CLPEX Chat Board

I am new to the fingerprint community and was recently posed the question: Which method of recording fingerprints is better for comparing purposes livescan or ink on a ten-print card? I am hoping the examiners that read the cplex chatboard could give some of their opinions and why they feel that way.

Ink.

INKED....NO QUESTION.

Definitely inked, no comparison, assuming all other things are equal.

I had to ink a clients impressions last week, because livescan could not cope with the poor detal on his fingers. Livescan has still some way to go to record the third level. But at the present time, ink is far more superior.

The inked pads are better than live scan images, however you can go one better than that with the printers ink (rolling out the ink on a slab of glass, for those who do not know about this pre-inked pad method). You'll see greater deail, including more level 3 detail, with the printers ink.

Try a demonstration sometime. You'll be suprised on the difference in clarity that you'll see.

I seem to be in a minority here. When I first started everything was inked so when my agency went to total live scan I hated the idea! However the live scan prints I get are wonderful! Rolled nail to nail including the first joint!! Total palms...nothing missing. No smears....not too much ink....not to little ink.... Now when I have to pull an inked card to do a comparison I am dismayed at how bad they really were. I think it boils down to who's doing the fingerprinting and what sort of training they've had.....I am fortunate in that we have people in our intake office who take pride in the work they produce and they understand the importance of good known impressions...they know I can't do my job if they don't do theirs.

My first choice is to use the card that gives me the detail necessary to complete my comparison. That being said, all else being equal, I will always choose the inked card.

I agree that the person taking the prints has a big part in the quality of the card. But if we’re just comparing the quality of method exclusive of the ability of the person taking the prints, ink is better. That doesn’t mean that it will always be the case, but it is currently in my office.

One of the main issues regarding the 10-print cards that I use for comparison is the output quality of the printers. Whether the current standard is 1000 ppi or even 500 ppi for 10-print capture, the printer limits the output quality. Since the 10-print cards are printed at 1:1, you’re limited to the resolution of the printer at 1:1. The majority of the printers in use for printing Livescan cards are limited to a resolution of 300ppi. In addition to that, the printers have to be working at their best all of the time for that resolution to actually be represented in the final hard copy. Ours are very inconsistent. As toner starts run out, there will be fading, lines, artifacts, etc… in the card. A Livescan card is the result of a digital image, and we’re bound by the limitations that come along with digital images; resolution, size, compression, artifacting, interpolation, etc… Remember that the weakest link in the digital imaging chain is the output – the printer.

I have seen the on-screen versions of prints that look far superior to what is actually coming out of the printer. But our latent unit is not doing on-screen final comparisons. We’re still using the printed hard copies. So no matter how great the capture appears to be on screen, you just can’t put 1000ppi of water into a 300ppi bucket and expect to have the same amount of water that you started with.

Now if these were latent prints captured in a digital format, I’d just say to print them at a size that allows for all the resolution to appear in the image, such as 3:1 or 4:1. But if we were to do this, we could rename the 10-print card the “10-page card.” So much for saving space in the files…

Just to show a little demonstration of the difference between Inked Prints and Live Scan Prints, I've put together a comparison on our web page. It shows a Live Scan, Pre Inked Pad, and Printers Ink print. All images are in their original 500 dpi resolution.

http://www.borgerpd.com/Livescan_Vs_Ink.htm

I just want to thank everyone for thier insight into the debate on which is better livescan or ink for capturing fingerprints for comparison purposes. It's been extremely helpful. Special thanks to J Whisler who provided an excellent comparison of livescan, ink pad, and printer's ink fingerprints