Virtopsy: The Non-Invasive Autopsy
// February 28th, 2009 // No Comments » // Blog
The subject of death, and especially autopsy, is a little more macabre than I'm used to dealing with. Even so, I could not resist sharing some information on the matter that I discovered via an unlikely source: my “They Work For You” email alerts. A free, online service that allows users to track UK Parliamentary goings-on, by keyword and/or a manner of other useful filters.
The email linked to a debate regarding an amendment to Clause 15 of the Coroners and Justice Bill, which covers the issue of post-mortem examinations. Muslims (and as it turns out, Jews as well) require the body to be buried as soon as possible after death occurs. In addition, generally speaking, many people have a special sensitivity towards surgical autopsy, as they don't wish the body of the deceased to be 'harmed' in any way.
The debate revealed that Manchester's coroners jurisdiction has been offering MRI-based autopsies for some time, developed in response to the needs of its sizeable Muslim and Jewish communities. Apparently, not only is the procedure non-invasive, but it is also much quicker than the traditional, dissection-based method, as it does not rely on the analysis of biopsies, which can delay the results of a post-mortem for days, or even weeks.
I realized the same problem last week when I tried to watch one of my videos on a display MacBook at the Apple Store, and the playback was “choppy”; a sign that the graphics card was not suitable for HD (which is not good show for Apple, come to think of it).
The problem is that YouTube only provides two viewing options for HD resolution videos: normal quality, or HD. Normal quality looks like the piece had been filmed using a webcam from the late 90s. I.e., not good. HD is obviously the best option, but as MR pointed out, it is not widely accessible by the masses just yet.
So, should I forget HD for the short term?
Or should I upload two versions of my work: one in HD, and one in stand definition that can be viewed in “high quality” mode, which is the next best viewing option?
Will the latter strategy mess up my viewing stats?
How many people even care about HD right now?
Help!
—
P.S., I am not sure if it makes a difference to use a different video host either… HD is HD, right? Plus I'd prefer to continue using YouTube as it has an established online community of users and subscribers, which means more exposure for my work, inshā’Allāh. Hmm…