Version	1.1	/	Date	of	Issue:	2.09.16 /	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

OSAC	RESEARCH	NEEDS	ASSESSMENT	FORM

Title	of	research	need: Testing	&	Validation	of	3D	Imaging	Technologies	for	Footwear	&	Tire	

Impressions	Evidence

Keyword(s): Laser	Scanning,	3D	Printing,	Three	Dimensional	Impressions,	Footwear,	Tires

Submitting	subcommittee(s): Footwear	&	Tire Date	Approved: 07-Mar-2016

(If	SAC	review	identifies	additional	subcommittees,	add	them	to	the	box	above.)

Background	Information:

1. Description	of	research	need:

There	is	a	need	to	test	and	validate	3D	imaging	technologies	and	associated	products	(used	for	both	

acquisition	and	output)	for	use	in	the	recovery	and	examination	of	footwear/tire	impression	evidence.	In	

addition	to	validating	a	specific	technology	or	product	currently	on	the	market,	there	is	a	need	to	set	3D	

imaging	standards	(i.e.,	establish	minimum	requirements	and	specifications)	to	ensure	that	the	data	

acquired	(and	its	associated	output)	and	new	products	created	meet	the	needs	of	the	footwear/tire	

impression	evidence	community.		Specifically,	the	technology/product	must	be	able	to	reproduce	

footwear/tire	impression	evidence	with	sufficient	“resolution”	to	record	fine	detail	(including	manufactured	

texturing	and	small	wear	features)	and	the	dimensional characteristics	of	the	evidence.	It	must	be	able	to	

meet	these	requirements	with	both	precision	and	accuracy.	In	addition	to	these	requirements,	the	product	

should	be	affordable	(for	law	enforcement	agencies	at	all	levels),	portable,	and	easy	to	use.	The	current	

methods	for	recovering	footwear/tire	impression	evidence	lack	the	precision	and	accuracy	needed	to	

produce	high-quality	evidence	consistently.	Currently,	the	recovery	methods	consist	of	two-dimensional	

DSLR	photography	and	casting	or	lifting.	These methods	are	highly	dependent	on	the	crime	scene	

technician’s	expertise	in	the	detection,	collection	and	enhancement	of	this	type	of	evidence	and	his/her	

ability	to	apply	the	best	practices	to	the	evidence	encountered.	The	proper	technique	for	capturing	examquality	photographs	of	this	evidence	include:	placing	a	scale	adjacent	to	the	impression	at	the	same	depth	

as	the	bottom	of	the	impression,	placing	the	camera	on	a	tripod,	aligning	the	plane	of	the	camera’s	sensor	

with	the	plane	of	the	impression,	using the	appropriate	aperture	setting	(to	maximize	the	depth	of	field),	

and	illuminating	the	impression	from	various	angles	(to	maximize	the	impression	detail).	However,	the	

evidence	often	prohibits	adherence	to	this	protocol	so	even	the	best	photographers	are unable	to	apply	the	

proper	technique	in	every	case.	In	addition	to	the	fact	that	casting	and	lifting	require	experience	to	perform	

correctly,	these	processes	can	be	destructive	so	there	is	normally	only	one	opportunity	to	capture	the	

impression.		Note	that	despite	the	positive	impact	that	3D	imaging	could	have	on	evidence	collection	

methods,	the	3D	data	acquired	must	be	useful	to	the	laboratory	examiner.	This	means	that	there	must	be	

an	interface	between	the	field	and	the	lab	for	this	technology	to	be	adopted.	Therefore,	the	examination	
Version	1.1	/	Date	of	Issue:	2.09.16 /	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

process	and	laboratory	capabilities	must	be	considered	when	evaluating	a	technology/product	and	

validating	its	use	for	footwear/tire	impression	evidence.		Moreover,	the	examiner	community	will	best	be	

able	to	interpret	the	results	of	any	research	related	to	3D	imaging	technology	if	the	technology/product	is	

evaluated	against	existing	recovery	and	examination	methods.

2. Key	bibliographic	references	relating	to	this	research	need:

Andalo,	F.,	Calakli,	F.,	Taubin,	G.,	&	Goldenstein,	S.	(2011).	Accurate	3D	footwear	impression	recovery	from	

photographs.	4th	International	Conference	on	Imaging	for	Crime	Detection	and	Prevention	2011	(ICDP	

2011).

Buck,	U.,	Albertini,	N.,	Naether,	S.,	&	Thali,	M.	J.	(2007).	3D	documentation	of	footwear	impressions	and	tyre	

tracks	in	snow	with	high	resolution	optical	surface	scanning. Forensic	Science	International. Vol.	171(2-3),	

pp.	157-164.

Gamage,	R.	E.,	Joshi,	A.,	Zheng,	J.	Y.,	&	Tuceryan,	M.	(2013).	A	high	resolution	3D	tire	and	footprint	

impression	acquisition	for	forensics	applications.	2013	IEEE	Workshop	on	Applications	of	Computer	Vision	

(WACV).

3a. In	what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	current	laboratory	capabilities?

The	examiner	is	limited	by	the	information	that	can	be	gleaned	from	the	evidence	submitted.	The	current	

evidence	collection	methods	provide	challenges	to	reproducing	the	same	level	of	impression	detail	

observed	at	the	scene	and	the	impression’s	dimensional	characteristics	accurately.	Current	methods	are	

time-consuming	and	difficult	to	execute	without	extensive	training	and	experience.	The	results	of	this	

research	could	identify	technology/products	that	improve	the	quality	of	the	evidence	and	make	the	

collection	process	quicker	and	easier	to	perform.	If	the	process	is	easier,	more	evidence	will	be	collected	

and	more	information	will	be	available	for	consideration	by	the	examiner.	Ultimately,	3D	imaging	

technology	has	potential	to	reduce	the	number	of	inconclusive	results	provided	by	examiners	in	

laboratories.

3b. In	what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	understanding	of	the	scientific	basis	for	the	

subcommittee(s)?

This	research	would	allow	the	Subcommittee	to	understand	the	potential	and	trade-space	of	using	3D	

imaging	technology	over	conventional	2D	capture	and	reproduction	methods.		

3c.		In	what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	services	to	the	criminal	justice	system?

Possible	benefits:	increase	quality	of	evidence,	improved	evidence collection,	improved	evidence	

examinations	(since	examiners	would	spend	less	time	grappling	with	what	to	do	with	distorted	photos	

and/or	broken	casts),	a	decrease	in	the	number	of	inconclusive	opinions,	an	increase	in	the	number	of	

conclusive	opinions,	improved	evidence	integration	across	cases	for	investigators/attorneys/juries/judges.
Version	1.1	/	Date	of	Issue:	2.09.16 /	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

4.		Status	assessment	(I,	II,	III,	or	IV): I Major gap	in	

current	

knowledge

Minor	gap	in	

current	

knowledge

No	or	limited

current	research	

is	being	conducted

I III

Existing current	

research	is	being	

conducted

II IV

This	research	need	has	been	identified	by	one	or	more	subcommittees	of	OSAC	and	is	being	provided	as	an	

informational	resource	to	the	community.

Approvals:

Subcommittee Approval	date: 07-Mar-2016

(Approval	is	by	majority	vote	of	subcommittee.	Once	approved,	forward	to	SAC.)

SAC

1.		Does	the	SAC	agree	with	the	research	need? Yes x No

2.		Does	the	SAC	agree	with	the	status	assessment? Yes x No

If	no,	what	is	the	status	assessment	of	the	SAC:

Approval	date: 17-Mar-2016

(Approval	is	by	majority	vote	of	SAC.		Once	approved,	forward	to	NIST	for	posting.)