The only thing unbelievable is that the verge article makes no mention of the fact that the evidence was still allowed, the judge's screenshot issues didn't sway his opinion, and the prosecution still got the provocation jury instruction based on that blurry photo evidence, and that the judge was mocking his own misunderstanding and and cluelessness about technology and wasn't using it as excuse or against the prosecution or defense.
In fact, the judge said, "I don't even want to tell you what I thought of [the blurry photo]" while still allowing it into evidence and providing the prosecution friendly jury instruction.
Also brushes past the fact that it was the prosecution who first said that it's no different than what is done on a phone, and that their expert witness who enhanced the image who could not say if the enhanced image was the same as the original.
In order for pictures or videos to be allowed as evidence, there has to be a witness that testifies that they are accurate (I think "fair and accurate" is the legal term.) Thats why they bring the person who took the pictures, or the police officer who collected it to testify in trials.
In this case, the prosecution witness could not testify that the program he used to enlarge the pictures didn't alter them. From a legal perspective that should have been the end of the discussion and they should have been excluded
The "20 minute" thing is also a misrepresentation of what happened as evidenced by the fact that they brought their witness a day or two later, which by my calculations is more than 20 minutes.