Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Nodoby will ever take a photo seriously.
> 
>> Apparently this is already the case in court in the USA. It's almost 
>> impossible to introduce a photograph as evidence without the photographer 
>> being there to say "Yep, that's what I saw."
> 
>   As if eyewitness testimony would be more reliable than photographic one...

It's how our legal system works. The testimony isn't taken to be reliable. 
It's up to the jury to judge whether it's reliable. It's not uncommon for 
some medical problem to result in both sides bringing up doctors, one to say 
it was a terrible lack of care and attention, the other saying it was an 
inevitable result of the illness.  The jury figures out which doctor they 
believe more.

Note that in the case with the photo, it's not that eyewitness testimony is 
more reliable than the photo, but eyewitness testimony that the photo shows 
what was actually there.

Kind of like getting the guy who measured the amount of alcohol in your 
blood to show up and say "yes, I did that, the results match the person, 
etc" instead of just a piece of paper that says "this is how much alcohol 
was in his blood" that you can't question to find out if it's accurate.

>   What I find really sad is when a movie uses magnificent stunts without
> even a single pixel being added by computer, and most people just dismiss
> it as a CGI effect.

That too. Or lovely models or especially sets that aren't computer rendered.
-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message