Night Photography & Videography Tips

Introduction

The investigation of nighttime motor vehicle collisions is widely considered one of the most challenging aspects of collision reconstruction. Nighttime collisions, particularly those involving motorcycles, pedestrians, cyclists, skateboarders, or wildlife, frequently require investigators to assess the visibility of the struck object from the driver’s perspective at the time of the collision. Being able to timely detect pedestrians or other hazards on the road at night is a critical factor in collision avoidance. Nighttime collisions account for a disproportionately high number of total collisions.

However, since lighting, weather, and traffic conditions are continuously changing, achieving a perfect re-enactment is usually not possible. Therefore, the investigator must rely on nighttime visibility assessment techniques to best reproduce the original conditions and correctly account for all factors outside the investigator’s control. This need is heightened by the ‘Dilemma of the Invisible Pedestrian,’ which refers to the apparent paradox that pedestrians tend to overestimate their own conspicuity at night.

The goal of this panel discussion session was to share the combined experience and knowledge of forensic experts regarding the tried-and-tested best practice techniques and tips for conducting nighttime collision re-enactments. This effort focuses on producing fair and accurate images that demonstrate what could be seen under similar circumstances to the average, alert, and attentive driver.

Methodology

The study describes the best practices and techniques utilized by experts in forensic collision reconstruction to diagnose and document nighttime visibility conditions for use as demonstrative evidence.

Research Design and Techniques: The methodology presented centers on overcoming the difficulties inherent in matching the conditions of the exemplar re-enactment scene to the original collision scene, especially regarding lighting, target contrast, and information content. The experts’ techniques are guided by the acronym CAPLETS (Contrast, Anticipation, Pattern, Lighting, Eccentricity, Time of exposure, Size).

Key Procedures and Data Documentation:

1. Exemplar Target Selection: The investigator must use an exemplar target (e.g., surrogate vehicle, pedestrian, or contrast gradient panel) that has similar contrasts to the struck object. The use of a contrast panel with larger targets is recommended, allowing observers to discriminate features (like the direction a character is facing) over longer observation distances when lighting is adequate.
2. Scene and Vehicle Replication: The re-enactment scene must have similar lighting and surface conditions to the crash site. When the original site is highly unique (e.g., specific arrangement of background lights), replicating the environment is vital, though a surrogate location can be used for unlit roads. The exemplar vehicle should have a similar headlight, defined as being within one bulb type of the subject crash vehicle (e.g., 9006, 9003, 9004, H7, or H11 headlight bulbs are statistically similar). The vehicle engine must be running during observations to prevent voltage and headlight output decrease.
3. Controlling Information Content (Hindsight Bias): To create a fair depiction that controls for the hindsight bias of post-impact observers, the expert must limit the information content. This is done by controlling the time of viewing exposure, the photograph’s lighting, and the size of the photograph. For instance, showing the hazard for no more than one second mimics the “snapshot” information gained during a driver’s fixation.
4. Photography vs. Videography: While photography and videography must both be properly calibrated, videography’s dynamic, time-dependent nature provides a more meaningful and effective presentation of the re-enactment from a moving perspective. Videography is often better suited for scenarios requiring a driver’s perspective from a passing lane or busy intersection, as it usually requires no stationary vehicle in active traffic lanes and thus no Police assistance or traffic control.

Calibration and Measurement Methods: Calibration requires scientifically documenting the method used for gathering evidence. This involves using a camera with manual adjustable settings, a large physical sensor, high ISO capabilities, and a lens with a low F-stop. Documenting lighting conditions is crucial, often by displaying a visual chart (e.g., with 8 contrasts and 3 sizes of targets) at the site for psychophysical validation. Another method is comparing the contrast of the subject objects measured at the scene with their contrast in the final photo/video depiction, which requires measuring and documenting the luminance of relevant objects. Special care must be taken when analyzing retro-reflective material because it reflects light back toward the source, requiring accurate positioning of all vehicles, light sources, and observers.

Results

The study emphasizes that reliable demonstrative evidence depends on meticulous calibration, scene replication, and controlling the viewing experience to accurately reflect the driver’s perspective.

Technical Requirements for Accurate Imaging:

• Camera Selection: A camera should prioritize a large physical sensor and a lower total number of pixels (less pixel density) to ensure larger individual pixels gather more light per unit time.
• ISO and Noise: While a higher ISO makes the sensor more light-sensitive, it also captures more noise, which can make images appear grainy and out-of-focus, making lower noise levels desirable.
• F-Stop and Focus: Using a low F-stop allows more light into the sensor, but it reduces the depth-of-field, resulting in less of the scene being in focus, which may be undesirable.
• Shutter Speed: Longer exposures (slower shutter speeds) capture more light, but this requires a tripod and can cause any moving objects or lights in the scene to become blurred. Video cameras have bounded shutter speeds based on the frame rate.

The Dilemma of the Invisible Pedestrian: Numerous studies confirm that pedestrians consistently overestimate their visibility at night, even though they may be difficult to see from the driver’s perspective. This underscores the necessity of accurate re-enactment to assess driver avoidance opportunities.

The Importance of Controlling Information Content: The success of demonstrative evidence hinges on limiting the information observers receive, as post-impact observers inherently possess more information than the original driver (hindsight bias). By controlling the time of exposure (e.g., one second maximum exposure), experts limit the information content, mimicking the periodic fixation (snapshot) drivers experience during glances.

Practical Advantages of Videography: Calibrated nighttime videography provides a dynamic and time-dependent presentation that is often more meaningful than still photography. Furthermore, conducting videography from inside a moving test vehicle allows investigators to safely capture the driver’s perspective in busy areas or passing lanes without requiring stationary setups, police assistance, or traffic control. However, difficulties include coordinating the movements of the test subject and the test observer.

References

1. Allen, M., Hazlett, R., Tacker, H., & Graham, B. (1970), Actual Pedestrian Visibility and the Pedestrian’s Estimate of His Own Visibility, American Journal of Optometry and Archives of American Academy of Optometry, 47, 44-49.
2. Ayres, T.J. (1996), Psychophysical validation of photographic representations, Safety Engineering and Risk Analysis Volume 6, Proceedings of the ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition.
3. Ayers, T.J. & Kubose, T. (2015), Calibrating a Contrast-Sensitivity Test Chart for Validating Visual Representations, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 59th Annual Meeting.
4. Darula, S. & Kittler, R. (2004), Sunshine Duration and Daily Courses of Illuminance in Bratislava, International Journal of Climatology, 24(14), 1777-1783.
5. Hankey, J.M., Blanco, M., Gibbons, R.B., McLaughlin, S.B., & Dingus, T.A. (2005), Enhanced Night Visibility Series, Vol. 1, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Publication No. FHWA-HRT-04-132.
6. Holohan, R., Billing, A., & Murray, S. (1989), Nighttime Photography – Show It Like It Is, SAE Technical Paper 890730, Warrendale, PA, Society of Automotive Engineers.
7. Lam, H., Gani, S., Mawson, R., Young, J., & Potma, E. (2016), A Practical Tool for Ambient Illumination Comparisons at Dusk/Dawn, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2016 Annual Meeting, 470-474.
8. Lee, S.E., Olsen, E.C.B., Wierwille, W.W. (2003), A comprehensive examination of naturalistic lane-changes, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Technical paper DOT HS 809 702. Washington, DC.
9. Muttart, J.W., Bartlett, W., Kauderer, C.D., Johnston, G.L., et al. (2013), Determining When an Object Enters the Headlight Beam Pattern of a Vehicle, SAE Technical Paper #2013-01-0787, Society of Automotive Engineers.
10. Muttart, J.W., Dinakar, S., Vandenberg, G., Yosko, M. (2016), The Targets at Nighttime, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2016 Annual Meeting, 489-493.
11. Muttart, J.W., Dinakar, S., Suway, J. et al., (2017), Comparing A Timed Exposure Methodology to the Nighttime Recognition Responses from SHRP-2 Naturalistic Drivers, SAE Technical Paper #2017-01-1366, Society of Automotive Engineers.
12. NHTSA (2009), Traffic Safety Facts 2008, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
13. Owens, D.A., & Sivak, M. (1996), Differentiation of Visibility and Alcohol as Contributors to Twilight Road Fatalities, Human Factors, 38, 680-689.
14. Suway, J.A. & Welcher, J. (2016), A Quantitative Method for Accurately Depicting Still Photographs or Video of a Nighttime Scene Utilizing Equivalent Contrast, SAE Technical Paper #2016-01-1463, Society of Automotive Engineering.
15. Suway, J.A. & Welcher, J. (2015), Retroreflective DOT-C2 Tape Performance in Relation to Observation and Entrance Angle – A Real World Study, SAE Technical Paper #2015-01-1432, Society of Automotive Engineers.
16. Suway, J. & Suway, S. (2017), A Method for Digital Video Camera Calibration for Luminance Estimation, SAE Technical Paper #2017-01-1368, Society of Automotive Engineers.
17. Transport Canada, Motor Vehicle Safety (2011), Road Safety in Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
18. Transport Canada, Motor Vehicle Safety (2015), National Collision Database Online, Ottawa, Ontario.
19. Tyrell, R.A., Wood, J.M., & Carberry, T.P. (2004), On-road Measures of Pedestrians’ Estimates of Their Own Nighttime Conspicuity, Journal of Safety Research, 35, 483-490.
20. Whetsel, S.A., Rosenberg, R.L., Balk, S.A., & Tyrrell, R.A. (2011), Pedestrians’ Estimates of Their Own Visibility at Night Are Not Reduced When Headlights Are Severely Weakened, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2011 Annual Meeting. 1860-1863.
21. Young, J., & Reina, G. (2009), Visibility of Tractor Trailer Reflective Strips at Small Viewing Angles in Collision Reconstruction, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2009 Annual Meeting.