For Latent Print Examiners by Latent Print Examiners
https://forum.clpex.com/
(My department) has MIDEO, they are out of California. They have a slick product, nice capture, image authentication, all sorts of things. Our DNA Lab has used it for years just for documentation of evidence. The Latent side of the Lab bought it about 2 or 3 years ago, insisting it integrate with our (computer report writing software). Well, we are still waiting. They keep telling us that the Evidence Processing Unit will start taking photos with it, soon…(They have been telling us that for over a year) and then we will do everything right on-screen (comparisons). Does not appear to be happening. Should you ever get to (my city), drop in to see the Lab and we’ll get you talking with the folks who actually deal with it. I used to be really sold on the product, but now ????????
The Mideo system is a decent system for managing images, however when used to capture or enhance latent prints it leaves a lot to be desired. We were looking into an image enhancement/management system (several) years ago and MoreHits(now ADAMS) and Mideo were the two main players. Of the lab employees that reviewed it, only one was in favor of MoreHits. As a result we purchased Mideo (a few years ago), because Forensic Biology “has it so we must be uniform across the lab.” To date we have not got it up and running. The company says it needs more time to develop a “latent module” and claim they have never installed it for latent print enhancement purposes. Based on my experience with Mideo, I would strongly discourage your agency from pursuing them.
What about the quality of the photos? Are there any advantages to the actual quality of casework, or is this system more a convenience for documentation and reporting purposes? Does anybody out there use the system and recommend it to other labs?I saw your post on the Forum about Mideo. A while back, I participated in an audit of case work at the (forensic laboratory) and that was the system they had me use for latent capture. Actually they were just starting to transition to the system while I was there and I think that I was the first to use the system for actual case work. I know that they will be totally "Mideo'ed" (in a year or two). The case management software worked great. It was very easy to cross reference things and search the database. However, in my professional opinion, the image capture system, which consisted of a video camera, (was less than good). Even though it allowed for a live image on screen before capture, I would have preferred a digital camera instead. One of the major problems was the slow response time between focusing the lens and seeing the results on screen, sometimes as long as 20 seconds in high resolution mode. It was extremely frustrating and probably cost me three to four times the time needed to capture an image compared to a digital camera set up. Also, with the exception of the focus ring, all the other camera controls are software based, causing lags to response time. I don't know if this was an interface problem or software driver problem. If your department is going this route, try to keep a digital camera image capture system. The video cameras must stay mounted and tethered to the copy stand and computer limiting your ability to make those hard to get shots. Instead of moving the camera around, you have to manipulate the evidence and your light source. The video works okay recording lifts and impressions on flat surfaces by doesn't give you much flexibility. I'm sure the salesman has a great presentation and demonstration of the system to wow you, but put him in the real world and see what happens.
