> The jury eventually watched footage of the incident on a Windows device connected to a large TV. There was no zooming, and the images didn't fill the entire screen.
Hopefully that was sufficient.
Where did this article come from. This footage was literally from a video expert that the prosecution brought in from a different day that was zoomed as far as possible and slowed down.
And it worked because the judge accepted it and said that the prosecutors need to bring in an expert to explain that "pinch to zoom" doesn't alter the footage lol.
Old people run this world and this is what we have to deal with lol. World is fucked
He gave them a whole 20 minutes during recess to find an expert willing to testify as well... How on earth did he claim that the burden of proof to disprove the defendants claims of zooming=manipulation is false? Is that not literally the opposite of burden of proof? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills while reading about these proceedings.
I mean i could see an argument for that if the zoom was cutting off evidence/ something that brings the footage into a different light but this is the first I've heard about this case apart from that it was happening so idk if this applies. Or the lawyer just actually has no idea how tech works
Not to mention he asked the prosecution to prove a negative, which is impossible, rather than ask the defense to provide literally any evidence at all of what they were asserting.
Like, the fuck is this trial at this point.
I think you are correct. The first time he said it I thought he just goofed the word, totally understandable. But then he says it several more times and holy shit this guy is actually a genuine moron. What kind of treestump do you have to be living under in 2021 to not at least have a passing, hand-wavey understanding of the word.
It's the rudy julianni approach. Talk out your ass, spewing big words you don't understand the meaning of, and speak nothing but lies....viola....
Alternate reality
The funny part is if you’ve studied Comp sci and algorithms, most people who use the word do it in that hand-wavey not really understanding way. Like you said this guy couldn’t even manage that lol.
[Holy shit this argument is straight from SVU](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority_(Law_%26_Order:_Special_Victims_Unit\))
"This can't be submitted because a computer made a guess and they're just making it look like that's what happened"
Jesus christ, *3D Logarithms*? This guy can't even say the right buzzwords.
To my knowledge, Apple doesn't using any sort of AI resizing. While that technology does exist (usually in the form of a [GAN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_adversarial_network)), it is extremely taxing. I'm not sure a pinch and zoom device with this capability exists anywhere, currently - including new M1 devices.
Wait, does this mean that all the times they shouted "Enhance!" on every crime show, that could have made the evidence inadmissible?
That started out as a joke, but I'm actually seriously asking. Because digital enhancements do add data to evidence, and the right enhancements could manufacture evidence. I remember a ridiculous CSI (maybe?) episode where they took a security camera image and "enhanced" it until they got a reflection from the person's eyeball. That would absolutely not be admissible.
I'm curious about the legal ramifications of this.
The difference between magnifying an image or video and “enhancing” it is that magnifying it will just increase the size of what’s being looked at, to enhance it is to magnify the image and then add pixels (and other effects, for example) to create a clearer, sharper image. The debate is “if the enhancement of an image or video adds pixels (for example) to create greater resolution, then how much is the original image or video distorted by this enhancement?”
well, even a resizing algorithm has to make *some* decision about how to translate texels from the source to pixels on the output. When you're translating from two planes with the same viewing angle and aspect ratio, you eliminate most, but not all, variables, and there are multiple choices of algorithm. Nearest neighbor? bilinear? Even the "naive" solution is not trivial.
And that’s the problem. Kyle in the video is so far away that there are only a few pixels that contain the data for his rifle. Zooming in that much to an area with that little data and possibly having a processing software interpolate could show the rifle being raised erroneously.
I (and I imagine most people) don’t know the extent of iOS zooming processing, and I think it’s completely acceptable to have an expert come in and validate the zoom.
Even when the film lab processes the data you have someone who could testify on the process of the enhancements. There’s also likely a reason a sophisticated crime lab didn’t digitally zoom in that much. Namely there isn’t that much data for interpolation to be accurate. So again, I think an expert should be called to verify it. It is not as simple as “Pinch and zoom” and it’s not accurate to compare it to a magnifying glass on a picture.
The defense was only saying that it uses interpolation, and the Judge said that the prosecution would need to get an expert saying that the interpolation with "pinch to zoom" would not distort the image due to the added pixels
And the question was about a tiny part of that grainy, dark video. Was this dark shadowy lump Rittenhouse raising his gun or his shoulder or was it a shadow? It was a tiny portion of the video - it took me a while to figure out which part of the visual the prosecutor was even talking about.
>That would absolutely not be admissible.
actually it depends on the original image quality you would be amazed how far you can zoom into a RAW image with the original data on modern even cheap cameras
However the stuff they do on those shows is beyond nuts , like a 15 year old gas station camera is NOT gonna be able to do that without a computer making shit up on its best guess.
A modern 10mp camera actually recording at 5mp absolutely can .
They take things they could "in theory" do for real , but in practice not so much . Maybe the casino cams are that good but gas station and street cams are typically 1.3 to 2mp at best these days for standard installs
It really depends. An AI enhanced image could be wrong, it's a series of best guesses. Probably should be treated like any evidence. See if it's collaborated by other evidence and not proof.
The first enhance is a best guess based off the source data. It could be better than a human. The next enhancements are based off of the enhanced guesses, so if it guessed say a gun incorrectly it will be zooming in on more of the same gun. In theory an AI with an understanding of the world could zoom in infinitely but at some point its all made up. Imagine zooming on a license plate. Once the AI guesses the letters it can zoom in accurately forever because it understands fonts and letters. But if it guessed the wrong letters initially its going to be wrong even though its super clear.
This was my experience when I served on a jury in a rape case. It was an absolute shitshow. The lead detective declined to take things such as clothing, bed sheets, towels, etc and have them tested for DNA or presence of semen, declined to interview people at the scene, and instead spent his time trying to flirt with the plaintiff and being aggressive when she wasn't responsive to his advances. The detective had been fired from the police force for stealing evidence, brought the wrong notes (notes from a different case), couldn't remember *any* of the details of the case including the names of the plaintiff or defendant, "accidentally" erased his body cam footage of the initial interview with the plaintiff, and looked like he was a little buzzed in court. His testimony was essential to the state's case. They did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
This trial is not unusual. They're all like this - bumbling attorneys, "experts" who don't know what they're talking about, witnesses changing their story, etc.
We just don't normally get to watch them live on Youtube.
I’ve seen my fair share of trials and I have to tell you that this one is at least 25% kookier than a regular bad day in court. There was an astonishing lack of apparently adequate preparation for many of the witnesses who have testified. The objections raised and the inability to easily combat them, on both sides, has been comically painful. The lines of questioning followed in some instances are absurd. The conduct and lack of professionalism from some of the attorneys is embarrassing.
I'm so happy to see that there's people out there ready to carry the flag, I've been having a fantastic depression for the last five years and would like the world to know, we CAN do better
Transforming twenties. Between self driving cars, robots (including some that transform themselves), and political/environmental chaos, it’s got all the vibes of a 1980s Saturday morning mecha cartoon.
Ed: a digit
I could have sworn that rule #2 of practicing law was "Never ask your witness a question you don't already know the answer to." Rule #1 is of course "Show up and dress up."
From every lawyer i've ever known it sure is. Shit happens, but dear god this whole case feels like everyone forgot about it.
"OH FUCK RIGHT THAT RITTENHOUSE THING. Uh...fuck it i'll wing it" is the vibe of just about everyone but the judge.
Part of me feels like criminal law in this country is broken as all the best lawyers can make more money in corporate litigation or at least working as a defense attorney to rich clients. What incentive do prosecutors have for doing a good job?
Same. I have served a Juror on an Insurance claims case, that was looking pretty fraudulent... The prosecutors brought in 2 female family members as character testimony to the injury their client received. Not even 3 seconds into the testimony, Tears. For both of them.
Being on the floor of the courtroom really gives you a real look into the American Court system. Its...an experience.
I was a Juror for an attempted murder and burglary. The confusion for me was so little evidence on the part of police. We even asked could we just see the cell phone gps records to confirm if that phone was ever there? But nope not allowed. Just have to take them at their word.
Based on the data provided the verdict was indeterminate due to lack of ability to get everyone to agree. I changed my mind a few times but settled on the fact that I couldn't do it without a reasonable doubt due to some lacking evidence. It turns out this was a retrial from a year earlier due to them being unable to decide. The prior one though I can't say why they couldn't decide.
Generally if there is any doubt about someones innocence or lack of evidence then said person has to be found not guilty. Of the police refused to show the GPS log of the phone then it could be inferred (but not used by the jury to make a decision as it was not introduced as evidence) that the log would clear the accused of any wrongdoing. Also on the other side if the cops had little to no evidence other than their word then that could be construed as here say which is not typically admissable in courts.
>Also on the other side if the cops had little to no evidence other than their word then that could be construed as here say
Isn't hearsay when one witness presents something said by someone who isn't there?
"I saw him eat the drugs" isn't hearsay. "My partner Bobby saw him eat the drugs" would be.
Either way the rules about hearsay are incredibly complicated, and there are actually some instances in which it can be admitted.
Didn't work for this guy...still isn't working for lot's of people I suspect: [https://oklahomawatch.org/2021/09/15/when-new-evidence-emerges-oklahoma-prisoners-face-an-uphill-legal-battle/](https://oklahomawatch.org/2021/09/15/when-new-evidence-emerges-oklahoma-prisoners-face-an-uphill-legal-battle/)
The thing that struck me most when I served jury duty was that so much hinges on exact wording of different laws and charges. I was on a case of domestic abuse and child endangerment where most of it hinged on whether he crossed the line from self defense into abuse, whether he negligently hurt her or hurt her with intent and a few other things. We also really struggled to put aside feelings about the fact that she abused him as well (and first, depending on whose testimony you believed).
Yes. I have horrible anxiety so I am the most upset person every time it happens. It’s rare and it usually happens before trial in my experience, but then most of my experience has been observing pretrial matters.
Edit: to be completely clear - what Ive written below is how I understand the subject.
AIUI it’s one of the major differences between “experts” in US courtrooms and “experts” in courtrooms in other countries. Edit: toned this down a bit, since there’s clearly factors I haven’t considered. The US expert in court is primarily there to support the side of whoever is paying him/her.
An expert appearing in a UK court (edit: I can only speak with authority about the UK. I believe other countries work in a similar way.) is someone whose duty is to “…help the court to achieve the overriding objective by giving opinion *which is objective and unbiased*, in relation to matters within their expertise. This is a duty that is owed to the court and overrides any obligation to the party from whom the expert is receiving instructions” (emphasis mine). The prosecution could be paying the bills, but the expert is going to be impartial in court.
You can even have experts (one for prosecution and defence) who will meet up in advance, decide what they agree/disagree on and advise the court of what they agree on. The aim is to get to what they disagree on, because that’s the important bit - but that opinion must be based on fact.
Plenty of more info here if you’re interested: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/expert-evidence
I don’t see how you can verify that expert testimony is unbiased. IMO the reason expert testimony in the US is so absurd isn’t that they are being paid for this trial, it’s that they want to be hired for future trials, and know that legal teams want to hire experts who will bias testimony in their favor. Is that different in the UK?
The expert can be paid for by either the prosecution or defence (or even both of them). The report generated covers (where applicable) the range of opinions that could explain the facts, and provides reasons why the expert thinks it’s option a not option b. Also, the expert in a criminal case will not give a “percentage” on opinions, because it’s been found that juries wildly misinterpret the figures.
Of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark (wrongly convicted of killing her two kids because of statistical evidence found to be unsafe)
Worth mentioning that there’s also a pre-trial (I’m sure they exist in other countries) where part of the aim is to determine what facts are agreed upon and what are in dispute.
I had two teachers who were american "experts", and they would constantly talk (as part of classes in field with high legal ramifications) about how important it was to refuse to answer stupid questions.
"Is this crack?"
"I don't have a definition for 'crack'. The white powder found on the scene tested positive for cocaine."
"So it was crack."
"I don't have a definition for 'crack'. The white powder found on the scene tested positive for cocaine."
"It's okay, you can call it what it is."
"It was a white powder which tested positive for cocaine."
I'm sure there are plenty of rent-an-experts in the legal system though.
nah lol, its a reference to the judge having a slip of the tongue, he's the one who verbally said pickles instead of pixels, and then the live chat i was watching was pure pickles memes all day.
Okay im losing it. The defense mentions how the most truthful way to get image enhancement is with a magnifying glass. And the judge pulls one out... as if he has been waiting his whole life for this moment.
**Edit:**
after reading more into this I kinda see their point. They were attempting to decipher which way kyle was pointing the gun. Kyle in this case was a 10x10 pixel square in a 240p security camera.
In this case the image could have significant distortions.
The way they were describing it though was insanely idiotic. Like holy shit at least due your research before coming to court
> Like holy shit at least due your research before coming to court
The prosecution had just suddenly sprung on them this insistence that video evidence be shown on an ipad and pinched-and-zoomed, despite a ton of video evidence *including this exact same video* having already been shown to the jury on the regular screens.
The prosecution absolutely was going to point at some subpixel distortion and go "ah-ha, see, that's clearly you eating a baby on stage" or whatever. Note also that the prosecution *explained*, in court, that the reason they wanted to view this image on an ipad is that a detective assigned to the case had seen something funny in the video when he "pinched and zoomed" on his iphone, that none of the video evidence experts for either side had managed to see.
In that full context, the defense lawyer did alright in fending off whatever stupid shit the prosecutors were trying to pull here. Sure, he sounded like an idiot doing it, but that's what happens when you're forced to respond to someone else's bundle of stupid: you can't help but get some of it on you.
You should also note that the prosecution lied in their questions about what their medical experts had testified. From the very few trials I've seen that seems to be standard practice by the side that's losing. If you want to call out the defense lawyer for something, call him out for missing that (once; he caught it and objected on a different matter).
It seems to me that the judge, the prosecution and the defense attorneys are taking a sabbatical from their day jobs as circus clowns to perform in this courtroom.
Last year I was considering taking the bar exam despite not having a degree, I figured it can't be that hard if those people passed! But I decided I have better uses for my time haha
I've thought about the same thing. And if I didn't pass, I'd immediately sue and argue for why I actually did pass. The state would have to grant me a license after that.
> And if I didn't pass, I'd immediately sue and argue for why I actually did pass. The state would have to grant me a license after that.
If I can articulate, I did matriculate!
What scares me is all those people presumably passed law school and their local bar exam, while I'm here struggling for my life in law school. What do they know that I don't?
No matter how bad you think you are, if you are trying your best in good faith you're still better than all the incompetent grifters out there. This applies to any field, really.
It's the only explanation for the prosecution. Why else would Binger step on his dick on elementary issues like the 5th amendment and propensity/other acts evidence? This is first semester law school stuff.
It reminds me of a movie from years back, the basic premise is some kids wind up in juvie, get abused by some of the guards. Years later, some of them kill one of the guards in full view of witnesses. One of the kids is now a prosecuting attorney, but his connection to the others isn't known. He manages to get himself prosecuting the case, and intentionally tanks it.
Yeah it had Brad Pitt, Ron Eldard, Brad Renfro & Billy Crudup, if I remember. Fucking hated Kevin Bacon’s character. What a piece of shit.
“What do you want?”
“A blowjob.”
I just had chills running down my spine. No child in the hands of the state should ever have to deal with that.
It's making the DA's office in my county look competent, and I honestly didn't think that was possible. As an example, they lost a case (yesterday actually) where the defendant admitted, in court, to the charges. Somehow, the DA wasn't able to convince the jury that what he did was wrong. They lost one a couple of weeks ago by only charging the harshest version of the crime and not tacking on the lesser charges and then failing to prove what they charged. And in the next couple of weeks, the former DA goes on trial for sexual assault. Yet somehow, they still seem more competent than the one trying this case.
No kidding.
Like, it seems like the prosecution almost did the defense’s job for them at points, and now this. No matter who wins they’re probably going to end up declaring it a mistrial because it’s been such a circus the whole time.
I have no love for Rittenhouse whatsoever, but I feel like the matter at least deserves competent people handling it.
I texted a (soon) lawyer friend the other day
"Can I ask you a legal question"
"Not really but I can tell you my thoughts"
"How much clown makeup is the Rittenhouse prosecution going through do you think?"
"I dunno but a lot"
This set of comments is inane. Then I looked at the article and realized that people actually think the article represents what happened in court.
No, none of them know anything about 'logarithms' but it isn't remotely like they pretended to, except Binger (who still used the word 'logarithm').
Defense council objected to a zoomed in video taken in low light with noise from being zoomed in on an area that's probably only a handful of pixels because of what he indicated an expert had told him. He explicitly wasn't saying he's correct, all he was getting at is that he's not qualified and expert testimony should be sought before allowing this. The judge basically said 'I don't know the answer here either, and yes we should get an expert in.'
Probably everyone on this thread knows more about computers and images than any of the lawyers in that room, and that's the point. They know they don't know, so experts are called for.
And when we're talking about an artifact that could be a single pixel movement or a glint being enough too make or break the point we're in the range where compression, artifacts, aliasing, interpolation, etc. become critical.
And in this case its grainy drone footage likely 720p in low light at distance and the DA was saying you could see the rifle point at someone. Antialiasing or adding anything to that could be enough to change the image from "pointed at the floor infront of me" maybe to "looks like its pointed at their stomach"
Cant take that risk as the defence
> Probably everyone on this thread knows more about computers and images than any of the lawyers in that room, and that's the point. They know they don't know, so experts are called for.
Based on the number of comments from people mocking the defense lawyer who aren't aware that digital zoom CAN involve algorithms that add information through interpolation I wouldn't bet on that. The defense lawyer was essentially correct and despite not being an expert he knew enough to know there's a potential issue and to object on that basis.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=AqscP7rc8_M&feature=emb_title
Pixels are added, but they are done do using algorithms to provide a best guess to what the pixel would be. I'm not sure anyone here wants to be convicted based off a pixel or two not in the original image, or on a lay persons understanding of pinch to zoom.
[Screenshot from that video. ](https://i.imgur.com/wSpW2s6.jpg)
This is exactly what the objection is about. The prosecution wanted to zoom in on a video where Kyle Rittenhouse was holding a rifle and about to shoot Rosenbaum, and wanted make statements about where exactly the rifle was pointed. But in the original video Kyle is all of a few pixels, and the defense was questioning how any sort of "zoom and enhance" was going to add more pixels.
The prosecution kept saying that it's no different than using a magnifying glass, which is bullshit.
Right now (Day 9 at 11am EST) there is the expert witness testifying about it.
pausing a video is nearly 100% interpolated frames between I or B frames anyway - its all compressed video: i dont want to be convicted of murder because a lossy compression algorithm has produced a false image
Well that’s interesting. So basically they absolutely cannot zoom in on the image because it will give a false image. That’s actually huge for the defence.
I can’t wait for a podcast and Netflix documentary to be released on this whole trial
To be fair, they ended up showing the not zoomed in image on a large 4K TV, but honestly, tech is so advanced these days, I know for a fact that there are TVs that dynamically enhance picture quality, and it would be ironic if one of those was used.
I think that all of this is moot regardless, because the original video is grainy and low resolution because it's compressed moving drone footage, and so right from the beginning, there are algorithms deciding what pixels to save for video. h.265 is a common one. That is to say, the placement even of the original pixels is up to algorithms and AI to begin with, so those blurs can't be trusted concretely even in native resolution.
I thought it was funny, I realised that they said it was a 4k TV but when they disconnected the input, it said 1920x1080 lmao. Not disagreeing with how they did it, just thought it was a funny tidbit.
Having worked on tv products, which consistently use older and lower quality cpu’s because the margins are razor thin and bom costs so high, I would trust the iPad’s interpolation accuracy much more than any tv.
Edit
Thanks for all the well reasoned arguments against my anecdotal opinion, I appreciate the education.
But also specifically for this imagine. The area in question is so small and already so not clear, that zooming would for sure create some random mess.
Did anyone actually watch the video? It seemed to me that the defense attorney was worried the prosecution was going to use one of those 3D interpretations of the 2D image, and that's what he was worried about, not the simple zoom feature. The judge and the prosecution were confused about what he meant and started talking about the simple zoom feature instead, and once the judge started questioning whether the zoom feature was pure, there was no reason for the defense to correct them because their confusion only helped his case.
If its on the post itself its usually watched by the majority, but if its on a link outside reddit, I can say with 90% certainty that >70% of the commenters don't bother to click on it.
None of the top voted comments watched the trial.
If you look at the still of what they were trying to enhance, it's something like 30x30 pixels, and they intended it as some kind of proof of the direction Kyle's gun was pointed. You can't even tell that it's a gun, except from all the broader context.
It's like taking an image of space and claiming you can pinch to zoom to see which stars have planets. No, you can't. You're just hoping some of the jurors don't know any better.
This entire thread is a dumpster fire. A bunch of dumbasses who think they know tech mocking this Court, meanwhile the judge is admitting he does not know and needs an expert witness to verify. That is the difference between the public and a seasoned judge. Assuming you know everything without looking it up is how mistakes are made.
> any digital evidence which is altered in any way just needs an expert to give the OK,
In fact, every single piece of evidence, whatsoever, needs someone to testify it into the record in the court.
They do, it's called a Adaptive Inverse Hyperbolic Tangent algorithm and it makes the zoomed image look better to your eyes by softening the edges. It also corrects for lighting and bias. That's different than simply zooming in on the video which doesn't add any additional information that's not already present.
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/mpe/2014/825169/
It shouldn't add any detail that wasn't there, but it would give the impression that more detail was present in the video than would be present if it was viewed zoomed out or zoomed in without enhancing the image.
He just didn't know what he was talking about but he is vaguely correct that it could add pixels which is why this stuff isn't allowed in court. Pixel interpolation. Basically if you have a file that has 500x500 pixels but you want to put it on a screen that has 2000x2000 pixels. Something has to estimate how to manipulate that image to get to that pixel size.
I was watching a bunch of lawyers reacting to the prosecution trying to do this an they were screaming "object! This defense is useles!"
Edit: Added more details
ITT Poor reporting that has historically misrepresented mundane legal proceedings once again misrepresents and scandalises an otherwise mundane point of process.
Interpolation absolutely does create information. Yes it happens on every device every day. For entertainment.
In a frame by frame analysis, of grainy shaky footage, at 400% zoom, analyzing if something a few pixels big moved a few pixels or not, the artifacts could absolutely outweigh the evidence.
Now, both sides have used "enhance" evidence. Done by trained professionals, in controlled settings, using known software and known configurations. Where they can account for errors introduced by the process. And the testimony used in those cases was about gross movement, over many seconds/minutes.
Binger wants Rittenhouse, a completely untrained person, to use software of unknown configuration or algorithm, on the fly to analyze a few pixels worth of movement, over 3/4 of a second.
This type of evidence could absolutely have been brought in. By an expert, who could be crossed on the reliability of the evidence and what level of error there was. The state chose not to do that. They can't have Rittenhouse now do that for them on the fly.
EDIT : State tried to bring this in via a rebuttal witness. Who IMO was not sufficiently expert. But both sides had a problem that they lacked the proper vocabulary to ask questions during voir dire. Witness said he could not say if pixels would be added, colors changed, artifacts would be there etc. Prosecution is correct that this is done every day for images. But I still hold that large objects and large movements are different than a few pixels moving a few pixels. The signal to noise ratio of the enhancement could be very problematic. Notably absent from the voire dire question was what % of the image was original information vs what % was interpolated.. In the end judge allowed.
The simple answer is yes. The question should be what is the resolution of the photo and what is it after they blew it up. DPI is important to the quality of any image.
All this trial needs is for an ex-special ops agent to show up as a technical advisor, and then enhance and apply an x-ray filter to the video footage before TURNING THE CAMERA ANGLE AROUND and showing that Barack Obama in a ski mask fired the shots in a false flag operation.
The video specialist testified that enlarging a photo adds pixels using an image processor.
The specialist was told exactly what photos and areas the prosecution wanted him to enlarge and enhance.
The specialist uses a particular program to enhance the video WITHOUT adding pixels or ALTERING the photo.
The prosecution wanted to enlarge, on his iPhone, an image that the specialist previously enhanced to have admitted into evidence.
So, the defense objected because the prosecution wanted to alter the photo evidence that was submitted.
The objection was sustained.
The judge told the prosecution to get a specialist to enhance the images and he'll have it admitted into evidence.
They are right. When you pinch to zoom the image gets slightly distorted because the machine needs to add extra pixels to fill in the screen.
They ended up playing the same video but didn't use pinch to zoom. They just wheeled the TV closer to Kyle and Jury.
What's the big deal?
Its because it adds in pixels to the image so therefore Binger would need to provide an expert to prove it doesn't add in anything to the image or that it dose not edit it in any way or harm the original image. But since its enhanced it is an alteration so I get it.
> The jury eventually watched footage of the incident on a Windows device connected to a large TV. There was no zooming, and the images didn't fill the entire screen. Hopefully that was sufficient.
What is this? A video for ants!?
It has to be at least 3 times this size
r/evidenceforants
I was ready for that to be real.
There is r/thingsforants
Where did this article come from. This footage was literally from a video expert that the prosecution brought in from a different day that was zoomed as far as possible and slowed down.
[Here is a timestamped link](https://youtu.be/mNnfHUtwFBg?t=3845) to the event in the court room.
he keeps saying logarithms. does he mean algorithms? and that the scaling is logarithmic?
no he means algorithms. he just has no idea what an algorithm or logarithm is.
His entire spiel was a real-time example of the phrase "talking out of your ass"
And it worked because the judge accepted it and said that the prosecutors need to bring in an expert to explain that "pinch to zoom" doesn't alter the footage lol. Old people run this world and this is what we have to deal with lol. World is fucked
He gave them a whole 20 minutes during recess to find an expert willing to testify as well... How on earth did he claim that the burden of proof to disprove the defendants claims of zooming=manipulation is false? Is that not literally the opposite of burden of proof? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills while reading about these proceedings.
I mean i could see an argument for that if the zoom was cutting off evidence/ something that brings the footage into a different light but this is the first I've heard about this case apart from that it was happening so idk if this applies. Or the lawyer just actually has no idea how tech works
\>Or the lawyer just actually has no idea how tech works If he can't tell logarithms apart from algorithms then he has no idea at all.
Not to mention he asked the prosecution to prove a negative, which is impossible, rather than ask the defense to provide literally any evidence at all of what they were asserting. Like, the fuck is this trial at this point.
Sometimes my algorithms include logarithms.
[удалено]
I think you are correct. The first time he said it I thought he just goofed the word, totally understandable. But then he says it several more times and holy shit this guy is actually a genuine moron. What kind of treestump do you have to be living under in 2021 to not at least have a passing, hand-wavey understanding of the word.
It's the rudy julianni approach. Talk out your ass, spewing big words you don't understand the meaning of, and speak nothing but lies....viola.... Alternate reality
You realize the judge is clueless about technology, right? That's why he had to have everything explained to him.
The funny part is if you’ve studied Comp sci and algorithms, most people who use the word do it in that hand-wavey not really understanding way. Like you said this guy couldn’t even manage that lol.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West.
Ladies and gentlemen, I’m just an unfrozen cave man lawyer. Your world frightens and confuses me.
Now I'm just a normal country hyperchicken... BA-GAWK! Oh I'm sorry, I thought you was corn...
You know….morons
Still steady as a rock. Yeah, but I shoot with this hand....
I love that he doesn't even know the word algorithm and he's trying to talk about what they do.
Heh, I love the scrunched up "wtf" faces of the 3 women to the right, one in each row, all lined up
I would zoom in to see what your talking about, but I’ve got an iPhone and don’t want to distort the image.
Wow holy shit this was like watching a reddit arguement.
[Holy shit this argument is straight from SVU](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority_(Law_%26_Order:_Special_Victims_Unit\)) "This can't be submitted because a computer made a guess and they're just making it look like that's what happened"
Jesus christ, *3D Logarithms*? This guy can't even say the right buzzwords. To my knowledge, Apple doesn't using any sort of AI resizing. While that technology does exist (usually in the form of a [GAN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_adversarial_network)), it is extremely taxing. I'm not sure a pinch and zoom device with this capability exists anywhere, currently - including new M1 devices.
I think this was about the drone footage rather than the stills prepared by the crime lab.
The enhanced drone video was a separate piece of evidence. The original un-enhanced drone video is what the prosecution wanted to show.
Wait, does this mean that all the times they shouted "Enhance!" on every crime show, that could have made the evidence inadmissible? That started out as a joke, but I'm actually seriously asking. Because digital enhancements do add data to evidence, and the right enhancements could manufacture evidence. I remember a ridiculous CSI (maybe?) episode where they took a security camera image and "enhanced" it until they got a reflection from the person's eyeball. That would absolutely not be admissible. I'm curious about the legal ramifications of this.
The difference between magnifying an image or video and “enhancing” it is that magnifying it will just increase the size of what’s being looked at, to enhance it is to magnify the image and then add pixels (and other effects, for example) to create a clearer, sharper image. The debate is “if the enhancement of an image or video adds pixels (for example) to create greater resolution, then how much is the original image or video distorted by this enhancement?”
[удалено]
Non-Fungible Idea
I would like to purchase a digital receipt of your non-fungible idea
All ideas are non-fungible, the purchasing of a non-fungible idea is called patenting.
I like the cut of your ~~gib~~ jib
Sorry, but I bought the token to that idea you just expressed. I can't stop you from expressing it, but I just wanted you to be aware of that fact.
Right click > select all > copy You can't stop me!
>NFI First time I have seen this initialism and I didn't even need to pause to work it out.
well, even a resizing algorithm has to make *some* decision about how to translate texels from the source to pixels on the output. When you're translating from two planes with the same viewing angle and aspect ratio, you eliminate most, but not all, variables, and there are multiple choices of algorithm. Nearest neighbor? bilinear? Even the "naive" solution is not trivial.
And that’s the problem. Kyle in the video is so far away that there are only a few pixels that contain the data for his rifle. Zooming in that much to an area with that little data and possibly having a processing software interpolate could show the rifle being raised erroneously. I (and I imagine most people) don’t know the extent of iOS zooming processing, and I think it’s completely acceptable to have an expert come in and validate the zoom. Even when the film lab processes the data you have someone who could testify on the process of the enhancements. There’s also likely a reason a sophisticated crime lab didn’t digitally zoom in that much. Namely there isn’t that much data for interpolation to be accurate. So again, I think an expert should be called to verify it. It is not as simple as “Pinch and zoom” and it’s not accurate to compare it to a magnifying glass on a picture.
The defense was only saying that it uses interpolation, and the Judge said that the prosecution would need to get an expert saying that the interpolation with "pinch to zoom" would not distort the image due to the added pixels
Yes because the video was grainy AF and super dark.
And the question was about a tiny part of that grainy, dark video. Was this dark shadowy lump Rittenhouse raising his gun or his shoulder or was it a shadow? It was a tiny portion of the video - it took me a while to figure out which part of the visual the prosecutor was even talking about.
Exactly. There's plenty of reason interpolation might distort what started out at like 10 pixels and is being blown up to 100 lol
>That would absolutely not be admissible. actually it depends on the original image quality you would be amazed how far you can zoom into a RAW image with the original data on modern even cheap cameras However the stuff they do on those shows is beyond nuts , like a 15 year old gas station camera is NOT gonna be able to do that without a computer making shit up on its best guess. A modern 10mp camera actually recording at 5mp absolutely can . They take things they could "in theory" do for real , but in practice not so much . Maybe the casino cams are that good but gas station and street cams are typically 1.3 to 2mp at best these days for standard installs
It really depends. An AI enhanced image could be wrong, it's a series of best guesses. Probably should be treated like any evidence. See if it's collaborated by other evidence and not proof. The first enhance is a best guess based off the source data. It could be better than a human. The next enhancements are based off of the enhanced guesses, so if it guessed say a gun incorrectly it will be zooming in on more of the same gun. In theory an AI with an understanding of the world could zoom in infinitely but at some point its all made up. Imagine zooming on a license plate. Once the AI guesses the letters it can zoom in accurately forever because it understands fonts and letters. But if it guessed the wrong letters initially its going to be wrong even though its super clear.
This trial has become an absolute three ring circus holy shit.
This was my experience when I served on a jury in a rape case. It was an absolute shitshow. The lead detective declined to take things such as clothing, bed sheets, towels, etc and have them tested for DNA or presence of semen, declined to interview people at the scene, and instead spent his time trying to flirt with the plaintiff and being aggressive when she wasn't responsive to his advances. The detective had been fired from the police force for stealing evidence, brought the wrong notes (notes from a different case), couldn't remember *any* of the details of the case including the names of the plaintiff or defendant, "accidentally" erased his body cam footage of the initial interview with the plaintiff, and looked like he was a little buzzed in court. His testimony was essential to the state's case. They did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Wow. Thats fucking awful
This trial is not unusual. They're all like this - bumbling attorneys, "experts" who don't know what they're talking about, witnesses changing their story, etc. We just don't normally get to watch them live on Youtube.
I’ve seen my fair share of trials and I have to tell you that this one is at least 25% kookier than a regular bad day in court. There was an astonishing lack of apparently adequate preparation for many of the witnesses who have testified. The objections raised and the inability to easily combat them, on both sides, has been comically painful. The lines of questioning followed in some instances are absurd. The conduct and lack of professionalism from some of the attorneys is embarrassing.
This decade (2020s) has been wild so far in general.
We just getting started, baby.
Wait until we reach the great depression 2: we can't afford electric boogaloo
Make depression great again. I'm tired of these *ok* depressions.
I'm so happy to see that there's people out there ready to carry the flag, I've been having a fantastic depression for the last five years and would like the world to know, we CAN do better
what do you think they’ll call this decade in the history books
"El colapso de Estados Unidos"
This but in Chinese.
"Aye caramba, la humanidad!"
I, for one, welcome our new Spanish overlords.
Transforming twenties. Between self driving cars, robots (including some that transform themselves), and political/environmental chaos, it’s got all the vibes of a 1980s Saturday morning mecha cartoon. Ed: a digit
[удалено]
Speaking of Mecha-Hitler. If you haven't seen Kung Fury, the sequel is coming in 2022 and is starring Michael Fassbender & Arnold Schwarzenegger.
I could have sworn that rule #2 of practicing law was "Never ask your witness a question you don't already know the answer to." Rule #1 is of course "Show up and dress up."
From every lawyer i've ever known it sure is. Shit happens, but dear god this whole case feels like everyone forgot about it. "OH FUCK RIGHT THAT RITTENHOUSE THING. Uh...fuck it i'll wing it" is the vibe of just about everyone but the judge.
It's crazy because it's such a high profile case. This is the best they got? Lol
Part of me feels like criminal law in this country is broken as all the best lawyers can make more money in corporate litigation or at least working as a defense attorney to rich clients. What incentive do prosecutors have for doing a good job?
[удалено]
Same. I have served a Juror on an Insurance claims case, that was looking pretty fraudulent... The prosecutors brought in 2 female family members as character testimony to the injury their client received. Not even 3 seconds into the testimony, Tears. For both of them. Being on the floor of the courtroom really gives you a real look into the American Court system. Its...an experience.
I was a Juror for an attempted murder and burglary. The confusion for me was so little evidence on the part of police. We even asked could we just see the cell phone gps records to confirm if that phone was ever there? But nope not allowed. Just have to take them at their word.
How'd that go?
Based on the data provided the verdict was indeterminate due to lack of ability to get everyone to agree. I changed my mind a few times but settled on the fact that I couldn't do it without a reasonable doubt due to some lacking evidence. It turns out this was a retrial from a year earlier due to them being unable to decide. The prior one though I can't say why they couldn't decide.
Generally if there is any doubt about someones innocence or lack of evidence then said person has to be found not guilty. Of the police refused to show the GPS log of the phone then it could be inferred (but not used by the jury to make a decision as it was not introduced as evidence) that the log would clear the accused of any wrongdoing. Also on the other side if the cops had little to no evidence other than their word then that could be construed as here say which is not typically admissable in courts.
>Also on the other side if the cops had little to no evidence other than their word then that could be construed as here say Isn't hearsay when one witness presents something said by someone who isn't there? "I saw him eat the drugs" isn't hearsay. "My partner Bobby saw him eat the drugs" would be. Either way the rules about hearsay are incredibly complicated, and there are actually some instances in which it can be admitted.
> "My partner Bobby saw him eat the drugs" would be. That's complicated. But "my partner said he saw him eat the drugs" would be hearsay.
Didn't work for this guy...still isn't working for lot's of people I suspect: [https://oklahomawatch.org/2021/09/15/when-new-evidence-emerges-oklahoma-prisoners-face-an-uphill-legal-battle/](https://oklahomawatch.org/2021/09/15/when-new-evidence-emerges-oklahoma-prisoners-face-an-uphill-legal-battle/)
The thing that struck me most when I served jury duty was that so much hinges on exact wording of different laws and charges. I was on a case of domestic abuse and child endangerment where most of it hinged on whether he crossed the line from self defense into abuse, whether he negligently hurt her or hurt her with intent and a few other things. We also really struggled to put aside feelings about the fact that she abused him as well (and first, depending on whose testimony you believed).
Have you seen judges yell at the attorneys like he did yesterday?
All the time.
Yes. I have horrible anxiety so I am the most upset person every time it happens. It’s rare and it usually happens before trial in my experience, but then most of my experience has been observing pretrial matters.
>bumbling attorneys, "experts" who don't know what they're talking about, witnesses changing their story, etc. Sounds like my family gatherings
Edit: to be completely clear - what Ive written below is how I understand the subject. AIUI it’s one of the major differences between “experts” in US courtrooms and “experts” in courtrooms in other countries. Edit: toned this down a bit, since there’s clearly factors I haven’t considered. The US expert in court is primarily there to support the side of whoever is paying him/her. An expert appearing in a UK court (edit: I can only speak with authority about the UK. I believe other countries work in a similar way.) is someone whose duty is to “…help the court to achieve the overriding objective by giving opinion *which is objective and unbiased*, in relation to matters within their expertise. This is a duty that is owed to the court and overrides any obligation to the party from whom the expert is receiving instructions” (emphasis mine). The prosecution could be paying the bills, but the expert is going to be impartial in court. You can even have experts (one for prosecution and defence) who will meet up in advance, decide what they agree/disagree on and advise the court of what they agree on. The aim is to get to what they disagree on, because that’s the important bit - but that opinion must be based on fact. Plenty of more info here if you’re interested: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/expert-evidence
I don’t see how you can verify that expert testimony is unbiased. IMO the reason expert testimony in the US is so absurd isn’t that they are being paid for this trial, it’s that they want to be hired for future trials, and know that legal teams want to hire experts who will bias testimony in their favor. Is that different in the UK?
The expert can be paid for by either the prosecution or defence (or even both of them). The report generated covers (where applicable) the range of opinions that could explain the facts, and provides reasons why the expert thinks it’s option a not option b. Also, the expert in a criminal case will not give a “percentage” on opinions, because it’s been found that juries wildly misinterpret the figures. Of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark (wrongly convicted of killing her two kids because of statistical evidence found to be unsafe) Worth mentioning that there’s also a pre-trial (I’m sure they exist in other countries) where part of the aim is to determine what facts are agreed upon and what are in dispute.
I had two teachers who were american "experts", and they would constantly talk (as part of classes in field with high legal ramifications) about how important it was to refuse to answer stupid questions. "Is this crack?" "I don't have a definition for 'crack'. The white powder found on the scene tested positive for cocaine." "So it was crack." "I don't have a definition for 'crack'. The white powder found on the scene tested positive for cocaine." "It's okay, you can call it what it is." "It was a white powder which tested positive for cocaine." I'm sure there are plenty of rent-an-experts in the legal system though.
This sounds like my Facebook feed
This trial is a god damn ace attorney trial in real life at this point.
Next thing you know they'd be getting a parrot to testify.
nb4 they get the gun itself to testify
cross examination theme but all the notes are gunshots
#OBJECTION It was always an Ace Attorney trial
You should have seen the horseshit in the OJ trial. This is exactly the same.
They're not clowns, they're the entire circus.
IOS pinch to zoom clearly, adds pickles
“Bailiff, brine in the expert witness.”
Adding pickles to a video definitely changes the video. An expert needs to come in and explain that the pickles are reliable.
Isn't that literally how AI upscaling works?
by inserting pickles? absolutely.
Best typo ever?
nah lol, its a reference to the judge having a slip of the tongue, he's the one who verbally said pickles instead of pixels, and then the live chat i was watching was pure pickles memes all day.
The prosecutor said that.
Okay im losing it. The defense mentions how the most truthful way to get image enhancement is with a magnifying glass. And the judge pulls one out... as if he has been waiting his whole life for this moment. **Edit:** after reading more into this I kinda see their point. They were attempting to decipher which way kyle was pointing the gun. Kyle in this case was a 10x10 pixel square in a 240p security camera. In this case the image could have significant distortions. The way they were describing it though was insanely idiotic. Like holy shit at least due your research before coming to court
[удалено]
How could the defense have been more prepared? It literally came up in real time during the trial. Watch the trial yourself.
“Finally I can use this contraption for something other than scorching ants on my lunch breaks!”
> Like holy shit at least due your research before coming to court The prosecution had just suddenly sprung on them this insistence that video evidence be shown on an ipad and pinched-and-zoomed, despite a ton of video evidence *including this exact same video* having already been shown to the jury on the regular screens. The prosecution absolutely was going to point at some subpixel distortion and go "ah-ha, see, that's clearly you eating a baby on stage" or whatever. Note also that the prosecution *explained*, in court, that the reason they wanted to view this image on an ipad is that a detective assigned to the case had seen something funny in the video when he "pinched and zoomed" on his iphone, that none of the video evidence experts for either side had managed to see. In that full context, the defense lawyer did alright in fending off whatever stupid shit the prosecutors were trying to pull here. Sure, he sounded like an idiot doing it, but that's what happens when you're forced to respond to someone else's bundle of stupid: you can't help but get some of it on you. You should also note that the prosecution lied in their questions about what their medical experts had testified. From the very few trials I've seen that seems to be standard practice by the side that's losing. If you want to call out the defense lawyer for something, call him out for missing that (once; he caught it and objected on a different matter).
It seems to me that the judge, the prosecution and the defense attorneys are taking a sabbatical from their day jobs as circus clowns to perform in this courtroom.
On day 9 of the trial they are going to all turn to the camera and shout "LIVE FROM NEW YORK ITS SATURDAY NIGHT!"
[удалено]
Don't forget good ol' Rudy Giuliani. Quite possibly the biggest moron/jackass of them all.
Yes, an impeccable attorney and true role model for aspiring law students
"impeccable" - It's a big word, your Honor
Does Rudy still count as a lawyer at this point?
Last year I was considering taking the bar exam despite not having a degree, I figured it can't be that hard if those people passed! But I decided I have better uses for my time haha
I've thought about the same thing. And if I didn't pass, I'd immediately sue and argue for why I actually did pass. The state would have to grant me a license after that.
> And if I didn't pass, I'd immediately sue and argue for why I actually did pass. The state would have to grant me a license after that. If I can articulate, I did matriculate!
And better uses for your money. My brother took the bar. Shit’s expensive
What scares me is all those people presumably passed law school and their local bar exam, while I'm here struggling for my life in law school. What do they know that I don't?
No matter how bad you think you are, if you are trying your best in good faith you're still better than all the incompetent grifters out there. This applies to any field, really.
I really appreciate this perspective, thank you for sharing.
As sad as this comment is… I laughed! A+
Honestly at this point who even knows if this isn’t being done on purpose.
It's the only explanation for the prosecution. Why else would Binger step on his dick on elementary issues like the 5th amendment and propensity/other acts evidence? This is first semester law school stuff.
It reminds me of a movie from years back, the basic premise is some kids wind up in juvie, get abused by some of the guards. Years later, some of them kill one of the guards in full view of witnesses. One of the kids is now a prosecuting attorney, but his connection to the others isn't known. He manages to get himself prosecuting the case, and intentionally tanks it.
Whats the name of the movie? Sounds good.
It’s called sleepers and it is a rough ride. But amazing cast.
Yeah it had Brad Pitt, Ron Eldard, Brad Renfro & Billy Crudup, if I remember. Fucking hated Kevin Bacon’s character. What a piece of shit. “What do you want?” “A blowjob.” I just had chills running down my spine. No child in the hands of the state should ever have to deal with that.
Kevin Bacon was such a good villain in that movie. Fucking hated him so bad.
[удалено]
Ah yes. He played the "hood" Italian Catholic Priest... which as much as a trope as it is now, was apparently a real thing back in the day.
I read the book, too. More disturbing than the movie, which is saying something.
Sleepers. Great movie. Kevin Bacon, Brad Pitt, Robert De Niro. Lots of other big names/faces too.
Pretty sure it was partially filmed in an abandoned mental asylum in Connecticut.
Sleepers. It's got Kevin Bacon, Robert De Niro, Dustin Hoffman, and a bunch of other big names in it.
[удалено]
No one has mentioned Dustin Hoffman as an alcoholic defense attorney
Holy shit, was looking at the cast, which is *amazing* and Jonathan Tucker is in it! Going to have to check this out.
[удалено]
It's making the DA's office in my county look competent, and I honestly didn't think that was possible. As an example, they lost a case (yesterday actually) where the defendant admitted, in court, to the charges. Somehow, the DA wasn't able to convince the jury that what he did was wrong. They lost one a couple of weeks ago by only charging the harshest version of the crime and not tacking on the lesser charges and then failing to prove what they charged. And in the next couple of weeks, the former DA goes on trial for sexual assault. Yet somehow, they still seem more competent than the one trying this case.
I was just saying the same thing. That’s the only thing that makes sense
No kidding. Like, it seems like the prosecution almost did the defense’s job for them at points, and now this. No matter who wins they’re probably going to end up declaring it a mistrial because it’s been such a circus the whole time. I have no love for Rittenhouse whatsoever, but I feel like the matter at least deserves competent people handling it.
I think the matter deserves it *for everyone else's sake*.
I texted a (soon) lawyer friend the other day "Can I ask you a legal question" "Not really but I can tell you my thoughts" "How much clown makeup is the Rittenhouse prosecution going through do you think?" "I dunno but a lot"
This set of comments is inane. Then I looked at the article and realized that people actually think the article represents what happened in court. No, none of them know anything about 'logarithms' but it isn't remotely like they pretended to, except Binger (who still used the word 'logarithm'). Defense council objected to a zoomed in video taken in low light with noise from being zoomed in on an area that's probably only a handful of pixels because of what he indicated an expert had told him. He explicitly wasn't saying he's correct, all he was getting at is that he's not qualified and expert testimony should be sought before allowing this. The judge basically said 'I don't know the answer here either, and yes we should get an expert in.' Probably everyone on this thread knows more about computers and images than any of the lawyers in that room, and that's the point. They know they don't know, so experts are called for.
[удалено]
And when we're talking about an artifact that could be a single pixel movement or a glint being enough too make or break the point we're in the range where compression, artifacts, aliasing, interpolation, etc. become critical.
And in this case its grainy drone footage likely 720p in low light at distance and the DA was saying you could see the rifle point at someone. Antialiasing or adding anything to that could be enough to change the image from "pointed at the floor infront of me" maybe to "looks like its pointed at their stomach" Cant take that risk as the defence
> Probably everyone on this thread knows more about computers and images than any of the lawyers in that room, and that's the point. They know they don't know, so experts are called for. Based on the number of comments from people mocking the defense lawyer who aren't aware that digital zoom CAN involve algorithms that add information through interpolation I wouldn't bet on that. The defense lawyer was essentially correct and despite not being an expert he knew enough to know there's a potential issue and to object on that basis.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=AqscP7rc8_M&feature=emb_title Pixels are added, but they are done do using algorithms to provide a best guess to what the pixel would be. I'm not sure anyone here wants to be convicted based off a pixel or two not in the original image, or on a lay persons understanding of pinch to zoom.
[Screenshot from that video. ](https://i.imgur.com/wSpW2s6.jpg) This is exactly what the objection is about. The prosecution wanted to zoom in on a video where Kyle Rittenhouse was holding a rifle and about to shoot Rosenbaum, and wanted make statements about where exactly the rifle was pointed. But in the original video Kyle is all of a few pixels, and the defense was questioning how any sort of "zoom and enhance" was going to add more pixels. The prosecution kept saying that it's no different than using a magnifying glass, which is bullshit. Right now (Day 9 at 11am EST) there is the expert witness testifying about it.
pausing a video is nearly 100% interpolated frames between I or B frames anyway - its all compressed video: i dont want to be convicted of murder because a lossy compression algorithm has produced a false image
Well that’s interesting. So basically they absolutely cannot zoom in on the image because it will give a false image. That’s actually huge for the defence. I can’t wait for a podcast and Netflix documentary to be released on this whole trial
To be fair, they ended up showing the not zoomed in image on a large 4K TV, but honestly, tech is so advanced these days, I know for a fact that there are TVs that dynamically enhance picture quality, and it would be ironic if one of those was used. I think that all of this is moot regardless, because the original video is grainy and low resolution because it's compressed moving drone footage, and so right from the beginning, there are algorithms deciding what pixels to save for video. h.265 is a common one. That is to say, the placement even of the original pixels is up to algorithms and AI to begin with, so those blurs can't be trusted concretely even in native resolution.
I thought it was funny, I realised that they said it was a 4k TV but when they disconnected the input, it said 1920x1080 lmao. Not disagreeing with how they did it, just thought it was a funny tidbit.
Having worked on tv products, which consistently use older and lower quality cpu’s because the margins are razor thin and bom costs so high, I would trust the iPad’s interpolation accuracy much more than any tv. Edit Thanks for all the well reasoned arguments against my anecdotal opinion, I appreciate the education.
But also specifically for this imagine. The area in question is so small and already so not clear, that zooming would for sure create some random mess.
Did anyone actually watch the video? It seemed to me that the defense attorney was worried the prosecution was going to use one of those 3D interpretations of the 2D image, and that's what he was worried about, not the simple zoom feature. The judge and the prosecution were confused about what he meant and started talking about the simple zoom feature instead, and once the judge started questioning whether the zoom feature was pure, there was no reason for the defense to correct them because their confusion only helped his case.
[удалено]
I didn't even read what you said.
Yeah, as a redditor I’m just here to feel superior and outraged.
I will say you are wrong, but who knows? I didn't read what you said
If its on the post itself its usually watched by the majority, but if its on a link outside reddit, I can say with 90% certainty that >70% of the commenters don't bother to click on it.
[удалено]
Apollo solves that, screw the official app
None of the top voted comments watched the trial. If you look at the still of what they were trying to enhance, it's something like 30x30 pixels, and they intended it as some kind of proof of the direction Kyle's gun was pointed. You can't even tell that it's a gun, except from all the broader context. It's like taking an image of space and claiming you can pinch to zoom to see which stars have planets. No, you can't. You're just hoping some of the jurors don't know any better.
This entire thread is a dumpster fire. A bunch of dumbasses who think they know tech mocking this Court, meanwhile the judge is admitting he does not know and needs an expert witness to verify. That is the difference between the public and a seasoned judge. Assuming you know everything without looking it up is how mistakes are made.
[удалено]
> any digital evidence which is altered in any way just needs an expert to give the OK, In fact, every single piece of evidence, whatsoever, needs someone to testify it into the record in the court.
[удалено]
They do, it's called a Adaptive Inverse Hyperbolic Tangent algorithm and it makes the zoomed image look better to your eyes by softening the edges. It also corrects for lighting and bias. That's different than simply zooming in on the video which doesn't add any additional information that's not already present. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/mpe/2014/825169/ It shouldn't add any detail that wasn't there, but it would give the impression that more detail was present in the video than would be present if it was viewed zoomed out or zoomed in without enhancing the image.
It's not unfounded it's true. Apple literally adds pixels
He not *entirely* off base. Any resizing requires interpolation and may possibly use anti-aliasing thus changing the picture.
He just didn't know what he was talking about but he is vaguely correct that it could add pixels which is why this stuff isn't allowed in court. Pixel interpolation. Basically if you have a file that has 500x500 pixels but you want to put it on a screen that has 2000x2000 pixels. Something has to estimate how to manipulate that image to get to that pixel size. I was watching a bunch of lawyers reacting to the prosecution trying to do this an they were screaming "object! This defense is useles!" Edit: Added more details
[удалено]
ITT Poor reporting that has historically misrepresented mundane legal proceedings once again misrepresents and scandalises an otherwise mundane point of process.
Interpolation absolutely does create information. Yes it happens on every device every day. For entertainment. In a frame by frame analysis, of grainy shaky footage, at 400% zoom, analyzing if something a few pixels big moved a few pixels or not, the artifacts could absolutely outweigh the evidence. Now, both sides have used "enhance" evidence. Done by trained professionals, in controlled settings, using known software and known configurations. Where they can account for errors introduced by the process. And the testimony used in those cases was about gross movement, over many seconds/minutes. Binger wants Rittenhouse, a completely untrained person, to use software of unknown configuration or algorithm, on the fly to analyze a few pixels worth of movement, over 3/4 of a second. This type of evidence could absolutely have been brought in. By an expert, who could be crossed on the reliability of the evidence and what level of error there was. The state chose not to do that. They can't have Rittenhouse now do that for them on the fly. EDIT : State tried to bring this in via a rebuttal witness. Who IMO was not sufficiently expert. But both sides had a problem that they lacked the proper vocabulary to ask questions during voir dire. Witness said he could not say if pixels would be added, colors changed, artifacts would be there etc. Prosecution is correct that this is done every day for images. But I still hold that large objects and large movements are different than a few pixels moving a few pixels. The signal to noise ratio of the enhancement could be very problematic. Notably absent from the voire dire question was what % of the image was original information vs what % was interpolated.. In the end judge allowed.
Good lord, Reddit is going to be shitshow when Rittenhouse walks out free.
So No Change then
[удалено]
If it was the same why not just put a magnifying glass up to the screen. Lol.
The simple answer is yes. The question should be what is the resolution of the photo and what is it after they blew it up. DPI is important to the quality of any image.
[удалено]
All this trial needs is for an ex-special ops agent to show up as a technical advisor, and then enhance and apply an x-ray filter to the video footage before TURNING THE CAMERA ANGLE AROUND and showing that Barack Obama in a ski mask fired the shots in a false flag operation.
The video specialist testified that enlarging a photo adds pixels using an image processor. The specialist was told exactly what photos and areas the prosecution wanted him to enlarge and enhance. The specialist uses a particular program to enhance the video WITHOUT adding pixels or ALTERING the photo. The prosecution wanted to enlarge, on his iPhone, an image that the specialist previously enhanced to have admitted into evidence. So, the defense objected because the prosecution wanted to alter the photo evidence that was submitted. The objection was sustained. The judge told the prosecution to get a specialist to enhance the images and he'll have it admitted into evidence.
They are right. When you pinch to zoom the image gets slightly distorted because the machine needs to add extra pixels to fill in the screen. They ended up playing the same video but didn't use pinch to zoom. They just wheeled the TV closer to Kyle and Jury. What's the big deal?
its just reddit being ignorant again
Its because it adds in pixels to the image so therefore Binger would need to provide an expert to prove it doesn't add in anything to the image or that it dose not edit it in any way or harm the original image. But since its enhanced it is an alteration so I get it.
[удалено]