An office answers for a protocol, a caseload and a record that will be read by a court years later — often after the pathologist who made it has moved on.
3D documentation changes the protocol once and then pays on every case: measurements taken afterwards from any angle, and a second opinion that is a file transfer. In a controlled study it also took less time than photography.
No sensitive case details required.
Faster than photographyIn the Toronto study, 11 simulated injuries were documented in less than half the photography time.
Measure after the factDistances and dimensions not taken at the time, taken later from the model.
Consultation by fileA second pathologist reviews the model, not a print.
Court with fewer photographsA model or a print, where the court allows, in place of images a jury or a judge struggles with.
The protocol changes once: The scan takes a fixed place in the external examination; photography becomes targeted rather than exhaustive.
Injuries at 0.05 mm: Wounds, bites and pattern injuries recorded as measurable geometry, registered into the body model.
Retention that answers questions: The record outlives the examination, the exhumation question and the retirement of the pathologist.
A record the court reads: A model, a section or a print — shown, where the court allows, in place of photographs a jury or a judge finds hard to view.
Adopting 3D documentation is a protocol decision before it is a device one. Where the scan sits in the external examination, what photography is still taken and for what, who processes and who signs — those are written once. The procedure itself is described under autopsy documentation; wound documentation and forensic odontology cover the close-range work.
On time, the reference is the University of Toronto comparison: documenting 11 simulated injuries on a live participant took 26 minutes with Artec Eva against 54 for photography and manual measurement (processing done afterwards), and the model could be measured along curved skin. What that means for an office's caseload is worth measuring in its own pilot.
The record then does the office's later work. A consultation with a specialist elsewhere is a file transfer; a question raised for trial is a measurement on the disclosed model; a case reopened years later is answered from the archive. Retention follows the office's existing rules for imaging, sized for larger files.
The figures are the customers' own, from their published case studies.
A practical pairing: a fast handheld for the body, a fine one for the injuries. The Toronto study used Artec Eva alone.
Eva captures in colour, handheld and contactless — the scanner behind the Toronto study's 26-minute figure.
Up to 0.05 mm accuracy and 0.05 mm resolution with colour, registered into the body model so each injury keeps its position.
See what changes for an office that documents the external examination in 3D — book a demo.
Book a demoThe scan takes a fixed place in the external examination — typically anterior and posterior before the internal examination — and photography becomes targeted: close-up appearance and alternative-light imaging rather than exhaustive coverage.
The University of Toronto study is the published reference: documenting 11 simulated injuries on a live participant took 26 minutes with Artec Eva against 54 for photography and manual measurement, with processing done afterwards. Beyond that, the saving is downstream: measurements taken later instead of a re-examination, and consultation by file.
As for imaging, sized for larger files: raw scans retained, processing documented, exports hashed. Scan projects can run to gigabytes per case.
Autopilot processing in Artec Studio is run by a technician; the pathologist reviews and measures on the finished model.
A forensic application specialist will come back with the device that fits it, the accuracy to expect at that scale, and how the data reaches your existing workflow.
