"Shark Still Looks Fake"

Now that we are all well aware that 3D technology is here to stay for movies, television and soon for games, and mobile devices...it's safe to say that those annoying glasses need to go. This auto-stereoscopic technology is a lot closer than you think and you don't need to go watch Back to the Future 2 to see it.





The first generation of 3D tvs have been impressive but just don't cut the mustard in terms of practicality. In a fairly large effort to be pushed mainstream, 3D television displays have been tough to sell despite the increasing amount of ticket sales for 3D movies at your local cinema. The fact of the matter is, the glasses are too too bulky and expensive, and the average person doesn't want to sit wearing them at home. On top of that, right now there just isn't much 3D content available to watch. This will all soon change in 2011 with the emergence of new 3D devices and the ability to view content glasses-free.

The first of the next generation electronics to implement the concept will be the Nintendo 3DS which will be on shelves as early as next month. The device will create a glasses-free 3D effect using a parallax barrier, which sits on top of an LCD display. These light blocking barriers redirect the left-eye and right-eye images. The idea is that instead of having glasses on your head, they are now on the screen itself. The barriers can also be switched off to display images in regular 2D mode. There's also downsides to this effect. One is that the screens brightness is reduced and the other is that the 3D effect is only visible within a limited viewing range. Because of those reasons, this technology is currently only optimal for smaller devices and wont make its way to larger screens.

Toshiba will be the first in the industry to release a television implementing the glasses-free technology by using lenticular lenses. These are shaped so that a different image is displayed depending on the viewing angle in which you are at. Currently the largest display for this is only a 21 inch screen (currently only available over seas) but larger versions are currently in the works. A 65 inch version was demoed at the 2011 CES show this year and proved glasses-less 3D can be achieved at a much larger scale. Even with this achievement though the viewing angles are still limited but hopefully will be resolved upon the its official release.

A step forward in 3D content will be starting on February 14th when ESPN's 3D channel will begin 24-hour broadcasting. Along with this, multiple digital imaging companies such as Sony, Fujifilm and Panasonic have announced or already have released 3D-capable cameras and camcorders. The images and video will in turn need to be displayed on a 3D capable screen. Also, debuting this year will be cell phones and tablet computers using 3D glasses-free technology. A phone with a glasses-free 3D screen using a technology called Masterimage is already available in Japan.

The future of 3D technology looks promising, with many more screens and devices being released this year. As long as the content grows, 3D will become more available. One question remains...will 3D technology replace 2D and become the new standard for our entertainment viewing if its glasses-free?

The Era of the iPod.

During our lunch hour we were discussing the breaking news about how the iPhone 4 is coming to Verizon. Then we began to reminisce about the time before the iPod and Apple's tech savvy applications. We were talking about how young we were when the first iPod came out and how it has evolved over the last 10 years to become the “it” thing in our society. What would we do without the hand- sized brick that has been able to store our music, pictures, and rid us of boredom with fun applications? Now that Verizon has gained a piece of the fame, many customers are eager to have their very own iPhone.
Look at how the iPod has changed with its shape, color, quality and weight over the years.

Something as small and relatively unimportant as a “music player” has shaped our social interaction and need to have the newest technology. Those that might still have the original “brick” iPod are now seen as weird and technologically behind. This technology has affected the way people communicate and interact with one another. When those apple buds are in their ears they become oblivious to what is going on around them. This technology is more than a fad. It is now seen among the young and old as well as the professional world. The iPod and more recently, the iPhone, are still the talk despite criticism on the latest model.


Now how does relate to the legal world? With this technology there have become ways for attorneys and those like us at WIN to utilize Apple technology to help us keep track of hours for billing, physically store notes when a pen is not handy, and maintain a contact database to store information about people we meet day to day. It also helps keep appointments and set personal reminders, simply because we all know we will never forget to look at our phone or iPod throughout the day. Apple has created a device that is both useful to a large audience and convenient with easy shortcuts, icons and applications; the ability to talk, store, and manage day to day tasks has been achieved.

It is exciting to see how Apple will out do themselves over and over again, and the ways people can use their technology to improve the way they communicate, run a business or simply stay in touch with others. Whatever their uses are, we are obsessed with our Apple devices and continue to fall in love with the new "oooo and ahhhhh" advances.

High Tech People / Low Tech Courts

Time machines do exist. They're called U.S. courtrooms. Why is it that a lawyer can be so technologically savvy outside the courtroom when using the internet, smartphones, and other modern technology, but as soon as that same lawyer walks into a courtroom he's banging rocks together trying to start a fire? I've said it numerous times before, but courts are so far behind the technological curve, that aside from electric lighting, there is very little difference between the courtrooms of old and those of today.

Don't get me wrong, historic courtrooms are great. They have a wonderful atmosphere that lets any person standing there feel the legal history present in them. They are often the polished wood courtrooms we see on TV shows. They represent where we came from and the principles that made our judicial system great simply by reminding us of it with their beautiful, but older style architecture and design. Nonetheless, these historical courtrooms weren't built with technology in mind. In some courtrooms across the country, even the addition of electrical lighting seems out of place. Check out these historic courtrooms:





While they do have a lot of character, there is no reason why these courtrooms shouldn't have some modern amenities to make them a little more up to date with today's technology. What exactly do I mean by that? I'm glad you asked.

Many lawyers and courtrooms feel that ELMOs (Electronic Light Magnifying Object or Video Document Camera) and projector screens are cutting edge technology in the courtroom. In some sense they are correct when considering the fact that there is almost no technology in many courtrooms, but how high tech are these devices are in everyday life? Not very. Think about the kind of television you have at home. Better yet, think about the children's toys out there on the market like the Xbox Kinect or the Nintendo Wii gaming console. Now consider that children are using high tech equipment daily and for everything while attorneys are using dated technology. Of course ELMOs and projectors have their valid uses such as on-the-fly presenting or magnification, but they are not cutting edge (I will talk more about the effective USE of different kinds of technology in a later blog post, but for now let's focus on the equipment itself).

On the flip side, there are more and more "modern" courtrooms popping up all over the country. For example check out a video of courtroom 21 in Bexar county (where even in this type of courtroom, you'll notice a heavy focus on the ELMO features):


This is a more historic courthouse with added equipment such as LCD monitors all over the place. The plaintiff, defendant, jurors, judge, and clerk all get their own monitors. There is an ELMO, DVD/VCR players, and even touchscreen interactive monitors. This courthouse is older, but still equipped with some of the latest technology.

That brings me to another point. Just because a courtroom wasn't designed with technology in mind doesn't mean it needs to be relegated to the stone age. Here, at WIN Interactive, we've taken it as kind of a pet project to bring technology into all kinds of courtrooms. While we are more than happy to use technology that is already in place, we often find the need to bring our own. In some cases, we fully outfit an entire courtroom with technology for semi-permanent use. For example, check out these before and after pictures of a court room in South Dakota that we gave a very simple, but effective set up:

Before

Before

After

After

You'll notice that the equipment seems to fit seamlessly into this very simple courtroom and yet if you look at the "before" pictures, you can see that the courtroom was devoid of technology other than perhaps an old tube televison.

Despite the lack of technology in most courtrooms, there are some that try to keep up with the times. Here is a picture of one courtroom in florida that looks great. I'd love to try a case there:


Here is yet another courtroom project such as courtroom 23 in Florida. If you click on the link you can take a look at some of the technology they have outfitted in their courtroom. This courtroom was designed in 1998. If you take a look at some of the pictures you can see that they had the right idea in mind, but they are still behind the times in technology. For example, they have a rolling podium that has a monitor and an ELMO attached to it. While this may have seemed like a good idea to them at the time, it of course has its problems. While this is better than nothing and it's an admirable goal to give the attorney everything he would need within arm's reach, it is still clunky. Much of what this podium does can be replicated and done even better today with a simple laptop computer loaded with good software.

The last thing that I'd like to talk about is that even when courtrooms move in the right direction, they are often misled. The most notable example is here:
The problem in many "modern" courtrooms is providing each juror with their own monitor. The whole idea sounds very cool and modern, but in reality, the technology here is doing a disservice to the jurors and to the lawyers presenting. The problem with individual monitors is that you have now isolated each juror from every other juror. They are no longer learning together with eyes forward. They are now on their own and looking at their own screens, which are usually angled down, causing them to look away from the attorneys and witnesses. This increases the risk of juries disconnecting with a lawyer and/or witnesses. A better approach is to set up larger TV's and/or projector screens that the jury can focus on together. That way they learn together and their attention remains on the attorney or witness who is usually beside the screen.

Here is an example of a proper courtroom setup for the jury box:
The jury has two large LCD monitors that they can share. Their attention remains forward and they all learn together in a social way that doesn't isolate or distract any one juror.

The whole point of the technology in the courtroom is to help the attorney tell the story of the case while teaching the case to the jurors. People are much more likely to learn and pay attention when they are presented with a learning environment that they are used to (i.e. a classroom type set up where eyes are forward and the attention is on the teacher). This also helps them to feel like they are part of the experience. Lastly, a simple logistical point is that individual jury monitors can be easily damaged and they often get banged up when the jurors come in and out of the box. Plus, that many monitors probably costs more than one large LCD or projector and screen.

I'll leave you with some more photos of courtroom setup that we did in a beautiful historic courtroom:

Producing Video from Across the County

Over the past 3 weeks I have been involved in a case that has required a large amount of video work. The goal of the video was to tell a story from the perspective of four victims that have been involved in similar accidents. The project took me to two cities in Massachusetts, up to Maine, and almost out to the west coast.

The style and setting of the three videos in Massachusetts and Maine were shot in a personal style, where the questioning attorney was in the room just having a conversation with the victim rather than hounding him with questions. The goal of these videos was to tell the story of the victims' lives and how they changed after the accident. We chose a narrative method where the questioning attorney would not be seen nor heard. Framing these subjects played a large role in the final video since we were putting together a compilation of all all four victims. We planned to shoot two victims framed left and the other two framed right. Many people don't necessarily pay attention to how subjects are framed in television, film, or news broadcasts, but the choices are very specific and intentional. I'll get into more details about framing in a later blog post, but the main point here is that I didn't want to have four subjects framed all on the same side in order to avoid monotony. I wanted left, right, left, right to keep the video visually diverse and appeal to the viewers the way they are used to seeing things professionally done on television and film.

The fourth video was out on the west coast, however, and with the fast approaching deadline obstructed by the not so promising New England weather dumping snow on us, it didn't seem like it was going to be in our favor to get out to Portland and back in a timely manner. Discussing this with our client, we came to the conclusion that hiring a local west coast video company while directing the work through a video conferencing session using Skype would be the easiest and most effective way to put our lawyer in the same room as the victim while retaining the same style as the previously shot videos. Our office manager narrowed the local video companies down based on their experience shooting legal video and passed the list on to me where I looked through my footage and production notes to guide me to make the right decision. After deciding, I gave one company a call to talk shop and discuss the logistics of how we were going to bring our lawyer from Massachusetts to Portland in a seamless and flawless way.

Production company, check! Videoconferencing, check! Sigh of relief on my end. Now I had to think about the setup of the cameras and figuring out how we on the east coast were going to see what the main camera on the west coast was seeing. When people think of Skype, they think of sitting in front of their computers with their shoddy built-in webcams that have poor frame rates resulting in a choppy visual conversation with someone. We decided that the traditional technique was not ideal for how we needed to communicate with the victim. Skype allows you to use an external camera if you decide not to use your built in camera or if you do not have a built in camera. I instructed the camera operator to use his main camera as the feed for the Skype camera, that way the camera we were viewing was the actual camera recording the subject, which gave us full communication and control if a framing issue occurred, or we needed to move the subject.

As far as the camera angles go, the first camera was a medium shot of our subject (head, shoulders, arms, and mid torso), and we also had a second camera that shot a close-up. Second camera angles are important for a few different reasons, such as using that second angle to cut to if an issue occurs with the first angle. A simple example is that the subject could be doing something distracting in the medium shot with his hands and we simply don't want the viewers seeing that, so we cut to a close up until he's done fidgeting. Additionally, deleted footage may cause awkward cuts that you don't want because it signals that something was clearly edited. By moving to a closeup briefly and then back to the medium shot you can somewhat solve that problem by creating smoother transitions that remain visually appealing. Lastly closeups are important when showing emotion. If someone begins to cry or is emotionally speaking about something, you want to see it in their eyes and bring your audience right into the pain and suffering of the victim. You never know when that second camera angle could either help you in the cutting room, or be the perfect shot you were looking for.

On the day of the shoot we performed a test to make sure our signals were smooth and I also spoke with the camera operator for a third time to review the game plan to make sure we were on the same page. We virtually brought our attorney 3,100 miles away into the same room as the victim and got unbelievable footage to complete the story of these four victims. The final step was to have the production company capture the footage on their end and send me the original tapes so I could capture them on mine. This was a smart thing to do because if anything happened to the tapes while in transit, the original footage was backed up. Luckily, we didn't need to rely on any safeguards because the tapes made it to us safely.

The videos came out great, and the final product was exactly what we wanted!

And in this corner... The Body!

Not too long ago, I wrote a blog entry about some of the legal questions raised by the implementation of airport backscatter x-ray scanners. In that entry (which you can read here), I considered the possibility of people suing over the use of the scanners. It hadn't occurred to me that the first significant (i.e. news worthy) law suit against airport security would be over the non-technological repercussions of the scanners.

I read an article about how former Minnesota governor Jesse "The Body" Ventura is currently suing over not only the scanners, but the invasive and aggressive body searches performed by the TSA staff. He names Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and TSA Administrator John Pistole as defendants as well. His general claim is that the scanners and body searches subject him (and other Americans) to an illegal search and seizure that violates the 4th Amendment, which requires probable cause before a search.

The ex-governor launched his law suit shortly after being subjected to a full-body pat down when his metal hip replacement set off the metal detector, which "exposed him to humiliation and degradation through unwanted touching, gripping and rubbing of the intimate areas of his body." Prior to this, security had always just used wands to detect his hip replacement.

Due to his hip replacement, the ex-governor would consistently have to either go through the scanners that can essentially see a person naked or subject himself to manhandling by a TSA officer. His hip, which should make his life easier, now potentially makes him have to sacrifice his right to privacy without cause. Potentially, all people with any kind of medical procedure involving metal implants will also have their 4th Amendment rights taken from them. As a result, the law suit could add physical discrimination to its list of claims against the TSA (also religious discrimination for those religions that frown upon nudity or physical touching).

Many suspect that the whole point behind the aggressive groping done by TSA agents is to make the experience as unpleasant as possible to encourage people to go through the possibly unsafe scanners (see health risks involved with backscatter x-rays - FDA and NY Times). People have the illusion that they can "opt-out" of the scan, but the alternative is just as humiliating. Until I read the article about the suit, it hadn't occurred to me that the anger over the physical "pat-down" search would cause the first really news worthy law suit. Granted, the scanner is part of the suit, but the TSA's jedi-mind-trick of letting passengers elect not to go through the scanners seems to have backfired by further angering passengers.

I'm personally interested to see how far this inevitable law suit gets.

Art in the Courtroom

We live in a society where media and technology is always available; however there is still a use for court artists. After reading an article online, I noticed that the accompanying video was a slide show of court drawn pictures of the defendant, judge, jury members and attorney. How ironic a video of pictures being taken. But because in some trials media is prohibited; we go back to the drawing board, literally.

For high profile trials where cameras are to be kept out of the courtroom. Television stations, newspapers and magazine publishers need court artists to sketch the characters and scenes of the trial. Cameras are kept out at times to avoid distractions and preserve the privacy of those in court; therefore news outlets rely on these drawings.

There are artists who solely work for the court system and have worked on some famous and memorable cases. I believe that the sketch- book and pencil will be around for a while, even though a camera can take the same image, there is a definite authenticity to a drawn picture. Artists use different drawing techniques to depict the scene in the courtroom. They use materials from pencils, charcoal, to pastels. These drawings can also pick up raw emotion more so than a picture at times, giving the public a true depiction of what’s going on in the courtroom.


So for those artists out there, there will always be in my mind a job for you in the criminal justice field whether it be drawing a witness’s account of a suspect or drawing individuals in court proceedings. Its an exciting job and very much needed for media uses. There is a blog I came across dedicated to showing people what a camera cannot while in Supreme Court trials http://www.courtartist.com/ Take a look at some of this artist’s work and how much detail is put into every drawing.

Wii technology in the Courtroom

My family recently purchased the Wii gaming system, for a while I wanted to have the gaming system since it seems like everyone else had it. Not only is the system, fun, the games they have developed are unique and fun for all ages. My dad who is someone we call “computer illiterate” finds humor in jumping around or pretending the living room is a bowling alley. The technology has gotten better in my opinion over time. Similar to the Wii is the kinetic phenomenon that picks up sensors from the persons body without holding controllers. It’s amazing to me how one’s movements can translate from reality to a character that resembles them on the TV screen.

It would be interesting to use this same technology in the courtroom recreating movements and reenacting scenes from events throughout the case and trial process. Giving life to a story helps lawyers “tell the story” of what happened between the two parties. This also allows jurors to get a sense of what happened on that given day or to visually see the movement and interaction in question. The Wii and kinetic are systems of fun and games but the actual technology, sensor pick up and translation from human movement to the screen can be useful as a visual aid for attorneys or the trial team in a case. Having the defendant or plaintiff reenact what happened on the day of the event can be more useful than words or straight testimony if a picture can accompany their words.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, what if you take that idea a step further and provide actual re-creation of the movements and actions of the parties in question to provide a “accurate” and “representative” picture or continuous movements of the events that took place. Would this or could this be used in a courtroom, that’s the underlying question; but with the advances of technology we could see a courtroom version of the Wii or kinetic system in the future; as sensor pickup and translation from simple movement from a human can be transferred over to a resemble them on a TV could be the “new” way to tell a story in trial.

The attached link looks at animating evidence in the courtroom by using advances in gaming systems similar to the idea I mentioned using the Wii and kinetic senor pickup.

http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/evidence-witnesses/12953262-1.html