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
Martin Brown wrote:
On 19/09/2012 22:44, Alan Browne wrote: On 2012.09.19 03:13 , Martin Brown wrote: On 18/09/2012 23:52, Alan Browne wrote: 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. Only a cack handed amateur would do it that way. It really isn't that difficult to transplant an arbitrary JPEG stream into a given cameras signed envelope. Anyone that relies on this tool is an idiot. Turn off your assumptions. By signature they are looking at what are essentially artifacts of how various cameras generate their output. Perhaps "fingerprint" would be a better term. Certainly if you are working in their firm's marketing department. There are a handful of independent JPEG implementations - most follow the original spec closely enough that there is little or no distinction between them (apart from in PSPro 8 which contained gross errors). It has to be like that or you would see much worse artefacts if some JPEG encoders made significant mistakes (as in fact happened with PsP 8). The only real variation is the exact choice of quantisation table and Photoshop is distinctive there, but most of the rest use a scaled version of the canonical JPEG standard Qtables from the original spec. So there's no variation in noise between camera types, sensor technology and pixel sizes? There's no different JPEG denoising between cameras? -Wolfgang |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Forensics v. Photoshop
On 20/09/2012 16:47, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Martin Brown wrote: On 19/09/2012 22:44, Alan Browne wrote: On 2012.09.19 03:13 , Martin Brown wrote: On 18/09/2012 23:52, Alan Browne wrote: 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. Only a cack handed amateur would do it that way. It really isn't that difficult to transplant an arbitrary JPEG stream into a given cameras signed envelope. Anyone that relies on this tool is an idiot. Turn off your assumptions. By signature they are looking at what are essentially artifacts of how various cameras generate their output. Perhaps "fingerprint" would be a better term. Certainly if you are working in their firm's marketing department. There are a handful of independent JPEG implementations - most follow the original spec closely enough that there is little or no distinction between them (apart from in PSPro 8 which contained gross errors). It has to be like that or you would see much worse artefacts if some JPEG encoders made significant mistakes (as in fact happened with PsP 8). The only real variation is the exact choice of quantisation table and Photoshop is distinctive there, but most of the rest use a scaled version of the canonical JPEG standard Qtables from the original spec. So there's no variation in noise between camera types, sensor technology and pixel sizes? There's no different JPEG denoising between cameras? Cameras making JPEG files are only writing the JPEG stream. There might be tiny differences in the exact sensor demosaicing code but that will largely be hidden when the file is saved JPEG 2x1 chroma subsampled. I'd give better odds for recognising a full RAW file with all the sensor calibration info still in it. Sensor noise might allow you distinguish a few *very* old and thermally noisy cameras but that is about all. The odd camera has insane default settings usually oversharpened which would also be easy to spot. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Forensics v. Photoshop
On 2012.09.21 03:12 , Martin Brown wrote:
On 20/09/2012 16:47, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: So there's no variation in noise between camera types, sensor technology and pixel sizes? There's no different JPEG denoising between cameras? Cameras making JPEG files are only writing the JPEG stream. There might be tiny differences in the exact sensor demosaicing code but that will largely be hidden when the file is saved JPEG 2x1 chroma subsampled. I'd give better odds for recognising a full RAW file with all the sensor calibration info still in it. What W said is the real point of it: what leaks through the physics into the image - raw or JPG - will fingerprint the camera design. Look at enough image samples and it comes out. Sensor noise might allow you distinguish a few *very* old and thermally noisy cameras but that is about all. The odd camera has insane default settings usually oversharpened which would also be easy to spot. Given the statistical methods used by them even new "quieter" cameras will in the end give up their signatures - even via JPG. -- "There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office." -Sir John A. Macdonald |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Forensics v. Photoshop
On 21/09/2012 21:43, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012.09.21 03:12 , Martin Brown wrote: On 20/09/2012 16:47, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: So there's no variation in noise between camera types, sensor technology and pixel sizes? There's no different JPEG denoising between cameras? Cameras making JPEG files are only writing the JPEG stream. There might be tiny differences in the exact sensor demosaicing code but that will largely be hidden when the file is saved JPEG 2x1 chroma subsampled. I'd give better odds for recognising a full RAW file with all the sensor calibration info still in it. What W said is the real point of it: what leaks through the physics into the image - raw or JPG - will fingerprint the camera design. Look at enough image samples and it comes out. Sensor noise might allow you distinguish a few *very* old and thermally noisy cameras but that is about all. The odd camera has insane default settings usually oversharpened which would also be easy to spot. Given the statistical methods used by them even new "quieter" cameras will in the end give up their signatures - even via JPG. Not a chance after JPEG encoding. Too much of the noise signature is lost. Would you like to buy London Bridge? -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Forensics v. Photoshop
On 2012.09.21 17:34 , Martin Brown wrote:
On 21/09/2012 21:43, Alan Browne wrote: On 2012.09.21 03:12 , Martin Brown wrote: On 20/09/2012 16:47, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: So there's no variation in noise between camera types, sensor technology and pixel sizes? There's no different JPEG denoising between cameras? Cameras making JPEG files are only writing the JPEG stream. There might be tiny differences in the exact sensor demosaicing code but that will largely be hidden when the file is saved JPEG 2x1 chroma subsampled. I'd give better odds for recognising a full RAW file with all the sensor calibration info still in it. What W said is the real point of it: what leaks through the physics into the image - raw or JPG - will fingerprint the camera design. Look at enough image samples and it comes out. Sensor noise might allow you distinguish a few *very* old and thermally noisy cameras but that is about all. The odd camera has insane default settings usually oversharpened which would also be easy to spot. Given the statistical methods used by them even new "quieter" cameras will in the end give up their signatures - even via JPG. Not a chance after JPEG encoding. Too much of the noise signature is lost. It may be compressed into a narrower range and some will disappear in the JPG encoding, but some will remain (all JPG's show noise from the camera). As such enough sample images from a given model will reveal noise attributes traceable to that camera model (or range of cameras with the same sensor/a-d/n-r chain). -- "There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office." -Sir John A. Macdonald |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Forensics v. Photoshop
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 22:34:36 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote: On 21/09/2012 21:43, Alan Browne wrote: On 2012.09.21 03:12 , Martin Brown wrote: On 20/09/2012 16:47, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: So there's no variation in noise between camera types, sensor technology and pixel sizes? There's no different JPEG denoising between cameras? Cameras making JPEG files are only writing the JPEG stream. There might be tiny differences in the exact sensor demosaicing code but that will largely be hidden when the file is saved JPEG 2x1 chroma subsampled. I'd give better odds for recognising a full RAW file with all the sensor calibration info still in it. What W said is the real point of it: what leaks through the physics into the image - raw or JPG - will fingerprint the camera design. Look at enough image samples and it comes out. Sensor noise might allow you distinguish a few *very* old and thermally noisy cameras but that is about all. The odd camera has insane default settings usually oversharpened which would also be easy to spot. Given the statistical methods used by them even new "quieter" cameras will in the end give up their signatures - even via JPG. Not a chance after JPEG encoding. Too much of the noise signature is lost. Would you like to buy London Bridge? Here is the original claim: "The many signatures arise from the malleability of the JPEG standard, the format in which nearly all cameras save images. Different cameras and mobile devices have varying sensor sizes and resolution settings, and techniques for handling thumbnail pictures and image metadata. Different cameras and software use different methods to compress image files. All leave telltale digital tracks." The software claims to be able to identify the specific parameters which link the camera to the JPG image. If there only five parameters to be identified and there are fourteen variations of each then it is not hard to end with 70,000 different unique combinations. Of course its not quite that simple. The claim sounds credible. That's not the same as saying it is correct. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Forensics v. Photoshop
On 22/09/2012 05:05, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 22:34:36 +0100, Martin Brown wrote: On 21/09/2012 21:43, Alan Browne wrote: On 2012.09.21 03:12 , Martin Brown wrote: On 20/09/2012 16:47, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: So there's no variation in noise between camera types, sensor technology and pixel sizes? There's no different JPEG denoising between cameras? Cameras making JPEG files are only writing the JPEG stream. There might be tiny differences in the exact sensor demosaicing code but that will largely be hidden when the file is saved JPEG 2x1 chroma subsampled. I'd give better odds for recognising a full RAW file with all the sensor calibration info still in it. What W said is the real point of it: what leaks through the physics into the image - raw or JPG - will fingerprint the camera design. Look at enough image samples and it comes out. Sensor noise might allow you distinguish a few *very* old and thermally noisy cameras but that is about all. The odd camera has insane default settings usually oversharpened which would also be easy to spot. Given the statistical methods used by them even new "quieter" cameras will in the end give up their signatures - even via JPG. Not a chance after JPEG encoding. Too much of the noise signature is lost. Would you like to buy London Bridge? Here is the original claim: "The many signatures arise from the malleability of the JPEG standard, the format in which nearly all cameras save images. Different cameras and mobile devices have varying sensor sizes and resolution settings, and techniques for handling thumbnail pictures and image metadata. Different cameras and software use different methods to compress image files. All leave telltale digital tracks." The software claims to be able to identify the specific parameters which link the camera to the JPG image. If there only five parameters to be identified and there are fourteen variations of each then it is not hard to end with 70,000 different unique combinations. Of course its not quite that simple. The claim sounds credible. That's not the same as saying it is correct. The claim is credible from the point of view that if everyone is completely honest never puts a foreign JPEG stream inside another cameras signed envelope their software can identify from the choice of compression parameters and the quirks in the interpretation of the dreadful ambiguous Exif "standard" which camera or app it came from. (there are roughly speaking about 500 distinct Qtables in use but less than 100 are common and fewer than 10 make up the bulk of all images) I have already pointed at freeware that does exactly this using the same methodology. But it is not forensically sound. An expert can too easily fake the headers to for example make it look like Neil Armstrong was stood on the moon and photographed with an Ixus V. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Forensics v. Photoshop
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 09:10:07 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote: On 22/09/2012 05:05, Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 22:34:36 +0100, Martin Brown wrote: On 21/09/2012 21:43, Alan Browne wrote: On 2012.09.21 03:12 , Martin Brown wrote: On 20/09/2012 16:47, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: So there's no variation in noise between camera types, sensor technology and pixel sizes? There's no different JPEG denoising between cameras? Cameras making JPEG files are only writing the JPEG stream. There might be tiny differences in the exact sensor demosaicing code but that will largely be hidden when the file is saved JPEG 2x1 chroma subsampled. I'd give better odds for recognising a full RAW file with all the sensor calibration info still in it. What W said is the real point of it: what leaks through the physics into the image - raw or JPG - will fingerprint the camera design. Look at enough image samples and it comes out. Sensor noise might allow you distinguish a few *very* old and thermally noisy cameras but that is about all. The odd camera has insane default settings usually oversharpened which would also be easy to spot. Given the statistical methods used by them even new "quieter" cameras will in the end give up their signatures - even via JPG. Not a chance after JPEG encoding. Too much of the noise signature is lost. Would you like to buy London Bridge? Here is the original claim: "The many signatures arise from the malleability of the JPEG standard, the format in which nearly all cameras save images. Different cameras and mobile devices have varying sensor sizes and resolution settings, and techniques for handling thumbnail pictures and image metadata. Different cameras and software use different methods to compress image files. All leave telltale digital tracks." The software claims to be able to identify the specific parameters which link the camera to the JPG image. If there only five parameters to be identified and there are fourteen variations of each then it is not hard to end with 70,000 different unique combinations. Of course its not quite that simple. The claim sounds credible. That's not the same as saying it is correct. The claim is credible from the point of view that if everyone is completely honest never puts a foreign JPEG stream inside another cameras signed envelope their software can identify from the choice of compression parameters and the quirks in the interpretation of the dreadful ambiguous Exif "standard" which camera or app it came from. (there are roughly speaking about 500 distinct Qtables in use but less than 100 are common and fewer than 10 make up the bulk of all images) I have already pointed at freeware that does exactly this using the same methodology. But it is not forensically sound. An expert can too easily fake the headers to for example make it look like Neil Armstrong was stood on the moon and photographed with an Ixus V. I don't know anything about the JPG file structu I've never bothered to find out. I think I will have to go away and study the subject. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Forensics v. Photoshop
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 20:33:19 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote: On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 09:10:07 +0100, Martin Brown wrote: On 22/09/2012 05:05, Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 22:34:36 +0100, Martin Brown wrote: On 21/09/2012 21:43, Alan Browne wrote: On 2012.09.21 03:12 , Martin Brown wrote: On 20/09/2012 16:47, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: So there's no variation in noise between camera types, sensor technology and pixel sizes? There's no different JPEG denoising between cameras? Cameras making JPEG files are only writing the JPEG stream. There might be tiny differences in the exact sensor demosaicing code but that will largely be hidden when the file is saved JPEG 2x1 chroma subsampled. I'd give better odds for recognising a full RAW file with all the sensor calibration info still in it. What W said is the real point of it: what leaks through the physics into the image - raw or JPG - will fingerprint the camera design. Look at enough image samples and it comes out. Sensor noise might allow you distinguish a few *very* old and thermally noisy cameras but that is about all. The odd camera has insane default settings usually oversharpened which would also be easy to spot. Given the statistical methods used by them even new "quieter" cameras will in the end give up their signatures - even via JPG. Not a chance after JPEG encoding. Too much of the noise signature is lost. Would you like to buy London Bridge? Here is the original claim: "The many signatures arise from the malleability of the JPEG standard, the format in which nearly all cameras save images. Different cameras and mobile devices have varying sensor sizes and resolution settings, and techniques for handling thumbnail pictures and image metadata. Different cameras and software use different methods to compress image files. All leave telltale digital tracks." The software claims to be able to identify the specific parameters which link the camera to the JPG image. If there only five parameters to be identified and there are fourteen variations of each then it is not hard to end with 70,000 different unique combinations. Of course its not quite that simple. The claim sounds credible. That's not the same as saying it is correct. The claim is credible from the point of view that if everyone is completely honest never puts a foreign JPEG stream inside another cameras signed envelope their software can identify from the choice of compression parameters and the quirks in the interpretation of the dreadful ambiguous Exif "standard" which camera or app it came from. (there are roughly speaking about 500 distinct Qtables in use but less than 100 are common and fewer than 10 make up the bulk of all images) I have already pointed at freeware that does exactly this using the same methodology. But it is not forensically sound. An expert can too easily fake the headers to for example make it look like Neil Armstrong was stood on the moon and photographed with an Ixus V. I don't know anything about the JPG file structu I've never bothered to find out. I think I will have to go away and study the subject. Wow! Having looked at Wikipedia on the subject I've come away more than a little gob-smacked. There are so many ways to construct a JPG file it would be surprising if any two cameras produced identical finger prints from their files. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Forensics v. Photoshop
On 2012.09.22 04:10 , Martin Brown wrote:
On 22/09/2012 05:05, Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 22:34:36 +0100, Martin Brown wrote: On 21/09/2012 21:43, Alan Browne wrote: On 2012.09.21 03:12 , Martin Brown wrote: On 20/09/2012 16:47, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: So there's no variation in noise between camera types, sensor technology and pixel sizes? There's no different JPEG denoising between cameras? Cameras making JPEG files are only writing the JPEG stream. There might be tiny differences in the exact sensor demosaicing code but that will largely be hidden when the file is saved JPEG 2x1 chroma subsampled. I'd give better odds for recognising a full RAW file with all the sensor calibration info still in it. What W said is the real point of it: what leaks through the physics into the image - raw or JPG - will fingerprint the camera design. Look at enough image samples and it comes out. Sensor noise might allow you distinguish a few *very* old and thermally noisy cameras but that is about all. The odd camera has insane default settings usually oversharpened which would also be easy to spot. Given the statistical methods used by them even new "quieter" cameras will in the end give up their signatures - even via JPG. Not a chance after JPEG encoding. Too much of the noise signature is lost. Would you like to buy London Bridge? Here is the original claim: "The many signatures arise from the malleability of the JPEG standard, the format in which nearly all cameras save images. Different cameras and mobile devices have varying sensor sizes and resolution settings, and techniques for handling thumbnail pictures and image metadata. Different cameras and software use different methods to compress image files. All leave telltale digital tracks." The software claims to be able to identify the specific parameters which link the camera to the JPG image. If there only five parameters to be identified and there are fourteen variations of each then it is not hard to end with 70,000 different unique combinations. Of course its not quite that simple. The claim sounds credible. That's not the same as saying it is correct. The claim is credible from the point of view that if everyone is completely honest never puts a foreign JPEG stream inside another cameras signed envelope their software can identify from the choice of compression parameters and the quirks in the interpretation of the dreadful ambiguous Exif "standard" which camera or app it came from. (there are roughly speaking about 500 distinct Qtables in use but less than 100 are common and fewer than 10 make up the bulk of all images) I have already pointed at freeware that does exactly this using the same methodology. But it is not forensically sound. An expert can too easily fake the headers to for example make it look like Neil Armstrong was stood on the moon and photographed with an Ixus V. There you go off track again. -- "There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office." -Sir John A. Macdonald |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Forensics v. Photoshop | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 83 | September 29th 12 04:50 PM |
Forensics v. Photoshop | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 2 | September 20th 12 10:14 PM |
Photoshop CS3 Beta review of Photoshop, parts 1, 2 and 3 | Rich | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | December 31st 06 09:57 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 07:54 AM |