Quantcast
Noise on Digital Photos are "Fingerprints" - Beyond.ca - Car Forums
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Noise on Digital Photos are "Fingerprints"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Calgary NE
    Posts
    702
    Rep Power
    15

    Default Noise on Digital Photos are "Fingerprints"

    Child pornographers will soon have a harder time escaping prosecution thanks to a stunning new technology in development at Binghamton University, State University of New York, that can reliably link digital images to the camera with which they were taken, in much the same way that tell-tale scratches are used by forensic examiners to link bullets to the gun that fired them.

    "The defense in these kind of cases would often be that the images were not taken by this person's camera or that the images are not of real children," said Jessica Fridrich, associate professor of electrical and computer engineering. "Sometimes child pornographers will even cut and paste an image of an adult's head on the image of a child to try to avoid prosecution.

    "But if it can be shown that the original images were taken by the person's cell phone or camera, it becomes a much stronger case than if you just have a bunch of digital images that we all know are notoriously easy to manipulate."

    Fridrich and two members of her Binghamton University research team Jan Lukas and Miroslav Goljan are coinventors of the new technique, which can also be used to detect forged images.

    The three have applied for two patents related to their technique, which provides the most robust strategy for digital image forgery detection to date, even as it improves significantly on the accuracy of other approaches.

    Fridrich's technique is rooted in the discovery by her research group of this simple fact: Every original digital picture is overlaid by a weak noise-like pattern of pixel-to-pixel non-uniformity.

    Although these patterns are invisible to the human eye, the unique reference pattern or "fingerprint" of any camera can be electronically extracted by analyzing a number of images taken by a single camera.

    That means that as long as examiners have either the camera that took the image or multiple images they know were taken by the same camera, an algorithm developed by Fridrich and her co-inventors to extract and define the camera's unique pattern of pixel-to-pixel non-uniformity can be used to provide important information about the origins and authenticity of a single image.

    The limitation of the technique is that it requires either the camera or multiple images taken by the same camera, and isn't informative if only a single image is available for analysis.

    Like actual fingerprints, the digital "noise" in original images is stochastic in nature that is, it contains random variables which are inevitably created during the manufacturing process of the camera and its sensors. This virtually ensures that the noise imposed on the digital images from any particular camera will be consistent from one image to the next, even while it is distinctly different.

    In preliminary tests, Fridrich's lab analyzed 2,700 pictures taken by nine digital cameras and with 100 percent accuracy linked individual images with the camera that took them.

    Fridrich, who specializes in all aspects of information hiding in digital imagery, including watermarking for authentication, tamper detection, self-embedding, robust watermarking, steganography and steganalysis, as well as forensic analysis of digital images, says it is the absence of the expected digital fingerprint in any portion of an image that provides the most conclusive evidence of image tampering.

    In the near future, Fridrich's technique promises to find application in the analysis of scanned and video imagery. There it can be expected to make life more difficult for forgers, or any others whose criminal pursuits rely on the misuse of digital images.

    "We already know law enforcement wants to be able to use this," Fridrich said. "What we have right now is a research tool; it's a raw technology that we will continue to improve."
    Source: EurekAlert

    Noise Ninja, anyone? xD

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Calgary/Alberta
    My Ride
    F150, Tiguan R, Kawi Bobber
    Posts
    900
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    sooooo, what about heavily post processed photos? I could see this being more relevant on P&S cameras, as there is little that changes with the sensor. But DSLR's you go through cleanings, dust, and DSLR owners typically post process more.....
    sig deleted by moderator, click here for info

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Calgary/Fort McMurray
    My Ride
    2010 GMC Sierra, Rocky ETSX-70
    Posts
    634
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    I was reading this earlier and had the same conclusions as TurboMedic. How many of us alter the shots after we have taken them?

    Although in saying that I wonder how many child pornographers are altering their photos? Or how many are shooting with a simple P&S? I guess that the police are going to have to look at the files to see if they were taken or just aquired.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    My Ride
    2015 VW GTI
    Posts
    3,716
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    I honestly think there are too many variables that could come into play after a photo is taken for this to be used in a court of law.

    Unless I am missing something you could easily alter the "noise pattern" in Photoshop..

    If some sicko has a shitload of kiddie porno that he took, but editted after, how are they gonna link the pics to his camera and know that he didn't get them elsewhere?

    Seems iffy to me right now..

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    MA
    My Ride
    Infiniti
    Posts
    821
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    you can even add noise in PS, theres a blur tool, this pixel to pixel non uniformity shit doesnt work if you change the pic at all

    plus, 2700 pictures from only 9 cameras, thats about 300 pics per camera, and 1.5 pics equals about .5%, so out of 300 pics and a %100 matching rate, they could only not identify one or two pics per camera, thats 13 or 14 pics out of 2700 that couldnt be indentified, seems pretty accurate

    someone should point rage in the the direction of this thread, seeing his avatar and all, he would be interested in this info

Similar Threads

  1. Printing digital photos

    By crazytou in forum Computers, Consoles, and other Electronics
    Replies: 13
    Latest Threads: 09-22-2005, 12:07 PM
  2. FS: Fostex FD4 digital multitracker - digital recording studio

    By Evro in forum Miscellaneous Buy/Sell/Trade
    Replies: 6
    Latest Threads: 08-10-2005, 07:00 PM
  3. Replies: 15
    Latest Threads: 02-02-2005, 04:16 PM
  4. Digital camrea experts, digital storage experts LOOK

    By MYKN in forum Computers, Consoles, and other Electronics
    Replies: 17
    Latest Threads: 07-21-2004, 04:05 AM
  5. Bens VUB Photos - Car Photos are UP!!!!!!

    By Ben in forum Events and Meets
    Replies: 88
    Latest Threads: 07-14-2004, 01:06 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •