Oh shit, I didn't know that.
Can you source me on the subject? I'm interested.

AFAIK The defense attorney mentioned zooming in on a video, which is different than a 2d image. (not technically, because a video is a series of images, but Apple's AI functions differently on a video)

This post was edited by ChocolateCoveredGummyBears on Nov 10 2021 03:00pm

I can say that I worked for Adobe for several years and am 100% confident on the subject, I know exactly how photoshop, illustrator, and acrobat zooms and enhances, and I can tell you that the Apple AI is built off the Adobe technology.

I don't claim to be a PhD expert, but if one were brought into the trial, I guarantee they would confirm what I'm telling you.

So what do you think the prosecution is trying to do.
Saying a certain added pixel is his gun pointing somewhere it shouldnt?

Talk about a bunch of boomers not understanding the zoom feature on modern technology

To be fair, I didn't know the zoom feature fills in pixels.
I guess now that I think about it, it might have to to fill in such a stretched resolution.

Is the prosecutions case seriously just based on pixel filling of apple software now?

This post was edited by lolkggz on Nov 10 2021 03:05pm

I don't know. What I know is that I would hold to the same exact objection if the defense were trying to utilize the exact same technology to present new evidence.

I'm super curious on if the prosecution is going to try and frame a pixel on something kyle did.
Wowee

OR if Kyle actually did something for that matter.

This post was edited by lolkggz on Nov 10 2021 03:07pm

It’s the defense that brought up altered pixels

and also the detective on the case, as the judge pointed out twice.