Hacker News Reader

Comment by goblin89 | Hacker News Reader

Of course zooming in "adds" pixels.

And if we were to follow that pedantic logic, we should consider removing pixels from the original image (zooming out) equivalently problematic. But, apparently, no one cared that software presented a version with "subtracted" pixels in the first place, and only cared about pixels added by zooming in (which could have technically been "de-zooming-out", up to a point).

Generally, fitting a raster image with dimensions AxB into a viewport of dimensions NxM inevitably involves what effectively is adding and/or removing pixels to/from the original image. That can be done in various ways (which is why we have different resizing algorithms).

View on HN

> But, apparently, no one cared that software presented a version with "subtracted" pixels in the first place, and only cared about pixels added by zooming in (which could have technically been "de-zooming-out", up to a point).

Courts only rule on stuff like that if there's an objection to it. If you don't object, you can't come back later and complain about it, you have to object at the time. So all of Binger's pickle objections were legally irrelevant. He knows this and is playing to the cameras, that's why he's getting yelled at by the judge, because none of what he said mattered legally. He was also pretty clearly angling for a mistrial after his earlier screw-ups, like managing to obtain information harmful to his case from his own prosecution witness on direct. This is a screwup of epic proportions.

In this case, there was doubt about the nature of a handful of pixels in an enlarged image and whether or not this depicted a gun. It's hardly "pedantic" to want to get experts to talk about the reliability of the image, rather than lawyers (none of whom knew anything), when the prosecution's entire theory at this point hinges on a legal standard of "provocation with intent" where one cannot regain innocence by fleeing or communication.

And when the prosecution is trying to infer from a single pixel what the defendant was doing, algorithms and artifacts matter.

Just watch the trial.

Yeah, nobody else was trying to say that some pixels in a greatly enlarged image meant anything until now. And no witnesses are there to testify to this gun being raised--small wonder, given that Zimminski is the one who fired the first shot, yet he wasn't even brought to court.

They could have brought him in to testify, but didn't. This is the same trick they pulled with Grosskreutz, where the DA ordered them not to search his phone (despite them already having a signed search warrant for it) and they did not interview his, and only his, interview with the police.

They also testified that they had never once done this before.

I encourage more people to watch the actual trial. Some news outlets, particularly CNN, have engaged in highly selective reporting that's getting called out by all the people actually watching the trial. The ABC coverage where they put on Grosskreutz, and let him contradict his sworn testimony in court, despite there being photographic proof that he lied, not to mention physical evidence that he (and not Kyle) re-racked his gun, was especially crazy.

I won't be surprised if this turns into a bunch of defamation suits in the future.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com