of the accuracy, the hi-tech nature would
prejudice the jury.
And in all cases, I dont want to sit up there and be shredded over my work. I
have a lot of special training and capability as an engineer, but I've been
involved in litigation before and it's no fun.
Still tho, there must be a way to approach the market. Lawyers are just such a
different breed I haven't figured it out yet. The closest I've come is to quit
talking about courtrooms, and approach it from their marketing viewpoint,
becuase most of these firms spend a lot on marketing materials. Then when the
courtroom question is asked, I'm there.
Realistically though, I've dropped these guys from my marketing effort because
i think there are more profitable groups out there. But I would like to
try…………
mark c
Mark,
>>>>>>>
I emphasized that I could illustrate what the accident report stated. But i was
not proficient, for example, in physics and dynamics enough to say at what
point a car in a skid going off into a ditch rolled up enough so the forces
involved exceeded the center of gravity, flipped the car and crushed the
occupants.
This is what you go hire a phd for.
>>>>>>>>>
That's the whole point. Guys are running around acting like ph'ds.
Rick
Mark,
I'm in the middle of doing some reconfiguring, so this will be short. There
are some interesting ways to get it admitted. Will be back to you.
Rick Lapidus
any angle you've got i'm interested in. I figure lawyers are like doctors –
they love to spend money on toys, for both play and work. but other than that
they're hard to get to.
i anticipate your suggestions
mark c.
Rick, I have been seriously considering the newsletter item. What I
had in mind was a quarterly publication that contained industry news
and case studies submitted by forensic engineers. What are you
visualizing? Would you be interested in reviewing/editing? I am
very interested in what you are proposing.