All iPads Kyle Rittenhouse Trial iPad

[Haust]

In the Kyle Rittenhouse trial the prosecutor wants to pinch to zoom video on an iPad. The defense objected saying that Apple IOS add artifacts into the image when zooming in this manner. What is the truth? Is the pinch zoomed video exactly the same as the virgin video or are there in fact new pixels added?

The judge is going to make the prosecution verify that the pinch zoomed video is in fact the same as the original video.

 

[Gwea22]

I don’t blame the defense for trying every objection they can, but common- this is pretty much common sense like the prosecution said. It’s not enhancing the video, just zooming into it. Enlarging the pixels

 

[LogicalApex]

This is the defense trying to sow doubt (aka their job). Although we know and everyone else knows it doesn't "insert pixels" even if the judge says it doesn't the jury will be left with that in the mind. Since they aren't technical one of them might bite on the fishing line...

Remember the defense just needs 1 juror to side with them to win the prosecution needs them all.

 

[jdclifford]

The judge is an idiot.

 

[Rafterman]

In the Kyle Rittenhouse trial the prosecutor wants to pinch to zoom video on an iPad. The defense objected saying that Apple IOS add artifacts into the image when zooming in this manner. What is the truth? Is the pinch zoomed video exactly the same as the virgin video or are there in fact new pixels added?

They don't add "artifacts." I would guess they would need an Apple rep to go on the stand and confirm it one way or the other.

 

[BR3W]

I don't understand how digital zoom interpolation is even being questioned or debated on a tech forum.

This is a known issue with digital media and has been known for decades. One cannot "add" information to a picture that doesn't already include it. In order to make a "larger" picture, digital zoom uses interpolation to estimate what it "thinks" the pixels should be; it doesn't simply make pixels "bigger."

 

[Rafterman]

I don't understand how digital zoom interpolation is even being questioned or debated on a tech forum.

This is a known issue with digital media and has been known for decades. One cannot "add" information to a picture that doesn't already include it. In order to make a "larger" picture, digital zoom uses interpolation to estimate what it "thinks" the pixels should be; it doesn't simply make pixels "bigger."

Star Trek: "enhance image".

Me: "then move your head closer to the screen because it ain't gonna work your way."

 

[King_charles]

My reply would be, that the camera does artificially try to add some colors and distort the the large pixels it isn’t adding pixels per day but it does try to guess. In this case they were so far away and grainy video pinch to zoom might distort the image so bad itd be so hard to tell small images like hands, bags, and guns.

 

[Haust]

They don't add "artifacts." I would guess they would need an Apple rep to go on the stand and confirm it one way or the other.

But does IOS in anyway enhance the quality of the image using some kind of algorithm that adjusts the image in a way that alters the information visible to the user?

People can say its common sense or obvious that it doesn't actually alter the content of the video, but is this the actual fact of the matter?

 

[King_charles]

I don't understand how digital zoom interpolation is even being questioned or debated on a tech forum.

This is a known issue with digital media and has been known for decades. One cannot "add" information to a picture that doesn't already include it. In order to make a "larger" picture, digital zoom uses interpolation to estimate what it "thinks" the pixels should be; it doesn't simply make pixels "bigger."

But like I’m saying it try’s to guess the pixel and in a case where small details are important it might distort image. I don’t know I really wanted an expert brought in. Because just like in the labs I work in there are limitations to equipment and cameras I can use I work in a science lab.

 

[BR3W]

But does IOS in anyway enhance the quality of the image using some kind of algorithm that adjusts the image in a way that alters the information visible to the user?

People can say its common sense or obvious that it doesn't actually alter the content of the video, but is this the actual fact of the matter?

I already explained that it does along with the why and how.

The person you quoted is probably making a distinction between "artifacts" and interpolation.

 

[Haust]

My reply would be, that the camera does artificially try to add some colors and distort the the large pixels it isn’t adding pixels per day but it does try to guess. In this case they were so far away and grainy video pinch to zoom might distort the image so bad itd be so hard to tell small images like hands, bags, and guns.

I think that the point of the matter. Would pinching to zoom invite some programming algorithm that attempts to enhance the quality of the video by artificially changing the nature of the original video in order to improve the quality OR does it so nothing and just enlarges what is already there?

 

[King_charles]

But does IOS in anyway enhance the quality of the image using some kind of algorithm that adjusts the image in a way that alters the information visible to the user?

People can say its common sense or obvious that it doesn't actually alter the content of the video, but is this the actual fact of the matter?

I think that the point of the matter. Would pinching to zoom invite some programming algorithm that attempts to enhance the quality of the video by artificially changing the nature of the original video in order to improve the quality OR does it so nothing and just enlarges what is already there?

It’s definitely not a magnifying glass moving over a paper lol. But does it enhance meaning add pixels it does have to take less pixels and when zoom drag that color over more pixels. I want an expert to testify.

 

[Haust]

I don't understand how digital zoom interpolation is even being questioned or debated on a tech forum.

This is a known issue with digital media and has been known for decades. One cannot "add" information to a picture that doesn't already include it. In order to make a "larger" picture, digital zoom uses interpolation to estimate what it "thinks" the pixels should be; it doesn't simply make pixels "bigger."

So if there is an algorithm that is estimating what it thinks should be there, is that not altering the image in some way that is now technically different then the original?

 

[BR3W]

I think that the point of the matter. Would pinching to zoom invite some programming algorithm that attempts to enhance the quality of the video by artificially changing the nature of the original video in order to improve the quality OR does it so nothing and just enlarges what is already there?

Once again...there is no way to "enlarge what is already there."

Digital zoom adds pixels in order to enlarge the image. It estimates what those pixels should be approximated from what already exists. There is no hidden large image embedded within a smaller image that can be "enlarged" from the smaller picture.

 

[Haust]

It’s definitely not a magnifying glass moving over a paper lol. But does it enhance meaning add pixels it does have to take less pixels and when zoom drag that color over more pixels. I want an expert to testify.

Me too! I'd like to know if a video that is pinched in to zoom is technically an enhanced image.

 

[BR3W]

So if there is an algorithm that is estimating what it thinks should be there, is that not altering the image in some way that is now technically different then the original?

Yes, it is altering the image into something that is both technically and practically different than the original.

It's unlikely (not impossible) for this to create a gun where there isn't one (or vice versa) but regardless it could (and would) alter the image enough to render something as precise as gun orientation into something that it isn't.

 

[Haust]

Once again...there is no way to "enlarge what is already there."

Digital zoom adds pixels in order to enlarge the image. It estimates what those pixels should be approximated from what already exists. There is no hidden large image embedded within a smaller image that can be "enlarged" from the smaller picture.

But can it distort the image in such a way as to make it appear to be different than the original. Technically an enhance, "new" image? We're talking about zooming into a video for the purpose of highlighting something that could end up putting someone in jail for the rest of their life. It's a trivial matter, but perhaps an important one if you were in such a position and a prosecutor was trying to persuade a jury by changing the view point of the original video.

I'm not saying that it does make a difference, I'd just like to know for sure either way. I'm open to either conclusion.

 

[BR3W]

Me too! I'd like to know if a video that is pinched in to zoom is technically an enhanced image.

But can it distort the image in such a way as to make it appear to be different than the original. Technically an enhance, "new" image? We're talking about zooming into a video for the purpose of highlighting something that could end up putting someone in jail for the rest of their life. It's a trivial matter, but perhaps an important one if you were in such a position and a prosecutor was trying to persuade a jury by changing the view point of the original video.

I'm not saying that it does make a difference, I'd just like to know for sure either way. I'm open to either conclusion.

I don't know how many different ways I can explain the same concept to you.

Yes, again yes, it alters the image from the original in order to resize it. And, yes, it's a "new" image. The resulting image won't even necessarily have the same color attributes after resizing.

It's not a trivial matter. One cannot simply "enlarge" images and be certain they still have the original image...because there is no "original" image. The entire thing is a construct based on 0s and 1s. Even the "original" image is being displayed via algorithms. This is not a photograph, which actually could be enlarged and relied upon up until one exceeded the resolution of the capture.

I'm so confused how this is news to any members of a tech site. Where have you been all your life? When something is remastered they go back to the original analog sources rather than HD. If you try to digitize an old VHS or cassette tape you're going to find it won't, can't, be better than the original without that interpolation, which is what every HD display device does to non-HD content. You witnessed this in your own life when we switched from interlaced to progressive displays and from CRTs to LCDs.

I don't remember which iPad they were discussing but let's assume it's a 2019 10.2" iPad with 2160x1620 resolution. That's nearly 3.5 million pixels. If you take a picture of your face and display it on that iPad, your face will use all of those pixels. If you then enlarge your face to show only your eye, your eye will have to take up all of those pixels (unless you do a 1:1 crop, which wouldn't result in a larger picture so not relevant). How do you think all of those pixels are filled and what do you think they are filled with?

You can experiment on this with your own devices. Take a photo and keep enlarging it until it becomes blocky and incomprehensible. It will not just keep zooming in on a clear picture like what would happen if you, as someone else mentioned, looked a photograph with a magnifying glass. If you enlarge a photograph of a photo taken with a crappy lens you'll just end up with a blurry photo. If you enlarge one that was taken with a lens with high enough resolution you'll be able to see fine details that the naked eye couldn't see before it was enlarged...but the data needs to be there.

The only way around this would be to use RAW. The image you see on your display is already manipulated. You don't need an expert telling you all of these facts because Apple boasts about it every product release--their algorithms (and it's not an "Apple" thing) are part of why they claim we can get pictures that rival SLRs. The lenses on your device are arguably part of the technology. Make no mistake, though, the algorithms of how to make sense of those data the lenses are capturing are a huge part of the solution to displaying wonderful pictures on a digital device.

 

[Tagbert]

this is no more enhancing or distorting the image than if you rotate the iPad and watch the video in portrait mode. Yes, the pixels are remapped to the screen but is no more a "technically enhanced image" than any other simple rescaling. This is no ML rescaling where pseudo-features could be enhanced. Even displaying it on a screen is doing that rescaling. It's a silly and desperate ploy by the defense.

 

[BR3W]

this is no more enhancing or distorting the image than if you rotate the iPad and watch the video in portrait mode. Yes, the pixels are remapped to the screen but is no more a "technically enhanced image" than any other simple rescaling. Even displaying it on a screen is doing that rescaling. It's a silly and desperate ploy by the defense.

This is objectively false.

Furthermore, your example that rotating a display does not alter the image, is demonstrably false. Anyone can fact-check that claim on their own device and it will become immediately obvious that some parts of the image are being manipulated. We don't get a lot of choice on our handheld devices, but if you look at the settings on something larger, like a television, you'll notice the various methodologies of converting images to the display's format--whether it's 1:1, pan and scan, or letterboxing, etc.

 

[Tagbert]

This is objectively false.

Furthermore, your example that rotating a display does not alter the image, is demonstrably false. Anyone can fact-check that claim on their own device and it will become immediately obvious that some parts of the image are being manipulated. We don't get a lot of choice on our handheld devices, but if you look at the settings on something larger, like a television, you'll notice the various methodologies of converting images to the display's format--whether it's 1:1, pan and scan, or letterboxing, etc.

No, I said that zooming was no more changing the image than rotating the screen. Yes, of course the pixels are being remapped using nearest neighbor or a similar algorithm. That doesn't meant the image is altered in any functional way. To call that "manipulated" is implying a level of change that is not justified.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

It is no more "manipulation" than the codec is doing already. Unless the video was recorded in ProRes, and displayed on a display of the exact same pixel count as it was recorded in, there is "manipulation" being done. Pinch-zoom is no worse "manipulation" than the video's original compression in the first place.

And if the video was recorded zoomed in more than the lens' native? Then the video digital zoom at recording and codec for storage is already FAR worse than pinch zoom did.

 

[BR3W]

It is no more "manipulation" than the codec is doing already. Unless the video was recorded in ProRes, and displayed on a display of the exact same pixel count as it was recorded in, there is "manipulation" being done. Pinch-zoom is no worse "manipulation" than the video's original compression in the first place.

And if the video was recorded zoomed in more than the lens' native? Then the video digital zoom at recording and codec for storage is already FAR worse than pinch zoom did.

The argument that "pinch/zoom" does not manipulate an image any more than any other problem of post-processing is a red-herring. The conclusion is the same: the image on a consumer level iPad is *not* an accurate rendition of the original "image." The fact that one being worse than the other does not lead to a rational conclusion that the images could and should be used to convict someone of a crime--it's evidence that post-processed images on consumer level devices are not accurate enough evidence to be used in criminal trials.

Also, since I'm tired of explaining this fundamental principle inherent to digital media, here are some "expert" explanations for one to read if still confused on the topic:

Advanced cropping, resizing, resampling

This document explains in detail how cropping, resizing, and resampling images affects image resolution and pixel dimensions in Adobe Photoshop. Understanding how these concepts behind each resizing method will help you get the best results.

helpx.adobe.com

Research Guides: All About Images: What is Resizing?

Focuses on many common image questions in regards to image resolutions, resizing images, file types, vector and raster images, scanning, saving and more.

guides.lib.umich.edu

 

[BR3W]

No, I said that zooming was no more changing the image than rotating the screen. Yes, of course the pixels are being remapped using nearest neighbor or a similar algorithm. That doesn't meant the image is altered in any functional way. To call that "manipulated" is implying a level of change that is not justified.

Did you watch the trial?

At issue is whether an image of someone holding a firearm from across the street can be pinch/zoom'ed enough to differentiate which way the firearm's barrel was pointed--not whether there was a firearm present.

Yeah, sure, an image "manipulated" in this way won't create a firearm out of a broomstick or vice versa, but it certainly does matter when trying to differentiate whether someone's firearm is pointed at a 60 degree angle vs. a 90 degree angle from 100 yards away.

The question anyone still stumbling over this is why the prosecutor didn't use any trial technology. Believe it or not, we don't typically use iPads to show jurors videos...for good reason. We certainly don't resort to the Windows default video viewer when whatever we wanted to use isn't available, either. Does everyone arguing for this genuinely believe witnesses (or the state) just wave their iPads and iPhones around for evidence?