5 ms·

Is interpolation “super resolution”. Id argue not, but it doesn't matter. If the software adds pixels to the image than it has made a material change to the pi

by djsbs 5y ago

Is interpolation “super resolution”. Id argue not, but it doesn't matter. If the software adds pixels to the image than it has made a material change to the picture. Defense has a right to call the prosecution to prove that the zoom effect does not alter the picture. And its not a moot point. Years ago Xerox started doing OCR (?) on photocopies to same on storage before photocopying (by storing the image as text). Everyone assumed it was a materially identical copy until people noticed it was making typographical and lexical changes to legal contracts in materially meaningful ways. [1] [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/xerox-copiers-might-alter-numbers-text-in-documents-1.1303751 https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/xerox-copiers-might-alter-nu...

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
It would have to be an interpolation algorithm that doesn't add or remove signal information. Everybody uses approximations for efficient hardware utilization. I wouldn't consider that admissible.
- pfortuny 5y ago
  Any interpolation adds information to the data: the very interpolation method is alien to the image, and hence becomes “added” information.
  - djsbs 5y ago
    And therefore needs to be validated! The prosecutor literally tried to infer an action from a single pixel. That’s BS and everyone in this forum has the technical ability to recognize this. A single pixel from a low light environment (therefore noisy)? BS
- djsbs 5y ago
  Then get an expert to testify as much. Btw, this isn’t a “right wing” issue. Political “liberals”, to their credit, have been saying as much for years, pointing out that closed source software has huge problems in court. As it stands, the defense has a right to force the prosecution to either get an Apple employee to testify in court, or use a linux machine, gimp and a CS expert to explain what gimp is doing. EDIT: sorry I read comment Im replying to as “I wouldn't consider it inadmissible”. I txted this while dozing off. Leaving comment for record’s sake.

by djsbs 5y ago

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago

It would have to be an interpolation algorithm that doesn't add or remove signal information. Everybody uses approximations for efficient hardware utilization. I wouldn't consider that admissible.

pfortuny 5y ago
Any interpolation adds information to the data: the very interpolation method is alien to the image, and hence becomes “added” information.
- djsbs 5y ago
  And therefore needs to be validated! The prosecutor literally tried to infer an action from a single pixel. That’s BS and everyone in this forum has the technical ability to recognize this. A single pixel from a low light environment (therefore noisy)? BS
djsbs 5y ago
Then get an expert to testify as much. Btw, this isn’t a “right wing” issue. Political “liberals”, to their credit, have been saying as much for years, pointing out that closed source software has huge problems in court. As it stands, the defense has a right to force the prosecution to either get an Apple employee to testify in court, or use a linux machine, gimp and a CS expert to explain what gimp is doing. EDIT: sorry I read comment Im replying to as “I wouldn't consider it inadmissible”. I txted this while dozing off. Leaving comment for record’s sake.