this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2024
988 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
63009 readers
6296 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's wrong. With a degree of certainty, you will always be able to say that this data was likely there. And because existence is all about probabilities, you can expect specific interpolations to be an accurate reconstruction of the data. We do it all the time with resolution upscaling, for example. But of course, from a certain lack of information onward, the predictions become less and less reliable.
It's probability, like you said. When you upscale you have to decide if the missing pixel is a smooth interpolation between neighboring pixels or a sharp transition. That decision will always be a guess with a large chance of error. For TV or gaming that's often OK upscaled videos look nice and most of the time errors are small and not noticable.
For police purposes, if the difference wasn't noticeable, they wouldn't need upscaling in the first place. They're trying to zoom in further than the video data will go. Nobody should face judicial consequences because an algorithm guessed at the interpolation between pixels and now it looks like your face instead of another person's.