5 ms·

Remember the Rittenhouse trial and the big to do about the video being enhanced when zoomed? Digital evidence and photos are suspicious for the purpose of evide

Remember the Rittenhouse trial and the big to do about the video being enhanced when zoomed? Digital evidence and photos are suspicious for the purpose of evidence. Not commenting on the results of the trial. Sidebar not specific to that trial, slow motion, and slowed video shouldn't be shown to jurors because it creates the illusion of having more time to think. Everything in real life happens at one speed, you can't back it up, slow it down, or armchair qb it then decide if an action was appropriate.

mikewhy 5y ago
> the Rittenhouse trial and the big to do about the video being enhanced when zoomed I keep thinking about this, and was already when the case was going on. If linear interpolated zoom isn't allowed, no iPhone photo after a certain time should be.
- wmf 5y ago
  If linear interpolated zoom isn't allowed... Think about analog/optical/chemical photography. In the old days did juries look at camera negatives with a loupe? Of course not, they looked at enlargements. What "algorithm" does an optical enlarger use?
  - tagoregrtst 5y ago
    Continuously linear implemented with an analog device vs digital “linear” (ie, watch your floats! Take care of quanization error! Have you kept the colors separated according to the Beyer pattern?). No one has a problem with a mathematically perfect linear transformation, and film enlargers come very close to that ideal (yes they distort, but in a very obvious way and by degrading detail not adding detail that isn't there) The analog picture is much harder doctor. More gracious artifacts in blow up (grains are random, versus sharp grid). Much more detail is recorded (by virtue of the size of the sensor and therefore the diffraction limit. Sensor resolution is not too useful).
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Film development is actually VERY, VERY far from linear. Because of film grain, it's not continuous either, but actually discrete too.
      - tagoregrtst 5y ago
        Film development is very non linear in the exposure (call it z dimension), not in the dimension (x and y). That is to say it might exaggerate or diminish a gradient that was already there but not create one from nothing. The grain is random size and randomly distributed which cancels out a lot of the effects of discritzation (eg you wont get patterns due nyquist sampling error).
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        It's non linear in the X and y dimension because of grain. Any camera with a good antialiasing filter will also have little to no discretisation error.
        tagoregrtst 5y ago
        Its non linear because enlarger optics are non linear. The image of a digital or a film photo is a mosaic. This mosaic can be mathematically enlarged into a large mosaic. If you enlarge far enough you’ll see the individual tiles. This is a linear operation no matter the shape of the tile. Digital photos do not, however, just make the tiles larger. They could but its not done. Even before enlarging, they interpolate between tiles to recover color (each pixel in the sensor is monochromatic). When a picture is displayed, the screen resolution is not that of the photo, so an algorithm has to fit one grid into another. And this is before going into superesoltion techniques. But none of this would matter if we had a standard, open source, way to utilize digital photos in court. Until then Mr. lawyer can get himself an expert to testify to the validity of each and every still he wants to show the court.
        sudosysgen 5y ago
- mateo1 5y ago
  Well, it appears that we are rapidly approaching the point in time when these companies are no longer going to be able to deceive consumers like this. After that there will be an off button and perhaps legally mandated metadata, although I'm sure forensics people can already tell when AI trickery has been applied.
boublepop 5y ago
I think it’s ok to select jurors based some basic abilities. I don’t know if this considered discrimination based on IQ in the US. But if a grown person has the mind of a 5year old or doesn’t know how to walk up stairs I think it’s fair to say “you shouldn’t be in a jury”. Likewise if a person doesn’t understand the concept of zooming an image or slow motion, then I think it’s quite fair to exclude them from jury duty.
- literallyaduck 5y ago
  Understand concepts and removing bias are totally different. Consider: https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-slow-motion-guilt-20160801-snap-story.html https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-slow-mo... https://law.temple.edu/aer/2021/02/08/selectively-trusting-science/ https://law.temple.edu/aer/2021/02/08/selectively-trusting-s... It is also clear that digital photography from phones is far from an accurate representation of events.
  - boublepop 5y ago
    > It is also clear that digital photography from phones is far from an accurate representation of events. True, but if you exclude any evidence that is “far from an accurate representation of events” then we have no legal system left. Eye witness reports isn’t reliable, DNA evidence isn’t reliable. A case is built on the sum of many unreliable parts, and there a smartphone video or photo is at least significantly more reliable than eye witness accounts.

mikewhy 5y ago

> the Rittenhouse trial and the big to do about the video being enhanced when zoomed I keep thinking about this, and was already when the case was going on. If linear interpolated zoom isn't allowed, no iPhone photo after a certain time should be.

wmf 5y ago
If linear interpolated zoom isn't allowed... Think about analog/optical/chemical photography. In the old days did juries look at camera negatives with a loupe? Of course not, they looked at enlargements. What "algorithm" does an optical enlarger use?
- tagoregrtst 5y ago
  Continuously linear implemented with an analog device vs digital “linear” (ie, watch your floats! Take care of quanization error! Have you kept the colors separated according to the Beyer pattern?). No one has a problem with a mathematically perfect linear transformation, and film enlargers come very close to that ideal (yes they distort, but in a very obvious way and by degrading detail not adding detail that isn't there) The analog picture is much harder doctor. More gracious artifacts in blow up (grains are random, versus sharp grid). Much more detail is recorded (by virtue of the size of the sensor and therefore the diffraction limit. Sensor resolution is not too useful).
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Film development is actually VERY, VERY far from linear. Because of film grain, it's not continuous either, but actually discrete too.
    - tagoregrtst 5y ago
      Film development is very non linear in the exposure (call it z dimension), not in the dimension (x and y). That is to say it might exaggerate or diminish a gradient that was already there but not create one from nothing. The grain is random size and randomly distributed which cancels out a lot of the effects of discritzation (eg you wont get patterns due nyquist sampling error).
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        It's non linear in the X and y dimension because of grain. Any camera with a good antialiasing filter will also have little to no discretisation error.
        tagoregrtst 5y ago
        Its non linear because enlarger optics are non linear. The image of a digital or a film photo is a mosaic. This mosaic can be mathematically enlarged into a large mosaic. If you enlarge far enough you’ll see the individual tiles. This is a linear operation no matter the shape of the tile. Digital photos do not, however, just make the tiles larger. They could but its not done. Even before enlarging, they interpolate between tiles to recover color (each pixel in the sensor is monochromatic). When a picture is displayed, the screen resolution is not that of the photo, so an algorithm has to fit one grid into another. And this is before going into superesoltion techniques. But none of this would matter if we had a standard, open source, way to utilize digital photos in court. Until then Mr. lawyer can get himself an expert to testify to the validity of each and every still he wants to show the court.
        sudosysgen 5y ago
mateo1 5y ago
Well, it appears that we are rapidly approaching the point in time when these companies are no longer going to be able to deceive consumers like this. After that there will be an off button and perhaps legally mandated metadata, although I'm sure forensics people can already tell when AI trickery has been applied.

boublepop 5y ago

I think it’s ok to select jurors based some basic abilities. I don’t know if this considered discrimination based on IQ in the US. But if a grown person has the mind of a 5year old or doesn’t know how to walk up stairs I think it’s fair to say “you shouldn’t be in a jury”. Likewise if a person doesn’t understand the concept of zooming an image or slow motion, then I think it’s quite fair to exclude them from jury duty.

literallyaduck 5y ago
Understand concepts and removing bias are totally different. Consider: https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-slow-motion-guilt-20160801-snap-story.html https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-slow-mo... https://law.temple.edu/aer/2021/02/08/selectively-trusting-science/ https://law.temple.edu/aer/2021/02/08/selectively-trusting-s... It is also clear that digital photography from phones is far from an accurate representation of events.
- boublepop 5y ago
  > It is also clear that digital photography from phones is far from an accurate representation of events. True, but if you exclude any evidence that is “far from an accurate representation of events” then we have no legal system left. Eye witness reports isn’t reliable, DNA evidence isn’t reliable. A case is built on the sum of many unreliable parts, and there a smartphone video or photo is at least significantly more reliable than eye witness accounts.