Mr. Kaz Kylheku claims that artifacts that never existed in reality
may show up when images are magnified.  If anybody believes that this
is true, please show me examples.  I believe they would be of interest
to follow list members.

In a previous post I provided links to two newspaper articles, one
from New York Times and another from Washington Post.  Both considered
the judge's decision declaring the image inadmissible bizarre.  Major
newspapers have legal experts which offer insights on legal precedents
and established practices.  It appears that this ruling stands as a
unusual exception, at least for now.

We encounter zooms of digital images on a regular basis.  Physicians,
science teachers, the TV weatherman and sports commentators show us
zooms of regions of interest.  We don't hear voices of concern about
this practice.

Digital images are re-sized much more often that people assume.  Even
programmers may not be aware of this.  There is a great variety of
both digital cameras and computer displays available commercially.
The number of receptor cells of the camera and the number of dots on
the output screen do not always match.  Whenever they disagree, the
image is automatically shrunk or stretched with pixels deleted,
inserted and modified on each occasion.  We don't encounter qualms
about this technology.

My conclusion is that most people don't believe that images can get
badly distorted when enlarged.  They simply haven't seen it happen
with their own eyes.  However, advances in artificial intelligence may
change this situation.  We already have software that add color to
old black-and-white photographs.  For this reason I would like anybody
who can recall relevant examples to come up with the information.


Another point I would like to raise is the fact that this was a
homicide case.  In a murder trial the defendant can testify as he
wishes while those slain by him cannot appear in court.  Details
unearthed from video recordings sometimes speak on the speechless
man's behalf.

Judges must be careful when deciding whether something can be admitted
as evidence or not.  Where judges are elected, voters should consider
whether a candidate understands technology, at least the kind which
is now commonplace.

There are cases other than homicide in which one side, being dead
or severely injured, cannot testimony in court.  Probably the
most common of these are traffic accidents.  As programmers we must
keep in mind how much difference an accurate record can make.  We also
must be willing to be informative to consumers who need advice on the

EXPLAINER: Why Arbery slaying video will be 'star witness'

Reply via email to