Both prosecutors and defence attorneys have used the same mechanism countless times in previous cases, without issue, because it is actually common sense that pinch to zoom is not going to substantively change what's shown in a video like that.
In this case the prosecution wanted to significantly zoom into very grainy footage to ask about an object a few pixels wide, on footage so grainy the prosecution couldn't identify the face of their own lead witness.
The defense raised the question regarding zooning altering or adding pixels and the judge said flatly he didn't know. All the prosecution had to do was bring in an expert on video to explain how zoom works - or have the expert do a non-fractional proportional zoom.
Everything is common sence untill it isn't.
Its common sence that you can't take over control of a car over the internet and kill everyone in it, that acess to a website that shows realtime location of half of US polulation would at least be properly protected, that a car's accelerator pedal doesn't cause random and unpredictable effect thanks to spagghetti code, that when Fujistsu charges a postman for theft, they are not just covering up bug in their tracking and accounting software.
Which is why both sides can ask the other side to substantiate their claims or provide expert testimony to justify their claims. If there is no issue, then the other side will be able to relatively easily find someone to testify to that or provide other evidence.
It's how the system is meant to work. If this is being used abusively, the judge will catch on soon enough.