4 ms·
This came up big time with the Rittenhouse trial when the judge didn't want to use the pinch to zoom method on video of the event. A lot of people laughed becau
by post_break 5y ago
This came up big time with the Rittenhouse trial when the judge didn't want to use the pinch to zoom method on video of the event. A lot of people laughed because he talked about AI but he was on the right path, it does inject pixels to scale the image.
- dagmx 5y agoNo. He wasn't on the right path because he was talking about the wrong thing. It astounds me how people are so quickly conflating multiple different scenarios. Playback and capture are very different things. Would you be accepting people complaining about log4j vulnerabilities with regards to a C++ code base for example? No, because you'd know the nuanced difference that's inherent in a code base. Image processing is the same. It's not just all one catch all Boogeyman
- xdennis 5y agoIt's not clear what you're disputing. Criminal trials are generally biased towards the defense. If it's unclear if the evidence is doctored or not it shouldn't be introduced to potentially mislead the jury.
- dagmx 5y agoI'm disputing people using this case of the iPhone CAPTURE process screwing up as vindication for the judges distrust of the PLAYBACK process. A) video scaling is a well documented and well understood field. The judge's mistrust was wrong to begin with, and if he distrusted the scaling algorithm, then there's no reason to trust any capture process either. It's reductionist if they're not going to try and understand what's going on. B) if the judge mistrusted it, there should be a standard platform for playback that can be trusted by them otherwise it's an easy out for dismissing any evidence C) again, people are conflating capture and playback. They're different, and issues in one don't translate directly to the other.