5 ms·

"Cameras" making changes to the image like this make the discussion about the image processing pipeline during the Rittenhouse trial seem a little less bizarre.

by Cerium 5y ago

tandymodel100 5y ago
No, not really
- kahrl 5y ago
  Yes, yes really. When real resolution is being substituted with the best guess of a completely closed source image processor, the court should be made aware of it.
  - tandymodel100 5y ago
    This sounds like a weird rationalization for an absurd case of technical ignorance. Like when people defended nuking hurricanes or using UV lights as a Covid therapy.
    - CamperBob2 5y ago
      Fact is, you have no idea what kind of unsolicited postprocessing the camera in the Rittenhouse trial might or might not have performed, and neither did the court. It's a huge potential problem, and getting worse by the day.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - iszomer 5y ago
        Agreed as we've been living in the era of deep fakes for a while. I shudder to think how computational photography can advance to such a degree to blur the context to any unsuspecting user, whether accidental or intentional.
      - dagmx 5y ago
        Except, specifically to the Rittenhouse trial, it was about playback processing NOT capture time processing. Capture time processing is also verifiable with regards to what stack a particular device uses with the use of metadata, and as such has little in the way of extra problems over other potential doctored evidence which have been possible for years without smart phone devices. Do we question what color film would portray an image for example? Is a particular lensing affecting the truth of an image? A specific crop? There's no such thing as a perfectly true photo or video.
    - ALittleLight 5y ago
      It's perfectly reasonable to ask what image processing is done to get an enhanced image.
    - Dah00n 5y ago
      If a camera can replace a head with a leaf nothing taken with that camera can be trusted, especially in court, ever. Any changes to photos or videos should be avoided. This is the norm in court cases. You should read a proper article about it instead of the click baity ones.
      - tandymodel100 5y ago
        This aged poorly https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29750660 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29750660
        kahrl 5y ago
        No it didn't. The point still stands that AI enhanced images have a credibility and admissibility problem. This one example turning out to not have been altered in the way we thought it was by the enhancer doesn't invalidate the broader questions brought forth by the discussion.
    - tagoregrtst 5y ago
      Both sides have a right to question evidence. Defending the suitability of evidence is the duty of re council who introduced it. The prosecution couldn't explain how the iPhone zooms and it was on them to do so. Btw, the prosecution later on were caught tampering with evidence.
Philip-J-Fry 5y ago
It wasn't really bizarre in the grand scheme of things, but it was a bit of a reach in the context it was questioned in.
- bendbro 5y ago
  It was not. Popular coverage cited the court as debating "iphone pinch and zoom," but in reality, discussion mostly focused on the actual forensic application that was used, and the effect the algorithm that application produced on the output photo. The judge displayed a good understanding of how an algorithm takes as input original pixels and produces new pixels from that. https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/11/12/22778801/kyle-rittenhouse-bruce-schroeder-screenshot-zoom-in https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/11/12/22778801/ky...
dagmx 5y ago
Any technically savvy person should be able to differentiate different types of upscaling algorithms. The judge was arguing about enlarging an already recorded video, not about the merits of the original recording. This post is about image processing during the capture process. Conflating them is disingenuous, unless we're taking very large leaps of logic
- max48 5y ago
  >Any technically savvy person should be able to differentiate different types of upscaling algorithms. Even the company who makes the software couldn't explain what was done to the picture when their "expert" was asked during the trial. There is a wide range of different methods that can be used to get more details out of a blurry pictures, including ML/AI-based algorithms that are indirectly getting extra details from other pictures.
  - dagmx 5y ago
    The device in question was an iPad, the company that made the software (Apple) was not involved, the "expert" was a third party explaining the standard enlargement methods. https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/12/22778801/kyle-rittenhouse-bruce-schroeder-screenshot-zoom-in https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/12/22778801/kyle-rittenhous... If the judge mistrusted the enlargement method, he should have ordered them to display it on another device or software. Real-time video upscaling is very standard filtering that's not introducing extra hallucinated details. At most, some TVs use ML to tune their sharpening and color rendition, but it can always be disabled. The iPad has never been shown or proven to use those for video playback, and even if it did, the courts should have a standard video player to present details with standard filtering. The judges non-technical stance on things, isn't borne out of reality and again, any capture time post processing should be completely independently viewed from playback time processing.
- xdennis 5y ago
  I don't think they're that different. In both cases the frame is already taken and the editing takes place milliseconds after or months after. Apple could make iPhones work like DSLRs and save both the edited image and the RAW sensor capture.
___q 5y ago
Turns out the Camera app did NOT replace this person's head with a leaf https://twitter.com/mitchcohen/status/1476951534160257026 https://twitter.com/mitchcohen/status/1476951534160257026 So the discussion about the image processing pipeline during the Rittenhouse trial" is just as bizarre as it was before.

"Cameras" making changes to the image like this make the discussion about the image processing pipeline during the Rittenhouse trial seem a little less bizarre.

by Cerium 5y ago

"Cameras" making changes to the image like this make the discussion about the image processing pipeline during the Rittenhouse trial seem a little less bizarre.

tandymodel100 5y ago

No, not really

kahrl 5y ago
Yes, yes really. When real resolution is being substituted with the best guess of a completely closed source image processor, the court should be made aware of it.
- tandymodel100 5y ago
  This sounds like a weird rationalization for an absurd case of technical ignorance. Like when people defended nuking hurricanes or using UV lights as a Covid therapy.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    Fact is, you have no idea what kind of unsolicited postprocessing the camera in the Rittenhouse trial might or might not have performed, and neither did the court. It's a huge potential problem, and getting worse by the day.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - iszomer 5y ago
      Agreed as we've been living in the era of deep fakes for a while. I shudder to think how computational photography can advance to such a degree to blur the context to any unsuspecting user, whether accidental or intentional.
    - dagmx 5y ago
      Except, specifically to the Rittenhouse trial, it was about playback processing NOT capture time processing. Capture time processing is also verifiable with regards to what stack a particular device uses with the use of metadata, and as such has little in the way of extra problems over other potential doctored evidence which have been possible for years without smart phone devices. Do we question what color film would portray an image for example? Is a particular lensing affecting the truth of an image? A specific crop? There's no such thing as a perfectly true photo or video.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    It's perfectly reasonable to ask what image processing is done to get an enhanced image.
  - Dah00n 5y ago
    If a camera can replace a head with a leaf nothing taken with that camera can be trusted, especially in court, ever. Any changes to photos or videos should be avoided. This is the norm in court cases. You should read a proper article about it instead of the click baity ones.
    - tandymodel100 5y ago
      This aged poorly https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29750660 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29750660
      - kahrl 5y ago
        No it didn't. The point still stands that AI enhanced images have a credibility and admissibility problem. This one example turning out to not have been altered in the way we thought it was by the enhancer doesn't invalidate the broader questions brought forth by the discussion.
  - tagoregrtst 5y ago
    Both sides have a right to question evidence. Defending the suitability of evidence is the duty of re council who introduced it. The prosecution couldn't explain how the iPhone zooms and it was on them to do so. Btw, the prosecution later on were caught tampering with evidence.

Philip-J-Fry 5y ago

It wasn't really bizarre in the grand scheme of things, but it was a bit of a reach in the context it was questioned in.

bendbro 5y ago
It was not. Popular coverage cited the court as debating "iphone pinch and zoom," but in reality, discussion mostly focused on the actual forensic application that was used, and the effect the algorithm that application produced on the output photo. The judge displayed a good understanding of how an algorithm takes as input original pixels and produces new pixels from that. https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/11/12/22778801/kyle-rittenhouse-bruce-schroeder-screenshot-zoom-in https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/11/12/22778801/ky...

dagmx 5y ago

Any technically savvy person should be able to differentiate different types of upscaling algorithms. The judge was arguing about enlarging an already recorded video, not about the merits of the original recording. This post is about image processing during the capture process. Conflating them is disingenuous, unless we're taking very large leaps of logic

max48 5y ago
>Any technically savvy person should be able to differentiate different types of upscaling algorithms. Even the company who makes the software couldn't explain what was done to the picture when their "expert" was asked during the trial. There is a wide range of different methods that can be used to get more details out of a blurry pictures, including ML/AI-based algorithms that are indirectly getting extra details from other pictures.
- dagmx 5y ago
  The device in question was an iPad, the company that made the software (Apple) was not involved, the "expert" was a third party explaining the standard enlargement methods. https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/12/22778801/kyle-rittenhouse-bruce-schroeder-screenshot-zoom-in https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/12/22778801/kyle-rittenhous... If the judge mistrusted the enlargement method, he should have ordered them to display it on another device or software. Real-time video upscaling is very standard filtering that's not introducing extra hallucinated details. At most, some TVs use ML to tune their sharpening and color rendition, but it can always be disabled. The iPad has never been shown or proven to use those for video playback, and even if it did, the courts should have a standard video player to present details with standard filtering. The judges non-technical stance on things, isn't borne out of reality and again, any capture time post processing should be completely independently viewed from playback time processing.
xdennis 5y ago
I don't think they're that different. In both cases the frame is already taken and the editing takes place milliseconds after or months after. Apple could make iPhones work like DSLRs and save both the edited image and the RAW sensor capture.

___q 5y ago

Turns out the Camera app did NOT replace this person's head with a leaf https://twitter.com/mitchcohen/status/1476951534160257026 https://twitter.com/mitchcohen/status/1476951534160257026 So the discussion about the image processing pipeline during the Rittenhouse trial" is just as bizarre as it was before.