CSI

[karohemd]

Note: I don't watch it religiously or even regularly, just when it takes my fancy and nothing else is on. Not a problem because the episodes are usually standalone cases.

Now, one of the main things they say about CSI is that it's allegedly very realistic in portraying the forensics and scientific sides of the investigations. I'm not an expert in genetics, biology and other sciences so I'm concentrating on something that really irritated me today.

In today's Las Vegas episode on 5, one of CSI types (Sara?) used what was clearly a digital SLR as if it was a compact with a display viewfinder, i.e. she was holding the camera away from her face and was looking at the display. SLRs don't work like that (when you're not taking a picture, the mirror's down so the image is reflected from the lens to the optical viewfinder, when you release the shutter, the mirror flips and reflects the image onto the film/sensor), you don't have a "live picture" on the display! On top of that, the sound you heard was that of a film SLR with motor (i.e. the mirror action with the short film transport sound after).

If they can't get a simple mechanical detail like that right, I have not a lot of confidence in their "science", either.

Then there's the fantasy computers but that's US TV heritage, I'm used to that. My old X-Files spoof RPG even had the "Tapping Keys Randomly" ability instead of Computers. ;oÞ

Comments

[eggwhite.livejournal.com]

They're apparently pretty good about getting what is or isn't possible right, but pretty poor on the time it takes to do things or what the processes look like. But then it wouldn't make for that thrilling an episode if we spent weeks waiting for each test result.

Except for CSI:Miami. That blatantly just works on the power of Horatio Caine: Supercop and his magical clue attracting sunglasses. They have no clues - he puts on his sunglasses and suddenly there's an obvious clue right in front of him. Then he has to take his sunglasses off again or they'll eat his soul.

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

*giggles at the description* I mean, just look at the name, Horatio Caine, and you know he's a twat. ;o)

[laumiere.livejournal.com]

Re the science:

CSI and sister programmes are now cited as damaging a lot of criminal cases such as rape and murder as the jury is now convinced that DNA and forensics can solve eveything.....

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

That is an interesting and at the same time worrying observation...

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

He's the least likeable person in any of the CSI series - a judgemental git with delusions of infallibility.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

No, they get things wildly wrong on a lot of the science, I'm afraid. It's fun, but nothing about it is realistic.

[eggwhite.livejournal.com]

I'm entirely prepared to believe that I'm wrong about the science - I'm going by what I'm told by people who work in related fields.

From what they've said, where CSI tends to be wrong is about things like how much physical evidence is present (they find too much), the quality of it (it's always in good condition) and how often it's useful (almost always) and how much of it is compromised (almost never). Also the amount of analysis they do "in house" and the amount of analysis they do from a tiny sample are usually way off.

What can actually be done is usually not too bad - what's needed to do it with regards to equipment and collected evidence, how long it takes and how much it would cost (often so much that it would never be done) are severely skewed. How long it would take is also way, way off.

[eggwhite.livejournal.com]

To be fair, they're also cited as aiding a lot in trials as juries are now prepared to actually listen to forensic evidence when presented with it, as opposed to about a decade a go when people hated having to use it because it made the jury just switch off and rarely actually made a difference - average man on the street wouldn't believe or understand it and so the evidence was effectively ignored. They made forensics cool, so average people listen to it now and believe it.

It's raised the profile, which will always have both good and bad effects. From what you're saying it might have raised it too far, leading to more of the bad than the good, but I expect there'll be a backlash.

That said, I don't think original CSI will be running much longer - they've got to the point where to make episodes interesting they have to have main characters cock up regularly and they're repeating plots a bit too often. Much prefer CSI:NY these days, which seems to be a lot better at dealing with non-forensic things as well.

[ua-meruti.livejournal.com]

I think the thing to remember is there's quite the difference between "real" and "realistic".

[diasporal-waves.livejournal.com]

1 hour to get a DNA profile....*twitch*...one hour to get a DNA profile....*twitch*....one hour to get...etc /rocks backwards and forwards, muttering with the occassional whimpering laugh

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

There there.
Yeah, that's one of the big ones I've heard but it falls under the time reduction thing mentioned above.

[belak-krin.livejournal.com]

"The seven-point-five megapixel E-330 is the first digital SLR designed to provide a full-time live view on its LCD monitor while still providing a usable through-the-lens viewfinder. It provides two live view modes, the first uses a small CCD sensor integrated into the viewfinder chamber, the second mode uses the main sensor but this blocks the viewfinder and disables auto-focus.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0601/06012606olympuse330evolt.asp

Perhaps pandering a little for dramatic effect (it might be based on hard science, but the telling is dramatic) but its hardly science fiction.

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

It was a Nikon. ;oÞ
The sound was still wrong.