4 ms·

> 20 minutes to find an expert? They'd had an expert in previously who came back and contradicted the prosecution's statement that enlarging won't add "pickles

by Natsu 5y ago

> 20 minutes to find an expert? They'd had an expert in previously who came back and contradicted the prosecution's statement that enlarging won't add "pickles" (quickly corrected to pixels) to the image. The judge allowed the evidence after the prosecution followed the proper procedure. > But I've never heard that iPad pinch-and-zoom does this. It would be surprising if it's more than plain old interpolation. There are various methods that can be used, any of which can add new pixels and or colors, the prosecution expert didn't actually know the details. When you have a couple of pixels that's claimed to be a gun, it really matters whether it's an image artifact or not. Also, the alleged gun is somehow in Kyle's left hand (he's right handed) and does show up as the same temperature as his body on the infrared image of the same scene. > Not to mention the defense lawyer clearly doesn't understand what the hell he's talking about Nobody there knew what they were talking about, which is why they got experts to testify. The prosecution hasn't been following court procedure and has gotten chewed out for it repeatedly because they're trying to pull illegal tricks and are getting called on it.

strogonoff 5y ago
The correct way to frame this conundrum is that what you see on an iPad in Photos by default[0] is not the original version the jury should be considering, either. What you get is typically a zoomed-out version, which mangles the image by selectively omitting “pickles”, or an already zoomed-in version (even without any pinching) if the image is smaller than the screen. The “true original” cannot be viewed using Photos absent third-party tooling. [0] Excluding rare events where source image’s dimensions in pixels exactly corresponds to those of the screen on that particular iPad model.
- djsbs 5y ago
  I strongly agree with this comment. But this is why digital media is so dangerous - because few people understand the “logorithms” used to light the pixels on the screen
- Natsu 5y ago
  In court, you can't just offer evidence on its own, you need to offer a witness who can attest to the evidence's reliability, who may the be cross-examined. Doing otherwise violates one's right to confront their accusers. Binger, the prosecutor, did not want to do that. This is basic law--something he has repeatedly been admonished in court for ignoring. Also, you're actually contradicting what the prosecution's own expert witness said in court. He said, yes, it would add pixels and he didn't know what kind or color. And for all that, the jury was allowed to see the images. This trial has been wild. Grosskreutz went on ABC the other day to recant his sworn testimony just prior. On ABC, he said he didn't point the gun first, but even Snopes has said that yes, he did admit to that in court.[1] There is a photo of him with his gun pointed at Kyle's head as his bicep is being vaporized. It was when confronted with this that he admitted it originally in court. Grosskreutz also claimed that Kyle re-racked his gun and this meant that Kyle wanted to kill someone, yet no unspent ammo from Kyle's gun was ever recovered, nor can any re-racking motion be seen on video. Instead, an unspent round from Grosskreutz' Glock was recovered, implying that Grosskreutz had re-racked his gun. Given the mechanics of that, it had to have been when he still had two working arms. Knowing that Grosskreutz' roommate wrote on social media that Grosskreutz wished he'd killed Kyle (something the roommate denied on the stand, saying he'd made it up), then if we use Grosskreutz' own line of reasoning, Grosskreutz had both threatened and intended to kill Kyle prior to being shot. [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige-grosskreutz/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige-gro...
  - goblin89 5y ago
    Of course zooming in "adds" pixels. And if we were to follow that pedantic logic, we should consider removing pixels from the original image (zooming out) equivalently problematic. But, apparently, no one cared that software presented a version with "subtracted" pixels in the first place, and only cared about pixels added by zooming in (which could have technically been "de-zooming-out", up to a point). Generally, fitting a raster image with dimensions AxB into a viewport of dimensions NxM inevitably involves what effectively is adding and/or removing pixels to/from the original image. That can be done in various ways (which is why we have different resizing algorithms).

by Natsu 5y ago

strogonoff 5y ago

The correct way to frame this conundrum is that what you see on an iPad in Photos by default[0] is not the original version the jury should be considering, either. What you get is typically a zoomed-out version, which mangles the image by selectively omitting “pickles”, or an already zoomed-in version (even without any pinching) if the image is smaller than the screen. The “true original” cannot be viewed using Photos absent third-party tooling. [0] Excluding rare events where source image’s dimensions in pixels exactly corresponds to those of the screen on that particular iPad model.

djsbs 5y ago
I strongly agree with this comment. But this is why digital media is so dangerous - because few people understand the “logorithms” used to light the pixels on the screen
Natsu 5y ago
In court, you can't just offer evidence on its own, you need to offer a witness who can attest to the evidence's reliability, who may the be cross-examined. Doing otherwise violates one's right to confront their accusers. Binger, the prosecutor, did not want to do that. This is basic law--something he has repeatedly been admonished in court for ignoring. Also, you're actually contradicting what the prosecution's own expert witness said in court. He said, yes, it would add pixels and he didn't know what kind or color. And for all that, the jury was allowed to see the images. This trial has been wild. Grosskreutz went on ABC the other day to recant his sworn testimony just prior. On ABC, he said he didn't point the gun first, but even Snopes has said that yes, he did admit to that in court.[1] There is a photo of him with his gun pointed at Kyle's head as his bicep is being vaporized. It was when confronted with this that he admitted it originally in court. Grosskreutz also claimed that Kyle re-racked his gun and this meant that Kyle wanted to kill someone, yet no unspent ammo from Kyle's gun was ever recovered, nor can any re-racking motion be seen on video. Instead, an unspent round from Grosskreutz' Glock was recovered, implying that Grosskreutz had re-racked his gun. Given the mechanics of that, it had to have been when he still had two working arms. Knowing that Grosskreutz' roommate wrote on social media that Grosskreutz wished he'd killed Kyle (something the roommate denied on the stand, saying he'd made it up), then if we use Grosskreutz' own line of reasoning, Grosskreutz had both threatened and intended to kill Kyle prior to being shot. [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige-grosskreutz/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige-gro...
- goblin89 5y ago
  Of course zooming in "adds" pixels. And if we were to follow that pedantic logic, we should consider removing pixels from the original image (zooming out) equivalently problematic. But, apparently, no one cared that software presented a version with "subtracted" pixels in the first place, and only cared about pixels added by zooming in (which could have technically been "de-zooming-out", up to a point). Generally, fitting a raster image with dimensions AxB into a viewport of dimensions NxM inevitably involves what effectively is adding and/or removing pixels to/from the original image. That can be done in various ways (which is why we have different resizing algorithms).