4 ms·
> It's not hard for an image to be both factually correct/unaltered, and yet giving a distorted view of reality. Cropping out parts, leaving out some bigger, no
by powersnail 3y ago
> It's not hard for an image to be both factually correct/unaltered, and yet giving a distorted view of reality. Cropping out parts, leaving out some bigger, non-visible contexts, such distortions can be really easy to miss, too.
In some contexts, that's true, especially if the taker has full autonomy on how the photo/video is taken, and how the story is told.
But there are other contexts (fixed cameras like CCTV, videotaped performances for auditions, a footage that includes the complete process of a car crash, etc.) in which this is not a thing. Faking it would require editing visible content, which is made way easier than before by machine learning, and ultimately reduced their value as evidence.
I'm not sure I particularly want to go back to the time when evidence like these didn't exist.
- antihero 3y agoI guess you’d have to have a rigorous chain of evidence really.
- t_mann 3y agoIt's not just about cropping out relevant parts of a video (which can absolutely still happen with CCTV, btw). Like I said, there might be some bigger context that wouldn't even be visible if you had a full 3D rendering of the whole scene, like information that some of the actors had that no bystander would have and that completely alters the interpretation of the actions. My point was that fully objective video evidence was never a thing, and this is a good opportunity to reflect on that.