I read “add any pixels” in the context of zooming in as super resolution.
If the software adds pixels to the image than it has made a material change to the picture. Defense has a right to call the prosecution to prove that the zoom effect does not alter the picture.
And its not a moot point. Years ago Xerox started doing OCR (?) on photocopies to same on storage before photocopying (by storing the image as text). Everyone assumed it was a materially identical copy until people noticed it was making typographical and lexical changes to legal contracts in materially meaningful ways. [1]
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/xerox-copiers-might-alter-nu...
The prosecutor literally tried to infer an action from a single pixel. That’s BS and everyone in this forum has the technical ability to recognize this. A single pixel from a low light environment (therefore noisy)?
BS
Btw, this isn’t a “right wing” issue. Political “liberals”, to their credit, have been saying as much for years, pointing out that closed source software has huge problems in court.
As it stands, the defense has a right to force the prosecution to either get an Apple employee to testify in court, or use a linux machine, gimp and a CS expert to explain what gimp is doing.
EDIT:
sorry I read comment Im replying to as “I wouldn't consider it inadmissible”. I txted this while dozing off.
Leaving comment for record’s sake.