Autopsy Table

[Frank Agbat]

OK so what is the 'final', determination of the correct orientation of the photo in question?

Preliminary 'final' using above.

Here with background peripheral items (table, prop, towel, floor...) separated from the actual body parts.

One thing I will say about the picture: I'm looking at it from the perspective of exposure, and depth of field. Knowing what type (make & model) of camera was used would be helpful, especially where the flash mounts to the camera. I'm going to guess that this camera syncs to the flash with a shutter speed of 1/60 second (a fairly common sync speed). The lens does not appear to be a macro lens, and the depth of field is fairly short -- indicating a more open aperture (f2.8, f4?). I'll have to do some digging -- the camera was discussed during the HSCA, I think.

[John Dolva]

If I understand correctly, this is important as the closer one comes the 'distortions' are more apparent or magnified?

I used your idea and created a virtual field of cd's to use in 3d program to get different views. I'm keen to see how accurate this is comapred to reality. It will help not only in this but to 'calibrate' the software output for other things. There are other circular items in the actual wound that can be taken and turned to various orientations to see how they fit on other photos displaying other views of the same items.

[John Dolva]

having also made a 3d pipe with slots to a narrower pipe as one would expect the plates ahnging over a supporting pipe it is not hard to find an orientation that matches the reflections seen in the photograph.

Further, the reflections that are more washed out in front og the sharper curved ones are then shown to be reflections probably from a sliver of light from undrer the head shining off the table top or the towel. The curve/spread of this reflections match the 3d pipe surface.

This supports the idea that the head is tilted chin to chest with a gap underneath for this photograph.

[John Dolva]

latest suggestion. Note : no analysis of the wounds. This cannot be done until there is a clear suggestion as to the orientation.

This suggestion must be one where all peripheral items are satisfactorily explained. There are still a few to cover but so far none that cannot be done with simple logic.

[John Dolva]

OK so what is the 'final', determination of the correct orientation of the photo in question?

Preliminary 'final' using above.

Here with background peripheral items (table, prop, towel, floor...) separated from the actual body parts.

One thing I will say about the picture: I'm looking at it from the perspective of exposure, and depth of field. Knowing what type (make & model) of camera was used would be helpful, especially where the flash mounts to the camera. I'm going to guess that this camera syncs to the flash with a shutter speed of 1/60 second (a fairly common sync speed). The lens does not appear to be a macro lens, and the depth of field is fairly short -- indicating a more open aperture (f2.8, f4?). I'll have to do some digging -- the camera was discussed during the HSCA, I think.

Frank I don't think I've been paying enough attention to what you and Robin have been saying. I thought I understood but it occurs to me that I might not.

I think Robin is talking about the block and right shoulder as being visible and when reading this post of yours I get an inkling of how it could be so.

Like it's a matter of how things change as you move in real close to take the photo where what's in the foreground is much closer than what's in the background so the perspective will make whats further away smaller than if it's taken from further away?

I think I can see how all this could work if the body was moved over to the left and the head turned in a particular way with the drainage hole and the gap between the table top plates as already correctly described.

EDIT:: once again I drop all speciulations and prconceptions and just isolate that which I think can be said with reasonable certainty.

we have drainage hole

curved plate gap

head (forgetting about orientation, analysis, etc just : it's there.

How do we fit it together so it makes sense in a real world.

I think there is good evidence that the pipe/plate gap is close to the orientation suggested.

The centre line of the oval shapes of both the pipe and the hole fall off to either side depending on how far off the centre line they are.

The question as I see it at the moment is how these behave as one moves up close to the head for the photo??

Edited January 26, 2006 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

I think this illustrates the idea using software. It'd be interesting to see how closely this mirrors reality.

One cd is placed higher than the others in a depth map. And the textured depth map turned to orientation on right.

Then zoomed in without changing orientation.

The cd's are all the same size and appear so at a distance. Zoomed in the closest one looks much bigger.

Edited January 26, 2006 by John Dolva

[Frank Agbat]

Hi John,

I'll try to take some pictures later today that better illustrate another distortion added by camera lenses as it relates to distance.

In short: items closer to the lens generally appear artificially larger, and may experience other distortions due to the construction of the lens. A common distortion is "fisheye".

Other common issues when the lens is placed too close to its target include overexposure of some or all of the photo due to excess light provided by the flash. Still another problem is near objects may be too close for the lens to focus (if it is not a macro lens). Lenses have both a maximum AND a minimum distance from which they can focus. I believe that this photo exhibits most of these characteristics.

Picture B from my CD grid shows this concept a bit. The meterstick appears to be wider on the top (right hand side of the picture) and narrows as it nears the floor. This, obviously, is not the case. The meterstick is the same width throughout.

---------

Another thought: The proposed orientaton of the head relative to the round rails that you presented ends up placing the head at the corner of the table. I'm not sure that this necessarily matches up with expected reality.

If one assumes that the purpose of this photo was to show the avulsed area of the skull and to provide scale (via the terribly overexposed ruler), then the body would have to be rolled (face up, face down, perhaps neck twisted) so as to allow the doctors to reflect the scalp and access the wound. In other words, the body could be laying on its back, but the head facing left and placed on a block (right-side up orientation). We need to consider how the doctors would have oriented the head and body to best inspect the wound.

On your software concept: I believe this approach to be sound, as long as the software is provided accurate information. Newer 3d modeling and animation software is *very* good at perspective, projections, and the like.

[John Dolva]

Hi John,

I'll try to take some pictures later today that better illustrate another distortion added by camera lenses as it relates to distance.

In short: items closer to the lens generally appear artificially larger, and may experience other distortions due to the construction of the lens. A common distortion is "fisheye".

Other common issues when the lens is placed too close to its target include overexposure of some or all of the photo due to excess light provided by the flash. Still another problem is near objects may be too close for the lens to focus (if it is not a macro lens). Lenses have both a maximum AND a minimum distance from which they can focus. I believe that this photo exhibits most of these characteristics.

Picture B from my CD grid shows this concept a bit. The meterstick appears to be wider on the top (right hand side of the picture) and narrows as it nears the floor. This, obviously, is not the case. The meterstick is the same width throughout.

---------

Another thought: The proposed orientaton of the head relative to the round rails that you presented ends up placing the head at the corner of the table. I'm not sure that this necessarily matches up with expected reality.

If one assumes that the purpose of this photo was to show the avulsed area of the skull and to provide scale (via the terribly overexposed ruler), then the body would have to be rolled (face up, face down, perhaps neck twisted) so as to allow the doctors to reflect the scalp and access the wound. In other words, the body could be laying on its back, but the head facing left and placed on a block (right-side up orientation). We need to consider how the doctors would have oriented the head and body to best inspect the wound.

On your software concept: I believe this approach to be sound, as long as the software is provided accurate information. Newer 3d modeling and animation software is *very* good at perspective, projections, and the like.

I've done a bit of scaling using what appears to be a standard 30" autopsy table width. Perhaps someone (Alan?) could confirm that is correct?

Taking the 30 cm (12") ruler from the back photo and fitting it to the headwound photo and then resizing to the table width seems to me to mean that perhaps the shift of the body need not be that great.

This is ignoring the result of looking at the 'phenomenon of things close on a closeup shot become so much larger than the things further away. We may very well end up with something sort of centered.

However, the direction of the pipe may not be disputed once it is found. I'll work on that one. What I mean is that once the features are working correctly and no significant objections can be found then, quite simply, the result must be accepted. (Until successfully challenged of course)

Anyway that what I reckon. So I'm suspending all expectations and it'll be interesting to see what the result is.

[Frank Agbat]

Okay -- I'm certainly not done with this analysis, but I'm feeling fairly certain that the hypothesis I'm about to present is sound. If it holds up to scrutiny, then I believe it (along with the other concepts we have been discussing) will lead us to the proper orientation of all the autopsy photographs.

Hypothesis: We can use the principles of light to ascertain the physical and operational characteristics of the camera employed for the photographs. From this, we can apply this principle to orient those pictures that create confusion.

To illustrate, and hopefully prove this theory, I have included a picture that bears certain characteristics that should be fairly easy to agree upon.

The following annotated picture illustrates what I am attempting to prove:

1 -- the camera uses a flash assembly that is above the center line of the lens (a fairly common configuration)

2 -- the flash is mounted on the right hand side of the lens (right from the photographer's perspective)

3 -- the shutter speed is fixed at 1/60th second when in flash mode (fairly common mode of operation)

4 -- the camera is operating with a fairly open aperture, and has an expectedly short depth of field

Please consider the following:

The green intersecting lines represent the center of the picture, and are very likely to represent the lens' center axis line.

A -- Note the bright reflection to the left of marker A. This is the flash reflecting back off of a metal object . The reflection is above and to the right of the centerline. Additionally, the metal object in the distance is out of focus, supporting the notion of a wider aperture and a shorter depth of field.

B -- The reflection from the holding bracket is to the left of the bracket itself, indicating a right-hand light source.

C -- This shoulder is brightly lit -- expectedly so since it is closer and more on-axis with the flash. Also note the lateral elongation of the drainage hole below marker C. The fact that it is stretched significantly in the right-left direction indicates that the camera is not elevated substantially above this line. This is confirmed by the centerline in the photograph.

D -- This shoulder is darker (less light) and features a shadow which is cast by the head. Again, the location and shift of this shadow confirms that the light that produced it came from the right and slightly above. Both shoulders are also out of focus, while the top of the head is well focused. This leads to the conclusion that the depth of field for this photograph is less than 12 inches.

E -- Although this may be patently obvious, with this case *nothing* should be left to assumption. These are blood drops which fell down onto the cloth. Blood drops do not fall up, or sideways, so this should confirm that we are looking at this photograph with the correct orientation.

F -- Notice the light fall-off on this side as opposed to marker B. To me, this not only assures right-sided flash, but also indicates that the reflector used for the flash is fairly narrow.

Additional unlabeled features that bolster the hypothesis:

The right side of the nose is brighter than the left (indicating right-side light), yet the tip of the nose is also well lit (indicating a raised light source.)

The fact that the shoulders cast shadow onto the table also supports (but does not solely confirm) a slightly elevated light source.

*******

If these statements are considered to be sufficient proof of the camera and flash characteristics, I believe we can apply the same principles to the other pictures to produce proper orientation.

[Frank Agbat]

Based on the theory from my previous posting, I'm considering the following orientation for the infamous picture:

Some comments:

1 -- consistent with previous hypothesis, this places the lighter portion, generally on the right hand side of the picture.

2 -- the photograph is taken too close to the subject. The reflected scalp present in the lower left hand portion of this picture is TOO CLOSE to the lens to be in focus

3 -- the bright area in the bottom right of the picture is closer to the lens than the areas above it. It is catching more light AND is less in focus.

4 -- the President is face DOWN in this picture, and his head is rotated slightly. (From his perspective, he would be 'looking' slightly leftward

5 -- the photograph is taken from the left of centerline relative to the head, and is looking slightly downward. This places the drainhole in the correct location.

6 -- the angle of the photograph obscures the undamaged left hemisphere of the head

7 -- the reflected scalp is blocking our view of the right ear

****

I will post some overlay pictures later, or tomorrow, depending on how the rest of my afternoon/evening unfolds.

[John Dolva]

Before answering. Could you discuss the 'curved gap' between the plates to lower feft on the orientation. This would have to be 'something', just what is the question.

The cropped version you show here only shows the drainage hole in part. It has a reflection on the (to this orientation) lower half. How could this be?

I find the discussion on the light shadow top of head photo very good particularly regarding flash.

I think there are indications of a (much) lesser second light source somewhere to the left behind up of the autopsy table.

[Frank Agbat]

Before answering. Could you discuss the 'curved gap' between the plates to lower feft on the orientation. This would have to be 'something', just what is the question.

The cropped version you show here only shows the drainage hole in part. It has a reflection on the (to this orientation) lower half. How could this be?

I find the discussion on the light shadow top of head photo very good particularly regarding flash.

I think there are indications of a (much) lesser second light source somewhere to the left behind up of the autopsy table.

John -- honestly, I'm not sure what the curved gap is. I'm still hunting to see if I can obtain a better image that is not cropped.

However, I'm of the opinion that there are only two possible orientations for this picture based upon the lighting characteristics. One is the one you posted, and this one is the other. The difference is a vertical flip of the image. Both seem fairly consistent in terms of lighting and shadow on a cursory inspection. I'm sure something subtle, but telling, will reveal the ultimate answer.

[John Dolva]

This illustrates my concern with the drainage hole.

Left as I think it makes sense.

Middle, same but rotated 180 degrees. The reflection here is shown on the lower downward beveled edge of the hole. This could not be? Unless the edge of the hole is a lip extending upwards. Which is obviously not so on a drainage surface. (see the wedge shape of the reflection)

Right, same as top but mirrored. Same concern as with middle but with the added problem of the ruler not appearing mirrored as to where the writing on it is. So it's not mirrored or rotated.

I say it must be up the way I've been suggesting?

Edited January 27, 2006 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

here is the drainage hole isolated.

When the photo is level the hole is 'level' however this cannot be as it is to the side of the center line. As an oval on a flat surface is further off the centreline its longest dimension turns clockwise or anti clockwise.

There fore the photo must be turned to clockwise from this level.

I've isolated the reflections here to illustrate the up and down. Also it shows the flash almost straight ahead which would place the camera lens to the left of here.

[Frank Agbat]

This illustrates my concern with the drainage hole.

Left as I think it makes sense.

Middle, same but rotated 180 degrees. The reflection here is shown on the lower downward beveled edge of the hole. This could not be? Unless the edge of the hole is a lip extending upwards. Which is obviously not so on a drainage surface. (see the wedge shape of the reflection)

Right, same as top but mirrored. Same concern as with middle but with the added problem of the ruler not appearing mirrored as to where the writing on it is. So it's not mirrored or rotated.

I say it must be up the way I've been suggesting?

John,

I agree. Additional review indicates that your orientation is more consistent, in my opinion.

I believe the photographer was attempting to photograph the cavity. However, the picture center is above the cavity, and with the flash being above and to the right of the lens, the majority of the light ended up hitting bone and reflected scalp -- leaving the cavity largely in darkness.

I now need to re-visualize the head orientation that makes this picture possible.