All iPads Kyle Rittenhouse Trial iPad

[Slides]

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?

You couldn't be more wrong.

They routinely use iPads or windows PCs to show video in court.

There's no special computer display for courts that has the exact same pixels in the display thar the original camera had.

All digital images use interpolation and scaling to match the display pictures even when you don't zoom in

To say that basic zooming in manipulates the image and is not admissable in court would also mean that no digital image or video is admissable in court as they all use basic scaling algorithms.

Based on your flawed logic, only film footage printed on paper or projected by a film projector would ever be admissable.

Completely dumb argument.

 

[BR3W]

You couldn't be more wrong.

They routinely use iPads or windows PCs to show video in court.

Oh we do, do we? We don't use any trial management software that's qualified by courts? So we don't use things like this, for example? The software matters...

Here's how it works according to the rules of evidence (and in practice):
If the prosecutor wants to introduce evidence the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to demonstrate the evidence has not been tampered with in any way. This is normally done pre-trial rather being sprung on the defense mid-testimony.

Anytime any witness and/or attorney introduces something into evidence the veracity of the evidence is assessed and the evidence is inadmissible, by default, until it's qualified for the court. If you see someone using a consumer level, personal device to introduce evidence it's been qualified in advance and is not the norm. But you don't see that, because you don't work in, around, or adjacent to trial work--you're a contrarian throwing around insults in what was otherwise a rational, polite discussion.

If you do have expertise and experience in the law, courtroom procedures, and rules of evidence I'm curious what it is because your words and attitude indicate otherwise.

 

[therealtoday]

My thing is: is any manipulation that would occur going to change the image Such that Rittenhouse is now holding a rubber ducky instead of an AR-15? Is it going to be so doctored by any supposed zoom-in manipulation so drastically that its going to produce an image of him smearing the victim's blood on his face like war paint? Suddenly you zoom in you see Rittenhouse not going to Kenosha Wisconsin armed with an AR-15 but instead sitting at home playing Xbox? Can't blame the defense but the judge knows there's no precedence. he continually shows favor

 

[thekev]

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.

That is not accurate in the sense you're suggesting. Cameras use monochromatic filtering, really just bandpass filters, to capture a set of three monochromatic images. There are gaps between the capture sites too. In the end, you use this to produce one image. Interpolation happens at that level. In fact, the most common video codecs use chroma subsampling, rather than a full demosaicing when the image is processed.

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.

If you needed testimony on interpolation, you would presumably want a witness familiar with image processing, probably not a rep from a company who sells it.

 

[therealtoday]

That is not accurate in the sense you're suggesting. Cameras use monochromatic filtering, really just bandpass filters, to capture a set of three monochromatic images. There are gaps between the capture sites too. In the end, you use this to produce one image. Interpolation happens at that level. In fact, the most common video codecs use chroma subsampling, rather than a full demosaicing when the image is processed.




If you needed testimony on interpolation, you would presumably want a witness familiar with image processing, probably not a rep from a company who sells it.

Yes someone who passed the Genius Bar Exam... (see what i did there?)

 

[BR3W]

My thing is: is any manipulation that would occur going to change the image Such that Rittenhouse is now holding a rubber ducky instead of an AR-15? Is it going to be so doctored by any supposed zoom-in manipulation so drastically that its going to produce an image of him smearing the victim's blood on his face like war paint? Suddenly you zoom in you see Rittenhouse not going to Kenosha Wisconsin armed with an AR-15 but instead sitting at home playing Xbox? Can't blame the defense but the judge knows there's no precedence. he continually shows favor

It's unlikely to produce aberrations like you're proposing. That wasn't the issue in front of the court, though.

The issue the prosecutor was trying to demonstrate was where Rittenhouse was aiming his firearm.
In that context, yes, a few pixels here or there would make a substantive difference in the interpretation of where the barrel was aiming.

 

[therealtoday]

It's unlikely to produce aberrations like you're proposing. That wasn't the issue in front of the court, though.

The issue the prosecutor was trying to demonstrate was where Rittenhouse was aiming his firearm.
In that context, yes, a few pixels here or there would make a substantive difference in the interpretation of where the barrel was aiming.

Just adding levity but I will admit that I got a bit ahead of myself as my opinion of the trial does not belong in this forum

 

[Paknag]

Oh we do, do we? We don't use any trial management software that's qualified by courts? So we don't use things like this

https://ipro.com/products/trialdirector/

, for example? The software matters...

Here's how it works according to the rules of evidence (and in practice):
If the prosecutor wants to introduce evidence the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to demonstrate the evidence has not been tampered with in any way. This is normally done pre-trial rather being sprung on the defense mid-testimony.

Anytime any witness and/or attorney introduces something into evidence the veracity of the evidence is assessed and the evidence is inadmissible, by default, until it's qualified for the court. If you see someone using a consumer level, personal device to introduce evidence it's been qualified in advance and is not the norm. But you don't see that, because you don't work in, around, or adjacent to trial work--you're a contrarian throwing around insults in what was otherwise a rational, polite discussion.

If you do have expertise and experience in the law, courtroom procedures, and rules of evidence I'm curious what it is because your words and attitude indicate otherwise.

The link you showed literally had an iPad on its advertisement page. Also Slides didn’t say a single thing about software, only hardware.

Watching the video on an iPad vs the BASE windows media player is no different for video playback. The smoothing and changes that get applied to videos is at time of recording or if you are editing the source information of the content, not on pinch to zoom features. The information is in the digital file or not. Any estimation that is done by the iPad on playback is specifically for if it CANT display all the pixels and then it determines what is the most accurate way to show them. So zooming out loses content, zooming in will not modify source content. With Retina display iPads, hell even non retina, there would be no difference with what was shown that would be different enough to warrant tossing out using the iPad.

If someone want to question the quality of the ORIGINAL content that was shown independent of the iPad, I get that. If you want to say the content from the source is too pixelated in general (again, based on the original content) also makes sense. Blaming the hardware being used and then playing the content back on a windows machine because boogie man said “don’t trust Apple” is absurd.

 

[DanTSX]

This is an unbelievably minor point in this whole escapade. Technologically, this is sloppy and questionable from both sides.


IMO people are seeing what they want to see based on preconceived notions and bias as to the how they perceive the defendant and how they wish the outcome would be.

 

[King_charles]

Like this post if you agree.

But I think for the image to remain original they’d have to shoot in raw because all the data would be there. Outside of the that apple talks about the extreme enhancing and quality they give each picture.

 

[thekev]

^ Agreement with misinformation is meaningless. Worth noting as well, "raw" is just the least processed state the manufacturers give you.

 

[Paknag]

Like this post if you agree.

But I think for the image to remain original they’d have to shoot in raw because all the data would be there. Outside of the that apple talks about the extreme enhancing and quality they give each picture.

If talking about the recording and creation of digital content, I can totally see that being true. And there's tons of documentation and comparisons for ProRAW vs RAW files as well still supporting RAW as more authentic.

To clarify though that is recording/creating/editing content, that is separate from the playback of a source file. You can easily prove that apple adding or modifying anything by going to Photos and just zooming in. If Apple had an algorithm that was modifying the image while zooming in, you would consistently see small pixels consistently being redrawn to represent the "modified" image.
This is an unbelievably minor point in this whole escapade. Technologically, this is sloppy and questionable from both sides.

This is an unbelievably minor point in this whole escapade. Technologically, this is sloppy and questionable from both sides.


IMO people are seeing what they want to see based on preconceived notions and bias as to the how they perceive the defendant and how they wish the outcome would be.

Yeah totally agree there's bias on both sides wanting something to go their way, I'll just wait for the verdict and then go back to drinking my coffee.

No issue with people that have no say so discussing an accusations of how a technology works ?‍♂️

 

[agamoto]

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

You're not wrong at all.

We live in a world of absolutely exquisite digital fakery. Given that, NO video presented in court should be admitted as evidence unless a full chain of custody for that video, perhaps in the form of encrypted metadata watermark stamped by the manufacturer onto each frame so as to verify the images/video are true digital representations, at the time (and place if the device has GPS) they were taken.

However, pinch/zoom on IOS is digital rescaling, not resampling. There is no re-rendering of the video image. That would take considerable processing power to accomplish if that were the case. The digital interpolation you're describing applies to the camera's telephoto zoom function when acquiring the image.

That all said, for the purposes of this trial, the prosecutor could have just as easily played the video, with no pinch/zoom, paused it and then handed the jurors a magnifying glass as he passed the iPad around to achieve the same result.

There was a good reason the defence objected and demanded arguments on the matter without the jury present, because some of them would have been smart enough to understand that the defence's argument, and the judge's sheer ignorance on the matter, would not have sit well and would have come across as impeding the prosecution.

Just wait until the defence finds out about all the processing that 4K TV shown to the court is doing to that 1080p Windows notebook source. Heaven forbid!!

The kid had his gun raised and pointed at Rosenbaum prior to Rosenbaum coming after him. The kid was threatening an unarmed man with a brandished assault rifle. No pinch zoom required to see that.

 

[Kingdong727]

Resizing and resampling images​

When you resize and resample an image, you change the amount of data in that file. To resample your image, ensure that Resample is selected at the bottom of the Image Size dialog. Resample is on by default.
Resampling changes the total number of pixels in the image, which are displayed as Width and Height in pixels in the Image Size dialog. When you increase the number of pixels in this part of the dialog box (upsampling), the application adds data to the image. When you decrease the number of pixels (downsampling), the application removes data. Whenever data is removed from or added to the image, the image quality degrades to some extent. Removal of data from an image is typically preferable to the addition of data. That's because upsampling requires that Photoshop guess which pixels to add. This procedure is more complex than guessing which pixels to remove when you downsample. You get the best results working with images you bring into Photoshop in the proper resolution for the output you want. You could get the results you need by resizing your image without resampling. However, if you resample your images, do so only once.
When you turn on Resample, you can change any of the values in the Image Size dialog: pixel dimensions, physical size, or resolution. If you change one value, you affect the others. The pixel dimensions are always affected.

• Changing the pixel dimensions affects the physical size but not the resolution.
• Changing the resolution affects the pixel dimensions but not the physical size.
• Changing the physical size affects the pixel dimensions but not the resolution.

You cannot set the file size; it changes when you change the total amount of data in the image (the pixel dimensions). Note the file size value before you change the other values in the dialog box. Then, you can use the file size information to understand how much data is removed or added to your image when you resample it. For example, if the file size changes from 250 KB to 500 KB, you add twice as much data to the image, which can degrade it. Degraded images can look blurry, jagged, or blocky.

 

[BR3W]

Just wait until the defence finds out about all the processing that 4K TV shown to the court is doing to that 1080p Windows notebook source. Heaven forbid!!

It's important to note that, contrary to what's been stated elsewhere (and in this thread, as well), the court is *not* using the standard Windows Media Player. If people are not watching the trial live, review the footage from this morning's testimony and you'll notice the telltale hazard cone of VLC at the video's conclusion. VLC allows control of methodology of video scaling--one of which is bicubic, which would be less problematic than others in this context.

Stepping outside the context of the Rittenhouse case momentarily, I'm floored over how many lay persons are willing to jettison over a hundred years of evidentiary rules, norms, and theories in order to facilitate expediency of a conviction.

 

[BR3W]

Watching the video on an iPad vs the BASE windows media player is no different for video playback.

This is factually incorrect. Unless you have access to the code under the hood you have no basis for this conclusion nor can the claim withstand any level of judicial scrutiny.

Additionally, they're using VLC and there are specific reasons for that choice. As I mentioned earlier, the software matters. It's corollary is that hardware matters less. This is less about iPads than it is about presentation of digital media in a trial as evidence and whether/how the court can authenticate the evidence as it's being presented to the jury.

Lastly, I'm well aware of how the software my firm uses in courtrooms function; dare I say...better than you.

I also never said iPads were never used in trials. We've used them in my jurisdiction for over ten years. Do not conflate your misunderstanding of how courtroom evidence is handled with a prosecutor casually passing an iPad around the courtroom and instructing members of the court to manipulate the image and make what they will of it. That's so far removed from the evidentiary hurdles to submitting something like this in a criminal trial it's difficult to educate you on the specifics. That difficulty is further complicated by your refusal to acknowledge to yourself that you don't have specific expertise on these matters and are seemingly unwilling to listen to someone who does explaining it to you.

 

[agamoto]

It's important to note that, contrary to what's been stated elsewhere (and in this thread, as well), the court is *not* using the standard Windows Media Player. If people are not watching the trial live, review the footage from this morning's testimony and you'll notice the telltale hazard cone of VLC at the video's conclusion. VLC allows control of methodology of video scaling--one of which is bicubic, which would be less problematic than others in this context.

Stepping outside the context of the Rittenhouse case momentarily, I'm floored over how many lay persons are willing to jettison over a hundred years of evidentiary rules, norms, and theories in order to facilitate expediency of a conviction.

I'm not talking about what's happening on the PC. I'm talking about the possible post-processing done by the 4K TV in the courtroom. Most 4K TV's are sold with all sorts of magical post-processing enhancement and interpolation capabilities turned on by default. My favorite one is Sony Bravia's "Reality Creation". Lol.

 

[agamoto]

It's important to note that, contrary to what's been stated elsewhere (and in this thread, as well), the court is *not* using the standard Windows Media Player. If people are not watching the trial live, review the footage from this morning's testimony and you'll notice the telltale hazard cone of VLC at the video's conclusion. VLC allows control of methodology of video scaling--one of which is bicubic, which would be less problematic than others in this context.

Stepping outside the context of the Rittenhouse case momentarily, I'm floored over how many lay persons are willing to jettison over a hundred years of evidentiary rules, norms, and theories in order to facilitate expediency of a conviction.

I'm watching the video they are playing to the jury right now during Hernandez' testimony. That's not VLC, nor is it Windows Media Player. That's the unmistakable GUI of the Windows 10 "Movies & TV" app.

Also, you'd normally see an icon pop up in the system tray if VLC was being used, while it might be hidden, I don't see any indication it's VLC they're using here.

 

[BR3W]

I'm not talking about what's happening on the PC. I'm talking about the possible post-processing done by the 4K TV in the courtroom. Most 4K TV's are sold with all sorts of magical post-processing enhancement and interpolation capabilities turned on by default. My favorite one is Sony Bravia's "Reality Creation". Lol.

I'm watching the video they are playing to the jury right now during Hernandez' testimony. That's not VLC, nor is it Windows Media Player. That's the unmistakable GUI of the Windows 10 "Movies & TV" app.

Also, you'd normally see an icon pop up in the system tray if VLC was being used, while it might be hidden, I don't see any indication it's VLC they're using here.

Yes, I'm familiar with the post-processing TV's do. That's one of the reasons they're using 1:1 (why the picture is tiny) and we also don't know what verification process that specific display underwent...if any, this isn't a NYC or LA courtroom--we are, after all, talking about a trial in Kenosha, WI.

The only expert witness to testify this morning used https://input-ace.com

You can verify my claim here (link is timestamped):

You can verify my claim the court is using VLC to display the other videos here (link is timestamped):

Here is a screenshot for people who cannot click the YouTube links:

 

[agamoto]

The court is not using VLC, the *defense* is. The defense is using two separate Windows 10 PC's to play video from the examples you've provided. Dr. Black's machine running inputace and another PC source. There may be others.

The prosecution is also using a Windows 10 PC, and the videos I've seen them presenting so far today have been played by the native Windows 10 Movies and TV app.

Both the prosecution and defense windows desktops appear to be plugging into a distribution system that's scaling the images sent to it to 1920x1080p 59.9Hz, and that's likely what's being sent to the courtroom TV. I don't have the time to go back and look for the multiple times I've seen that flash up on the top right of the screens they are presenting, but it's there.

 

[BR3W]

I don't have the time to go back and look for the multiple times I've seen that flash up on the top right of the screens they are presenting, but it's there.

That *is* the court. I'm not going to belabor this point.

Between the two of us, I'm the only one presenting evidence supporting my claims.

I'll allow the other readers to make of that what they will.

 

[JonnyH92]

There are apps that use AI to "add information" to low-resolution images or to increase the overall resolution. For example, if you have an image of a person and you want to increase the resolution, it'll use its library of mouths, noses, ears, etc. and try its best to match the original color, shape, etc. to increase the resolution. They work shockingly well actually.

Here's a good video about 7 of them:

All that said, obviously Apple's built-in apps don't do that (yet). And even if they did, we're still very far from this technique being applied to video while you're pinching to zoom.

Very very silly argument from the defense here.

 

[agamoto]

I'm watching this live feed, which, quite oddly, is different from the feed you are watching in that your feed is NOT showing the videos that the prosecution is playing in court. We hear them in your video, but we don't see them.

Since it's a live feed, I can't seem to provide a link to a particular time, but if you go to it and check the cross of hernandez, you'll see that the prosecution is indeed playing videos from a PC running the native "Movies & TV" App, and not VLC.

I've included a screen shot from my feed for reference as I write this.

 

[Slides]

Oh we do, do we? We don't use any trial management software that's qualified by courts? So we don't use things like this, for example? The software matters...

No, lol. That's not software for watching CCTV footage. That's for viewing depositions.

But even so, it also manipulates the pixels on the screen for any video. That's how digital video works.

Here's how it works according to the rules of evidence (and in practice):
If the prosecutor wants to introduce evidence the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to demonstrate the evidence has not been tampered with in any way. This is normally done pre-trial rather being sprung on the defense mid-testimony.

Any digital video viewed on any display has been tampered with by compression, scaling and interpolation. These are known facts. Zoom or not zoom doesn't change anything.

Anytime any witness and/or attorney introduces something into evidence the veracity of the evidence is assessed and the evidence is inadmissible, by default, until it's qualified for the court. If you see someone using a consumer level, personal device to introduce evidence it's been qualified in advance and is not the norm. But you don't see that, because you don't work in, around, or adjacent to trial work--you're a contrarian throwing around insults in what was otherwise a rational, polite discussion.

It's the norm. Courts use their outdated Windows PCs to view videos routinely on the default windows media player. This is extremely common. An iPad would be a step up for most courts.

I see way more than you. Do you know how outdated police department computer systems are? And that's where bodycam footage is saved and compressed to ****. Forget zooming, compression kills the video quality with way more changes.

If you do have expertise and experience in the law, courtroom procedures, and rules of evidence I'm curious what it is because your words and attitude indicate otherwise.

You have been consistently wrong about everything so far.

 

[BR3W]

Thank you for providing that screenshot. It certainly appears to be the standard Windows Media Player. That said, I'm not familiar with WMP anymore although I'm aware there are enhanced versions of that app that provide more granular control of how the video rendering is managed.

Stepping back from this point/counterpoint discussion over what is/isn't used in courts, let's re-visit the core of what I was explaining. I hope we can both agree that the issue for consideration is mainly about software rather than hardware (with the caveat that displays, like the 4K TV, can and do "manipulate" images in their own ways). There isn't anything inherently bad about an iPad or a Surface or really any display device. The issue is whether the device, and it's software, has been authenticated for use in a courtroom and, more specifically, about each and every piece of evidence entered into a trial. That can be done on an iPad, a Windows tablet, or any other device...but it must be cleared beforehand. Usually it's not a problem for a prosecutor to present something like this to me but when it comes down to a couple pixels I would expect some pushback and expertise to resolve any concerns. These would be presented to the judge beforehand, outside the presence of the jury, and not dropped into evidence in the way that they were in the trial yesterday.

The burden of demonstrating that authenticity falls on whomever is attempting to enter it into evidence. The foundation for entering evidence like that is not typically laid on cross. I don't know if you are aware of the source of that video, but it should have never been entered into evidence in the way that it was.

Again, I was making a larger point that we don't bring devices into the courtroom and just pass them around for people to (mis)handle. For those following from the beginning, remember the state had an expert witness who was trying to enhance these pictures but they couldn't make heads or tails of what they were looking at. It was after that the prosecutor tried to argue for the veracity of using pinch/zoom to enlarge the image to sufficient acuity to understand which way the barrel was pointed.

One can argue over the minutiae of the objection the defense raised, but it was genuine and legitimate. Furthermore, no one should be advocating for the state's ability to enter into evidence unauthenticated digital evidence...or any evidence, for that matter.

Are you watching the trial right now? It appears they're going through the issues with the video now.