Bare Footprint Analysis Comparing Two Collection Methods Adopting the Reel Measurement System and Adobe Photoshop

Abstract

This study examined the role that dissimilar bare footprint collection and measurement processes have on the Reel method of measurement in forensic podiatry and its use in the Criminal Justice System. Previous research indicated the Reel method was a valid and reliable measurement system for bare footprint analysis but various collection systems had been used to collect footprint data and both manual and digital measurement processes were utilized in forensic podiatry and other disciplines. This study contributes to the debate about collecting bare footprints; the techniques employed to quantify various Reel measurements and considered whether there was asymmetry between footprints of the same person. An inductive, quantitative paradigm used two gathering procedures for footprint collection and the subsequent dynamic footprints subjected to Adobe© Photoshop© measurement of a truncated version of the Reel variables. The findings from the research suggested there were no statically significant differences in the footprint measurements using dissimilar collection devices, that Adobe© Photoshop© technique for measurement offers a reasonably easy method for measurements and offers alternative findings to that of Reel using a comparative digital measuring arrangement. Standard Error of Mean showed variation between feet/footprints and between collection systems and the findings provide support for the Reel study.

Recovery via SfM photogrammetry of latent footprint impressions in carpet

“…All traces were recovered using both SfM photogrammetry and 2D photography illuminated via a crime light. Using the Reel method, basic dimensions of all the barefoot impressions including the test impression were taken digitally within DigTrace [13][14][15][16][17].…”