[max48]

>Any technically savvy person should be able to differentiate different types of upscaling algorithms.

Even the company who makes the software couldn't explain what was done to the picture when their "expert" was asked during the trial. There is a wide range of different methods that can be used to get more details out of a blurry pictures, including ML/AI-based algorithms that are indirectly getting extra details from other pictures.

[dagmx]

The device in question was an iPad, the company that made the software (Apple) was not involved, the "expert" was a third party explaining the standard enlargement methods.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/12/22778801/kyle-rittenhous...

If the judge mistrusted the enlargement method, he should have ordered them to display it on another device or software.

Real-time video upscaling is very standard filtering that's not introducing extra hallucinated details. At most, some TVs use ML to tune their sharpening and color rendition, but it can always be disabled. The iPad has never been shown or proven to use those for video playback, and even if it did, the courts should have a standard video player to present details with standard filtering.

The judges non-technical stance on things, isn't borne out of reality and again, any capture time post processing should be completely independently viewed from playback time processing.