HandBrake – An open source video transcoder(handbrake.fr)
handbrake.fr
HandBrake – An open source video transcoder
https://handbrake.fr/
116 comments
[deleted]
I did the same! Except for my now spouse's iPod Video. And it was for a train, not a bus. But wow has Handbrake delivered for me. A great piece of software.
My Dad did this all the time when he wasn't so busy with work.
Same here the value proposition of curating a movie collection has changed a bit over the past 10+ years
Funny you mention that! I started doing it again after a ~10 year hiatus. I decided I wanted to curate a collection for my kids. The issue with streaming services - especially outside of the US - is the recency and popularity bias.
To some point yes, but I ended up buying a boxed DVD set of Buffy when netflix removed the show. Dealing with DVDs are super annoying when you don't have a DVD drive in your computer, so it was back to 2005 for me.
Nothing has changed here. I get Blurays in mail from Netflix, rip them via MakeMKV, re-encode with Handbrake and put them on Synology NAS for later convenient viewing via Vero4k. Disk space is cheap, skipping stupid menus and previews is priceless!
Does MakeMKV have some sort of magic fairy dust that allows them to rip blu rays? It seems weird to me that a random closed source tool on the internet does this, and the fact that ffmpeg can’t do it after all these years feels really weird.
No fairy dust, but you do need to re-flash the firmware on your bluray drive to make it work. As far as I know bluray drive manufacturers (and there's a handful at most at this point) have tried to disable ripping.
MakeMKV has been around a long time, works well and it's not what I would call a "random" closed source tool.
MakeMKV has been around a long time, works well and it's not what I would call a "random" closed source tool.
OK, so is it basically a community effort coalesced around keeping up with DRM and obfuscation by funneling all the effort into one project which, in order to stay ahead of the industry, can’t reveal how it does what it does? Cuz that, while an unfortunate situation, would be something I could totally understand.
Yes. Specifically, it has the ability to decrypt commercial encrypted Blu-ray content. How they manage to keep up with updates the publishers put out I don't know, but they've typically got an update to MakeMKV within a few days.
I belive they have a legitmatly obtained decryption key. I don't know how they managed to license one, though, one would imagine the powers that be would hate it.
Seems like it in my experience. Basically, I think people "find" decryption keys and then MakeMKV integrates them.
I remember using it to rip the first season of LOST and convert it so I could watch it entirely on my iPod while on a summer airplane trip to visit family—good times.
In 2004, I went to China with 1 suitcase and came back with 2. Let's say I found out how to make my players region-free fast.
Handbrake is incredibly useful to me since I use many older machines that don't have hardware (or even software) support of modern codecs. I basically treat handbrake like an "unzip" software to unzip the h265/av1/etc to a standard h264 with aac audio. The file sizes really aren't that much different.
same, I've used it extensively over the last 5 years or so.
Past related threads:
HandBrake 1.2.0 Released - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18949007 - Jan 2019 (58 comments)
HandBrake 1.0.0 Released - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13258029 - Dec 2016 (174 comments)
Handbrake 0.10.0 released - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8650126 - Nov 2014 (56 comments)
HandBrake 1.2.0 Released - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18949007 - Jan 2019 (58 comments)
HandBrake 1.0.0 Released - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13258029 - Dec 2016 (174 comments)
Handbrake 0.10.0 released - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8650126 - Nov 2014 (56 comments)
Been using Handbrake for years, fantastic easy to use software and absolutely flies on the new M1/M1 Pro chips.
There's a really cool and feature-filled app on Windows called VidCoder that uses Handbrake as its engine. It allows you to create picker presets, offers better queuing options, compare different results etc. It's worth checking out.
https://github.com/RandomEngy/VidCoder
https://github.com/RandomEngy/VidCoder
I always use handbrake to optimize video for embeds, whether it’s to remove audio, reduce size or simply resize, it works well. I’m so grateful to have discovered it years ago.
I've been using this app for at least 5 years when I need to change the encoding of a file I download so it'll work on Plex. Works great.
Doesn't ffmpeg provide similar functionality?
I find ffmpeg more intuitive. Handbrake only has presets, and it pre-fills so many options for you. Why can't I just have "original" everything, just change the format? I don't want any changes except codec, but with Handbrake I don't feel confident it's not going beyond that.
I'm the same. I used to use handbrake, but found the presets didn't work very well. I set up custom presetsz fiddled with lots of things, and still failed to always get the right subtitles or audio or something.
I've switched to ffmpeg now, with MakeMKV to do the rip. I find this works better and more reliably. It also let's me separate the ripping from the transcoding. So I can rip really fast and just queue up the transcoding.
I've switched to ffmpeg now, with MakeMKV to do the rip. I find this works better and more reliably. It also let's me separate the ripping from the transcoding. So I can rip really fast and just queue up the transcoding.
brb reading man pages. again. in three different terminals.
ffmpeg is a great tool, and time is well spent getting to know how to use it. but it takes a lot of time/effort to get there.
ffmpeg is a great tool, and time is well spent getting to know how to use it. but it takes a lot of time/effort to get there.
Well, yeah, both can be used for mostly the same things (probably ffmpeg has more features in total though), but ffmpeg doesn't have a GUI, which HandBrake does.
Yes, but Handbrake provides a GUI. Ffmpeg is fantastic, and I believe supports a wider range of formats than Handbrake, so it's the power user's tool of choice. But Handbrake is way more accessible for the average user, and is very high quality in its own way.
Yes, and under the hood Handbrake is using the FFmpeg libraries. Handbrake's value is providing simple presets that "just work" for converting video for various uses. Want to convert video for playback on an iPhone? Handbrake has you covered.
[deleted]
Aside from the interface, Handbrake provides many features not implemented in ffmpeg, especially concerning extracting data from DVDs.
Handbrake is also the easiest way for non-technical people to transcode videos from one format, resolution, or quality to another.
Handbrake is also the easiest way for non-technical people to transcode videos from one format, resolution, or quality to another.
Checked recently. Unfortunately there's still no AV1 encoding support.
Used to use Handbrake back in HighSchool. Blast from the past.
Is this news somehow, been using handbrake since 2012!
Because https://twitter.com/lego_operator/status/1461077353476628488
which is relevant to a high profile trial contention.
That would be a very poor standard for newsworthiness on this site.
The reason for it being in the public consciousness today is immaterial really in terms of relevance for HN discussion purposes, and since it's an interesting piece of software it's quite on topic here
How is software presumably well known to a large portion of the site's audience relevant news merely for reason of some people outside of this site's audience discovering it for the first time? And what's there to discuss about it since its features have been the same for many years?
> How is software presumably well known to a large portion of the site's audience relevant news
Large portion is not all. It's relevant because it's an element of a popular news story. There isn't some mystery agenda here as it was voted up by the community.
Large portion is not all. It's relevant because it's an element of a popular news story. There isn't some mystery agenda here as it was voted up by the community.
Vague vibes of VLC!
Great tools, both of them!
I remember using a version that had ads embedded in the app in my teenage years, and so avoided it for years afterwards, but then I had reason to use it 3-4 years ago and there are none. I don't know if this was something in an official build at one stage, or if I ran into one of the cases of someone rebuilding an open source app with ads in that happened in the mid 2000s (the paint.net author dubbed this "backspaceware" when he cited it as a reason he would no longer release source code).
For context, today in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, the prosecution (ADA Kraus) claimed that he was basically technically illiterate and basically didn't know about transcoding, not in as many words. A review of previous video testimony from PBS's live feed showed that he (Kraus) had Handbrake in the directory that he was showing the video from. That's not a normal application one would just have floating around.
The backdrop is the defense alleges the prosecution gave the defense a lower resolution copy of the original video that showed about 4x fewer pixels, so they did not have the ability to examine it. The jury has already seen the video and is currently in deliberations. They have asked to view the video again.
This whole trial, well, just seems riddled with big time issues. I tried to present this in a non biased way, but I don't think this is a good trial no matter what side you sit on, if any. It's been tainted in several places, even 5th amendment violations numerous times. At a minimum, I think it needs to be tossed out and retried with these evidentiary issues ironed out and with no last minute springing of evidence.
The backdrop is the defense alleges the prosecution gave the defense a lower resolution copy of the original video that showed about 4x fewer pixels, so they did not have the ability to examine it. The jury has already seen the video and is currently in deliberations. They have asked to view the video again.
This whole trial, well, just seems riddled with big time issues. I tried to present this in a non biased way, but I don't think this is a good trial no matter what side you sit on, if any. It's been tainted in several places, even 5th amendment violations numerous times. At a minimum, I think it needs to be tossed out and retried with these evidentiary issues ironed out and with no last minute springing of evidence.
> That's not a normal application one would just have floating around.
Without addressing the rest of the post: I've seen plenty of non-engineers use Handbrake. In fact, I've seen more than one lawyer use it. It occurs to me that it would actually be pretty common for lawyers to have it installed, particularly if they're reviewing and copying evidence that was delivered to them by DVD or other physical forms.
Without addressing the rest of the post: I've seen plenty of non-engineers use Handbrake. In fact, I've seen more than one lawyer use it. It occurs to me that it would actually be pretty common for lawyers to have it installed, particularly if they're reviewing and copying evidence that was delivered to them by DVD or other physical forms.
Of course you don't have to be an engineer to use it, but if he's really claiming to know nothing about encoding, that's quite the contradiction.
I don't think that's necessarily the case. In fact, I can very easily see a lawyer clicking the "fast convert" (or similar) checkbox, not realizing that doing so compromises the encoding quality. For all I know, that setting is the default.
Why would you do any conversion at all if you are to provide a "true and accurate copy" of all evidence to the defense? It's supposed to be an identical copy so the defense has the exact same evidence that the all-powerful state that has the power to put you in prison for the rest of your life does. Why wouldn't you just drag the file over to the dropbox folder shared with the defense, like every other piece of evidence that had been distributed?
This isn't just a lawyer. This is an Assistant District Attorney, officially representing the government. They, all lawyers, are trained in handling evidence and know full well what their obligations and duties are. Even if it was somehow a "mistake," it's the type of mistake that trials are dismissed over, with prejudice, and rightly so, because it potentially biases every piece of evidence the prosecution handled.
Besides, using handbrake doesn't completely change the filename, and we're not talking about appending "(1)", "(2)" or "(copy)" like an OS would do for files with the same filename in the same directory.
This isn't just a lawyer. This is an Assistant District Attorney, officially representing the government. They, all lawyers, are trained in handling evidence and know full well what their obligations and duties are. Even if it was somehow a "mistake," it's the type of mistake that trials are dismissed over, with prejudice, and rightly so, because it potentially biases every piece of evidence the prosecution handled.
Besides, using handbrake doesn't completely change the filename, and we're not talking about appending "(1)", "(2)" or "(copy)" like an OS would do for files with the same filename in the same directory.
I'm very much on the side that Rittenhouse was defending himself when he pulled the trigger.
Furthermore, I think the prosecution has been terrible, and at times, downright malicious (trying to get a mistrial after their start witness flopped, etc).
HOWEVER I really do agree with this take. I'm fairly computer literate (sysadmin for a microscopy facility, daily drive Linux, couple years of web development under my belt) and recently spent a non-insignificant amount of time trying to create a video from a bunch of .tif files and embed them into a PowerPoint. It was not simple or easy. Working with video is always an annoying, expensive, black box. Sometimes I'd do things, and it would just come out a blurry mess. Or balloon in file size for no obvious reason.
Furthermore, I think the prosecution has been terrible, and at times, downright malicious (trying to get a mistrial after their start witness flopped, etc).
HOWEVER I really do agree with this take. I'm fairly computer literate (sysadmin for a microscopy facility, daily drive Linux, couple years of web development under my belt) and recently spent a non-insignificant amount of time trying to create a video from a bunch of .tif files and embed them into a PowerPoint. It was not simple or easy. Working with video is always an annoying, expensive, black box. Sometimes I'd do things, and it would just come out a blurry mess. Or balloon in file size for no obvious reason.
But if he did click that button and now is trying to say that the defense might have caused the video to be converted to a lower quality then ignorance is no longer plausible.
How many excuses do people have? It seems to be widely acknowledged that prosecutors widely railroad and use unethical and even illegal tactics against defendants and that this is a problem. It also seems to be the idea that black defendants tend to be disproportionately on the receiving end of this behavior and that is a problem. And yet there's astounding difficulty connecting these things. A lot of people I've seen here and all other social media platforms seem to be hoping Kyle gets convicted and the prosecutors are not held to account because he is white and they think a black boy would have been convicted.
This is called (racist, but also) cutting off your nose to spite your face. Kyle being sent to jail by unethical prosecutors will not help the next black boy who is unethically prosecuted or wrongfully convicted.
Hold them to a high standard. Do not find excuses for them, they must be made to justify their own actions. If they are going to use technology to prosecute somebody and they don't know how the technology works, that is not an excuse it is incompetence and highly unethical at best.
How many excuses do people have? It seems to be widely acknowledged that prosecutors widely railroad and use unethical and even illegal tactics against defendants and that this is a problem. It also seems to be the idea that black defendants tend to be disproportionately on the receiving end of this behavior and that is a problem. And yet there's astounding difficulty connecting these things. A lot of people I've seen here and all other social media platforms seem to be hoping Kyle gets convicted and the prosecutors are not held to account because he is white and they think a black boy would have been convicted.
This is called (racist, but also) cutting off your nose to spite your face. Kyle being sent to jail by unethical prosecutors will not help the next black boy who is unethically prosecuted or wrongfully convicted.
Hold them to a high standard. Do not find excuses for them, they must be made to justify their own actions. If they are going to use technology to prosecute somebody and they don't know how the technology works, that is not an excuse it is incompetence and highly unethical at best.
> But if he did click that button and now is trying to say that the defense might have caused the video to be converted to a lower quality then ignorance is no longer plausible.
I don't understand. Are you saying that my idle speculation somehow grants positive evidence to the claim that there's been prosecutorial misconduct in the case?
The fact that you or I can identify a likely source of error doesn't mean that (1) that is, in fact, the source of error, or (2) that the prosecutor is aware of it. The rest of your post is overly wrought given the information we actually have.
I don't understand. Are you saying that my idle speculation somehow grants positive evidence to the claim that there's been prosecutorial misconduct in the case?
The fact that you or I can identify a likely source of error doesn't mean that (1) that is, in fact, the source of error, or (2) that the prosecutor is aware of it. The rest of your post is overly wrought given the information we actually have.
No, I am not saying that.
Is it though? I can easily imagine a non-technical user thinking of HandBrake as "that DVD program" without understanding any of the underlying technical details or (for that matter) any of the encoding options.
I mean, HandBrake is pretty simple software if you just stick with the defaults.
I mean, HandBrake is pretty simple software if you just stick with the defaults.
The DA was claiming that his hands were clean, that whatever problem the defense had were not the DA's office fault (although he did blame the crime lab at some point).
His last attempt at claiming clean hands was that he was too technically incompetent to do so maliciously. But that's BS. Even if he doesn't know what handbrake does, if he uses it he's using it to somehow modify it. that's not allowed defense is allowed the exact copy the DA has.
Also, I have a lot of trouble believing that anyone, having used handbrake, hasn't noticed a drop in quality in the video.
His last attempt at claiming clean hands was that he was too technically incompetent to do so maliciously. But that's BS. Even if he doesn't know what handbrake does, if he uses it he's using it to somehow modify it. that's not allowed defense is allowed the exact copy the DA has.
Also, I have a lot of trouble believing that anyone, having used handbrake, hasn't noticed a drop in quality in the video.
I used handbrake before I was an engineer. Now I use ffmpeg
I used to use Handbrake all the time to put videos on my iPhone at appropriate resolution etc. Not exactly obscure
Thanks for the background. I was first introduced to Handbrake as a tool for archiving DVD content. I think of ffmpeg as the technically savvy way to transcode.
chii(3)
On r/law they explained it’s a technicians or special trial laptop thats preloaded with software like this.
Was it? I was listening on the radio in the car when they were searching for a laptop. I don't remember who gave it to them, but they were instructed to make sure the laptop was clean.
Also, I'm not sure that the screenshot is of the jury's laptop. Isn't it Binger's after he turned it around to show something?
Either way, doesn't matter. Someone in the DAs office fiddled with the laptop and their laptops are loaded with this software. The DA is responsible for his office. The DA is responsible that the defense didn't get the proper copy.
Also, I'm not sure that the screenshot is of the jury's laptop. Isn't it Binger's after he turned it around to show something?
Either way, doesn't matter. Someone in the DAs office fiddled with the laptop and their laptops are loaded with this software. The DA is responsible for his office. The DA is responsible that the defense didn't get the proper copy.
> the prosecution (ADA Kraus) claimed that he was basically technically illiterate
> A review of previous video testimony from PBS's live feed showed that he (Kraus) had Handbrake in the directory that he was showing the video from
So someone who is technically illiterate (let's take their claim at face value) has evidence tampering tools visible on their machine?
Where's the chain of custody on the original file content?
> A review of previous video testimony from PBS's live feed showed that he (Kraus) had Handbrake in the directory that he was showing the video from
So someone who is technically illiterate (let's take their claim at face value) has evidence tampering tools visible on their machine?
Where's the chain of custody on the original file content?
>riddled with big time issues
Big-time issues or big time-issues? I read it as the latter initially but I think the former makes more sense.
Beyond the speed of the trial is the fact that it is farcical from up, down, and the sides. It should be thrown out the window by spinlaunch.
Big-time issues or big time-issues? I read it as the latter initially but I think the former makes more sense.
Beyond the speed of the trial is the fact that it is farcical from up, down, and the sides. It should be thrown out the window by spinlaunch.
So the speculation is that because he had free transcoding software on his desktop, that he understands transcoding?
Here is what actually happened and the prosecution later admitted it. (they first blamed it on the defense android phone)
1. Prosecution receives the file via airdrop, direct data transfer.
2. Prosecution sends the file via gmail to the defense but it gets compressed in the process.
There are 2 ways to send a vid/pic from ios with gmail
1. from gmail app with attachment function, this pops up a window with "processing" (compresses the video, which is poorly worded imo)
2. from ios photos app > share > gmail, this shows a progress bar at the bottom with "compressing"
both ways are easy to overlook, first one is poorly worded and its a very fast process, my test vid with 25mb took <1s and video in question is only 4s/11mb
the real question is, why is there no proper evidence system in place to submit and review(for all 3 parties), using gmail and dropbox sounds very questionable to me.
1. Prosecution receives the file via airdrop, direct data transfer.
2. Prosecution sends the file via gmail to the defense but it gets compressed in the process.
There are 2 ways to send a vid/pic from ios with gmail
1. from gmail app with attachment function, this pops up a window with "processing" (compresses the video, which is poorly worded imo)
2. from ios photos app > share > gmail, this shows a progress bar at the bottom with "compressing"
both ways are easy to overlook, first one is poorly worded and its a very fast process, my test vid with 25mb took <1s and video in question is only 4s/11mb
the real question is, why is there no proper evidence system in place to submit and review(for all 3 parties), using gmail and dropbox sounds very questionable to me.
> 2. Prosecution sends the file via gmail to the defense but it gets compressed in the process.
Does Gmail automatically compress the video? I would presume it complains about size file first, and an inability to send it via email, and refuses to send.
Does Gmail automatically compress the video? I would presume it complains about size file first, and an inability to send it via email, and refuses to send.
It did not in my testing with a 22mb file, it directly showed up "processing" or "compressing".
The iOS mail app did the same for my test video 22mb > 458K, no questions asked. (unlike images where app lets you select resize options)
The iOS mail app did the same for my test video 22mb > 458K, no questions asked. (unlike images where app lets you select resize options)
In your testing, did gmail also rename the file? Because Binger's copy, the one that was sent to the lab on a flash drive had a completely different name.
The generous explanation is that it’s just a coincidence that he had handbrake installed.
The malicious explanation is that he intentionally downgraded the video quality with handbrake (or some other means) before handing over the evidence.
Keeping in mind that the video was the only thing shared with Kyle’s lawyer that was not shared via Dropbox, per his lawyer.
The malicious explanation is that he intentionally downgraded the video quality with handbrake (or some other means) before handing over the evidence.
Keeping in mind that the video was the only thing shared with Kyle’s lawyer that was not shared via Dropbox, per his lawyer.
> The malicious explanation is that he intentionally downgraded the video quality with handbrake
The problem is that in the trial, the prosecution actually said "Our versions are much clearer". They also used algorithmic enhancements and blowups on the bad copy to show to the court.
Here's the link (https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1461034426717122572) but I remember watching this in the trial and people were commenting on it in realtime. The defense even mentioned they weren't given the copy.
The problem is that in the trial, the prosecution actually said "Our versions are much clearer". They also used algorithmic enhancements and blowups on the bad copy to show to the court.
Here's the link (https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1461034426717122572) but I remember watching this in the trial and people were commenting on it in realtime. The defense even mentioned they weren't given the copy.
it was one of only a very few icons on the desktop, including the folders "New Folder", "OpenOffice 4.1.6 (en-US) installation f...", "Temp", and "Final Exhibits", and the shortcuts "Coolmuster Android Backup Manager", "Format Factory", "Handbrake", "MessengerLite", "Person 1 - Chrome", and "Zoom".
Maybe I'm missing something, but none of those applications/desktop icons scream "technically savvy" person to me.
It sounds like the kind of thing a technically savvy person might set up as a base install for a non-technically savvy person.
We used Handbrake at my school. Sure it's a bit more niche but definitely not unusual.
He may have had a forensics person load it on his machine and tell him to just use that app and click play. But your basic point is correct: clearly someone at least halfway knowledgeable worked on that file.
It should be noted that according to the defense's motion for a mistrial[1] there is also a slight difference in the aspect ratio of the two video files. The high quality video is 1920x844 and the low quality video is 480x212. If you divide 1920 by 4, you get 480, which matches the low quality video. If you divide 844 by 4, you get 211, not 212. Rounding to the nearest integer doesn't explain the one pixel difference because both 1920 and 844 are divisible by 4.
[1] https://www.scribd.com/document/540381079/211116-Rittenhouse... (page 3)
[1] https://www.scribd.com/document/540381079/211116-Rittenhouse... (page 3)
Some video decoders don't like resolutions that aren't multiples of 2, 4, 16, etc. So rounding 211 to 212 is safer since the latter is an even number.
One doesn't need to be a transcoding expert to use Handbrake. I'm certainly not one and use it very often as it defaults to optimal settings.
I actually made a mistake months ago by changing the defaults which result in having to redo everything from scratch: I found a deal for the entire Star Trek DS9 box set and bought it to save it onto my home NAS so I could watch it with my Kodi based player. I set up Handbrake to convert to 12 bit H265 instead of 10 bit, processed a couple files, tested them OK on the PC and used these settings for all DVDs. Unfortunately only after finishing I learnt that Kodi's player doesn't support 12 bit H265 (or didn't at the time), so I had to do everything from scratch, and that was a huge pile o DVDs to convert again. Had I left the factory settings untouched, it would have worked out of the box.
[deleted]
Why was this posted? Doesn't seem to be any recent news.
https://twitter.com/lego_operator/status/1461077353476628488 This seems to be why.
To expand:
It was discussed extensively in the Rittenhouse court case today that the prosecution provided the defense with a much lower quality of a particular video file (one that was also possibly cropped) than what the prosecution possessed. The prosecution contends this was an accident and the transcoding occurred when they AirDropped it from one phone to another and then emailed it from their personal Gmail account.
Internet sleuths then spotted Handbrake on the prosecutor's laptop as he was preparing to show one of the videos. Those same sleuths are now speculating that the prosecutors deliberately transcoded/cropped the video that they provided to the defense, as Handbrake could possibly be used for that purpose.
It was discussed extensively in the Rittenhouse court case today that the prosecution provided the defense with a much lower quality of a particular video file (one that was also possibly cropped) than what the prosecution possessed. The prosecution contends this was an accident and the transcoding occurred when they AirDropped it from one phone to another and then emailed it from their personal Gmail account.
Internet sleuths then spotted Handbrake on the prosecutor's laptop as he was preparing to show one of the videos. Those same sleuths are now speculating that the prosecutors deliberately transcoded/cropped the video that they provided to the defense, as Handbrake could possibly be used for that purpose.
HN isn't the right place to discuss most of the aspects of this case, but I will just say that there have been multiple tech stories that have come out of that trial that highlight how antiquated our legal system can be in terms of understanding technology and the repercussions from that ignorance are troubling.
It's a big problem with this case. The judge has admitted that he basically knows nothing about technology, and the lawyers clearly don't know a lot either. The prosecution in particular has made several blatantly false statements about how interpolation works when resizing images, but it's impossible to know if that's due to ignorance or malice. The bigger problem is the judge just accepts these statements without any expert to confirm them. It really feels like there should be a tech expert on standby (one provided by the court, not the prosecution or defense, so generally a neutral party, like other court staff should be).
What really shocked me was the carelessness in handling critical digital evidence in such an important trial - lots of discussion of Airdropping, emailing, Dropboxing, etc. You'd think critical video evidence would be controlled and only played back in an appropriately-vetted player without any software scaling (or at least only with known scaling) on approved devices. Checksums would be checked to ensure videos were unmodified, etc.
Instead, they're using random laptops, Windows Media Player at times, VLC at others, personal phones, 4K TVs that apparently the defense brought in, etc. And none of the lawyers in that courtroom understand that every single one of those can and will affect the way the video is presented.
What really shocked me was the carelessness in handling critical digital evidence in such an important trial - lots of discussion of Airdropping, emailing, Dropboxing, etc. You'd think critical video evidence would be controlled and only played back in an appropriately-vetted player without any software scaling (or at least only with known scaling) on approved devices. Checksums would be checked to ensure videos were unmodified, etc.
Instead, they're using random laptops, Windows Media Player at times, VLC at others, personal phones, 4K TVs that apparently the defense brought in, etc. And none of the lawyers in that courtroom understand that every single one of those can and will affect the way the video is presented.
>The judge has admitted that he basically knows nothing about technology, and the lawyers clearly don't know a lot either.
Neither do some 'expert' witnesses.
Neither do some 'expert' witnesses.
watching the proceedings of this trial, I've been blown away at how lax the standards are for digital evidence submission and presentation. from some friends in law I've talked to this seems pretty darn common.
how is there not some kind of startup centered around this specific use case?
how is there not some kind of startup centered around this specific use case?
There's plenty of products for digital evidence management, especially now that bodycams on police officers are so common. But it would seem that many courts have not caught up on this yet.
>"The prosecution contends this was an accident and the transcoding occurred when they AirDropped it from one phone to another and then emailed it from their personal Gmail account."
And I have bridge to sell. It is tampering with the evidence. If prosecution was ever criminally charged for their misdeeds and fucking up person's lives as the result they would straighten out in no time. Meanwhile they keep abusing their position with no recourse.
And I have bridge to sell. It is tampering with the evidence. If prosecution was ever criminally charged for their misdeeds and fucking up person's lives as the result they would straighten out in no time. Meanwhile they keep abusing their position with no recourse.
My immediate thought. The context to that, is that the prosecutors sent a low quality video to the defense, and then late in the trial introduced a high quality video, which the defense couldn't prepare for; and there was a whole argument as to whether it was willful or not. One of the prosecutors claimed the defense's email client might have compressed the video automatically (not how it works), and claimed not to have the knowledge to compress a video, then people started showing screenshots of his personal laptop with Handbrake on the desktop. Now the prosecution is saying this tampering might have happened at the crime lab that sent the compressed video by email to the prosecutors, who forwarded it to the defense, and also gave the full video to the prosecutors on a flash drive.
> the defense's email client might have compressed the video automatically (not how it works)
On the contrary, this is exactly how it works. The biggest pain point in sharing high quality photo or video content in 2021 is that every single service insists on quietly compressing or transcoding your content. Some, like iMessage, even do it inconsistently depending on things like current format and file size. To make matters worse, Gmail, iMessage, and friends will often show you, the sender, the original quality, so you don't even know that the content has been butchered.
On the contrary, this is exactly how it works. The biggest pain point in sharing high quality photo or video content in 2021 is that every single service insists on quietly compressing or transcoding your content. Some, like iMessage, even do it inconsistently depending on things like current format and file size. To make matters worse, Gmail, iMessage, and friends will often show you, the sender, the original quality, so you don't even know that the content has been butchered.
Wouldn't it be the sender's email client or server that does the compression? The defense was the recipient.
You can email video content as an attachment from outside of gmail to a gmail address, and gmail will compress the video. I don’t know why, but I’ve had it happen to me multiple times. I send around S3 links because even Dropbox messes with your content (though not the downloadable file) when you share a link.
Zip it with the password.
Is there a way to unzip and view it on mobile if it’s a password protected zip? If so I’m definitely switching to this method.
> defense's email client might have compressed the video automatically (not how it works)
I'm not familiar with all email clients, I mostly use Thunderbird, but almost all messaging clients, social media and similar service do compression when you upload media to them today. It's not super far off that an email client would do the same.
I'm not familiar with all email clients, I mostly use Thunderbird, but almost all messaging clients, social media and similar service do compression when you upload media to them today. It's not super far off that an email client would do the same.
He was saying the receiving email client (the defense's) was doing the compression (because if he was responsible, that potentially puts him in trouble)
You're right, I misread that part. Thanks!
Except that they literally do not do that
Funny how the replies all say "omg you can't clip videos idiot" but the defense isn't claiming they clipped any evidence. They're claiming that scaling / interpolation is enough to invalidate video evidence where mere pixels matter. Which is true.
I have to believe, based not only on this case but on extensive reporting from folks like Radley Balko, that manipulation or outright omission of exculpatory evidence is much more common than is generally believed.
Even here, in this incredible high-profile case, they apparently felt confident enough to give it a try.
Imagine now how easy it must be for them to do it to poor, mostly Black defendants who are relying on a public defender, when they don't have a (for better or worse) rabid political wing watching their every move, and when there are no screenshots of their laptop circulating the internet.
This is a concentrated drop of shame in the already shameful lake of fake justice.
Even here, in this incredible high-profile case, they apparently felt confident enough to give it a try.
Imagine now how easy it must be for them to do it to poor, mostly Black defendants who are relying on a public defender, when they don't have a (for better or worse) rabid political wing watching their every move, and when there are no screenshots of their laptop circulating the internet.
This is a concentrated drop of shame in the already shameful lake of fake justice.
That's what I think the anti-Rittenhouse side doesn't see. This trial is a perfect example of DAs getting caught doing shady things and even a sympathetic judge doesn't have the courage to throw the case out.
It's an amazing example of how rotted justice in America is. But since it doesn't fit into the racial-power narrative it's ignored. This is the case that could teach middle America that their justice system is broken and needs reform.
Guilty or innocent, the DA has done so much BS that the case should have been thrown out w/ prejudice [1] a long time ago.
[1] mistrial w/ prejudice means Rittenhouse get's off. The argument for prejudice is that the prosecution is making too many serious violations for the mistakes to be innocent. And if they're not innocent mistakes, then prejudice attaches.
It's an amazing example of how rotted justice in America is. But since it doesn't fit into the racial-power narrative it's ignored. This is the case that could teach middle America that their justice system is broken and needs reform.
Guilty or innocent, the DA has done so much BS that the case should have been thrown out w/ prejudice [1] a long time ago.
[1] mistrial w/ prejudice means Rittenhouse get's off. The argument for prejudice is that the prosecution is making too many serious violations for the mistakes to be innocent. And if they're not innocent mistakes, then prejudice attaches.
These prosecutors are the rabid political wing.
[deleted]
Man have times changed...