following. i've got a driver facing potential prison-time after a court-date that's now scheduled for mid sep. actual prison-time is unlikely, but it is technically a potential penalty that he faces. if he's found guilty he WILL lose his license for at least six months.
the incident was late last year, and he's been maintaining his innocence.
video evidence is from 3x gopro cameras, all recording in protune mode. that's about 0.5GB/minute, per camera.
the video originally supplied to police was colour-graded, and from one camera it was cropped. they then asked (i think on behalf of the driver's lawyer) for "raw" footage, including about a minute before and a minute after the incident. 3x cameras, that barely fit on a single DVD as MP4 files, after being trimmed for duration but NOT re-encoded. if needed, i can supply "raw" door-to-door footage, but so far no one has requested that.
IIUC, the driver is employed as a "professional driver", and if he's guilty he's out of a career. that probably explains why he's fighting it, and hints at how far he'll go. i expect that he'll challenge my presence on the road, my lane position, and the authenticity of the video evidence; i wonder what else he'll try to argue...?
i've copied digger's info about video tampering, and after my case i'll upload a copy of the edits i've made for myself.
metadata is easy to fake. faking 30 frames per second, from multiple cameras, that's much easier to detect than it is to do. assuming that one is a credible witness, i think a defendant is pissing in the wind trying to claim that a "clean" video was tampered with. having dealt with similar before, i expect that we'll both give verbal testimony, and then watch the video. then we'll both give more verbal testimony, at which point i'll pretty much just testify that i shot the video, the video was entirely consistent with my recollection of the incident, and the video was not tampered with; however in this case i will also have to mention that the video was colour-graded, and i might get questioned about what that means (basically, it's an "advanced" version of contrast and brightness). in any case, the "raw" footage of the incident was given to police, and any inconsistencies (if there are any) between the raw footage and the colour-graded footage can be discussed candidly.
that reminds me... i should email the investigating officer a few links about "what is protune", so they can be "disclosed" to the driver's lawyer. i have technology and know-how to bring details out of shadows, but i can't show myself being chased by velociraptors.