If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Forensics v. Photoshop
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...e-marketplace/
or http://tinyurl.com/8g8udyp and http://vimeo.com/49199110 (arguments aren't that convincing) (It's only $890. Probably more in NZ... ;-) ) -- "C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!". -John Keating. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Forensics v. Photoshop
On 18/09/2012 22:31, Alan Browne wrote:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...e-marketplace/ or http://tinyurl.com/8g8udyp and http://vimeo.com/49199110 (arguments aren't that convincing) (It's only $890. Probably more in NZ... ;-) ) Any digital faker worth their salt will get all the original camera image details that the program says it checks exactly right. Unless it does something else that is undocumented in their press release it isn't likely to do much more than catch cack handed Photoshop amateurs. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Forensics v. Photoshop
On 2012.09.18 18:17 , Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/09/2012 22:31, Alan Browne wrote: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...e-marketplace/ or http://tinyurl.com/8g8udyp and http://vimeo.com/49199110 (arguments aren't that convincing) (It's only $890. Probably more in NZ... ;-) ) Any digital faker worth their salt will get all the original camera image details that the program says it checks exactly right. Unless it does something else that is undocumented in their press release it isn't likely to do much more than catch cack handed Photoshop amateurs. From the video it's clear to me that it's purpose is mostly to raise doubt (or avoid it). _any_ amount of _any_ change will be detected by that program because of the way it analyzes. That does not mean to say it proves that the content of the image is faked. Just not camera original. Even if one were to resize (in PS) and then bring that file to court, that program will flag it. That's fine. If the defense want to see the camera original then that program can validate it. And that may be enough for that purpose. -- "C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!". -John Keating. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Forensics v. Photoshop
On 2012-09-18 15:17:13 -0700, Martin Brown
said: On 18/09/2012 22:31, Alan Browne wrote: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...e-marketplace/ or http://tinyurl.com/8g8udyp and http://vimeo.com/49199110 (arguments aren't that convincing) (It's only $890. Probably more in NZ... ;-) ) Any digital faker worth their salt will get all the original camera image details that the program says it checks exactly right. Unless it does something else that is undocumented in their press release it isn't likely to do much more than catch cack handed Photoshop amateurs. There is other stuff to consider in the world of criminal forensics & digital forensics, and quite a few specialize in both the software, hardware and analysis areas of this particular area. I have no doubt that most insurance companies suspecting fraud would have little trouble outing any tricksters. http://www.forensicmag.com/ http://www.crime-photo.com/ http://www.veripic.com/index.php?go=polfiregov http://www.digitalcop.com/ https://www.swgde.org/links -- Regards, Savageduck |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Forensics v. Photoshop
On 19/09/2012 9:31 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...e-marketplace/ or http://tinyurl.com/8g8udyp and http://vimeo.com/49199110 (arguments aren't that convincing) (It's only $890. Probably more in NZ... ;-) ) Hmmm - so it can't prove that the image content /has/ been tampered with, and neither can it prove that the image file /hasn't/ been tampered with. What does it claim to do again? The war seems to have been lost, and I don't think there's any going back. Even at the pro level, image authentication seems doomed: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04...e_faking_hack/ I'm not sure about your reference to the NZ price??? Everything is more expensive here according to the Big Mac index, except the Big Mac itself, but it turns out that we were tricked even on that - the Big Mac is smaller here than in the USA, but proportionately healthier as a consequence - so all is good. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Forensics v. Photoshop
On 2012-09-18 15:21:29 -0700, Alan Browne
said: On 2012.09.18 18:17 , Martin Brown wrote: On 18/09/2012 22:31, Alan Browne wrote: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...e-marketplace/ or http://tinyurl.com/8g8udyp and http://vimeo.com/49199110 (arguments aren't that convincing) (It's only $890. Probably more in NZ... ;-) ) Any digital faker worth their salt will get all the original camera image details that the program says it checks exactly right. Unless it does something else that is undocumented in their press release it isn't likely to do much more than catch cack handed Photoshop amateurs. From the video it's clear to me that it's purpose is mostly to raise doubt (or avoid it). _any_ amount of _any_ change will be detected by that program because of the way it analyzes. That does not mean to say it proves that the content of the image is faked. Just not camera original. Even if one were to resize (in PS) and then bring that file to court, that program will flag it. That's fine. If the defense want to see the camera original then that program can validate it. And that may be enough for that purpose. Here is another paper from my past. http://www.ssddfj.org/papers/SSDDFJ_V1_1_Cohen.pdf -- Regards, Savageduck |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Forensics v. Photoshop
On 2012.09.18 18:38 , Me wrote:
On 19/09/2012 9:31 a.m., Alan Browne wrote: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...e-marketplace/ or http://tinyurl.com/8g8udyp and http://vimeo.com/49199110 (arguments aren't that convincing) (It's only $890. Probably more in NZ... ;-) ) Hmmm - so it can't prove that the image content /has/ been tampered with, and neither can it prove that the image file /hasn't/ been tampered with. What does it claim to do again? Raise doubts. It's claim is to look at how images are made (signature) by the camera. If there is a doubt it will be raised. A change to an image in PS would not pass that. The war seems to have been lost, and I don't think there's any going back. Even at the pro level, image authentication seems doomed: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04...e_faking_hack/ Surprising. I'm not sure about your reference to the NZ price??? Another thread. Everything is more expensive here according to the Big Mac index I stopped taking The Economist. Not enough time to read it and everything else. -- "C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!". -John Keating. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Forensics v. Photoshop
On 2012.09.18 18:50 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-09-18 15:21:29 -0700, Alan Browne said: On 2012.09.18 18:17 , Martin Brown wrote: On 18/09/2012 22:31, Alan Browne wrote: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...e-marketplace/ or http://tinyurl.com/8g8udyp and http://vimeo.com/49199110 (arguments aren't that convincing) (It's only $890. Probably more in NZ... ;-) ) Any digital faker worth their salt will get all the original camera image details that the program says it checks exactly right. Unless it does something else that is undocumented in their press release it isn't likely to do much more than catch cack handed Photoshop amateurs. From the video it's clear to me that it's purpose is mostly to raise doubt (or avoid it). _any_ amount of _any_ change will be detected by that program because of the way it analyzes. That does not mean to say it proves that the content of the image is faked. Just not camera original. Even if one were to resize (in PS) and then bring that file to court, that program will flag it. That's fine. If the defense want to see the camera original then that program can validate it. And that may be enough for that purpose. Here is another paper from my past. http://www.ssddfj.org/papers/SSDDFJ_V1_1_Cohen.pdf The crude end of the stick. More for digging through broken, deleted, mangled files than confirming if a photo is a true original -- "C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!". -John Keating. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Forensics v. Photoshop
In article , Alan Browne wrote: On 2012.09.18 18:17 , Martin Brown wrote: On 18/09/2012 22:31, Alan Browne wrote: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...e-marketplace/ or http://tinyurl.com/8g8udyp and http://vimeo.com/49199110 (arguments aren't that convincing) (It's only $890. Probably more in NZ... ;-) ) Any digital faker worth their salt will get all the original camera image details that the program says it checks exactly right. Unless it does something else that is undocumented in their press release it isn't likely to do much more than catch cack handed Photoshop amateurs. From the video it's clear to me that it's purpose is mostly to raise doubt (or avoid it). _any_ amount of _any_ change will be detected by that program because of the way it analyzes. That does not mean to say it proves that the content of the image is faked. Just not camera original. Even if one were to resize (in PS) and then bring that file to court, that program will flag it. That's fine. If the defense want to see the camera original then that program can validate it. And that may be enough for that purpose. It should be possible to build a circuit into the sensor chip that digitally "signs" each image. If the production facility could be trusted to randomly generate the private keys and delete them after burning them into each chip, there should be no way short of chip surgery to generate correctly signed digital images that do not derive from something "seen" by that sensor. The sensor could be considered a sort of "trustworthy witness." Unfortunately, 1) You could always contrive a way to show the sensor a scene generated by other means 2) A friend who works in the industry assures me that the required level of chip surgery does exist. Still, it should out of reach for a typical sleazy divorce case. And when it comes to something like topless pictures of princess Kate, are people going to insist on seeing the digitally signed RAW camera files before they get all excited? -- "Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither." |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Forensics v. Photoshop
On 19/09/2012 10:52 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012.09.18 18:38 , Me wrote: On 19/09/2012 9:31 a.m., Alan Browne wrote: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...e-marketplace/ or http://tinyurl.com/8g8udyp and http://vimeo.com/49199110 (arguments aren't that convincing) (It's only $890. Probably more in NZ... ;-) ) Hmmm - so it can't prove that the image content /has/ been tampered with, and neither can it prove that the image file /hasn't/ been tampered with. What does it claim to do again? Raise doubts. It's claim is to look at how images are made (signature) by the camera. If there is a doubt it will be raised. A change to an image in PS would not pass that. You don't need to manipulate an image to deliberately not show the "truth". We need (untampered) video, then you're safe to believe what your eyes show you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v2xnl6LwJE |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Photoshop CS3 Beta review of Photoshop, parts 1, 2 and 3 | Rich | Digital Photography | 1 | December 31st 06 08:57 PM |
Photoshop CS3 Beta review of Photoshop, parts 1, 2 and 3 | Rich | Digital ZLR Cameras | 1 | December 31st 06 08:57 PM |
[New] Variant of FinePix S3 for forensics and other scientific work | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | August 13th 06 05:12 PM |
Photoshop Plugins Collection, updated 25/Jan/2006, ADOBE CREATIVE SUITE V2, PHOTOSHOP CS V2, PHOTOSHOP CS V8.0, 2nd edition | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | February 2nd 06 06:54 AM |
Photoshop CS leaves Photoshop 7 on my hard drive??? | Anonymous | Digital Photography | 3 | December 17th 04 06:31 PM |