Source camera identification via low dimensional PRNU features

  • Yihua Zhao
  • Ning Zheng
  • Tong Qiao
  • Ming Xu


Identifying the source of digital images is the key task in the community of image forensics. Sensor pattern noise dominantly serves as an intrinsic fingerprint or feature for dealing with the problem of source camera identification. However, how to decrease the dimensionality of the pattern noise while guaranteeing the detection power remains a hot topic. The goal of this paper is to investigate the problem of source camera identification for natural images in JPEG format. By considering the image texture, we propose to design a new classifier with adopting a weight function, leading to the remarkable reduction of the feature dimensionality. In the extensive experiments, it is verified that our proposed algorithm performs comparably with the prior art. Besides, the robustness of the proposed classifier is also evaluated when the query images are attacked by post-processing techniques such as JPEG compression, noise adding, noise removing and image cropping.


Image origin identification Sensor pattern noise Photo-response non-uniformity (PRNU) Weight function 



This work is funded by the Cyberspace Security Major Program in National Key Research and Development Plan of China under grant No. 2016YFB0800201, the Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No. 61702150 and No. 61572165, the State Key Program of Zhejiang Province Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No. LZ15F020003, the Key Research and Development Plan Project of Zhejiang Province under grant No. 2017C01062 and No.2017C01065.


  1. 1.
    Chen M, Fridrich J, Goljan M, Lukás J (2008) Determining image origin and integrity using sensor noise. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 3(1):74–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Costa FDO, Silva E, Eckmann M, Scheirer WJ, Rocha A (2014) Open set source camera attribution and device linking. Pattern Recogn Lett 39:92–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Foi A, Trimeche M, Katkovnik V, Egiazarian K (2008) Practical poissonian-gaussian noise modeling and fitting for single-image raw-data. IEEE Trans Image Process 17(10):1737–1754MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gloe T, Böhme R (2010) The dresden image database for benchmarking digital image forensics. Journal of Digital Forensic Practice 3(2-4):150–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goljan M (2008) Digital camera identification from images-estimating false acceptance probability. In: International workshop on digital watermarking, pp 454–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goljan M, Fridrich J (2013) Sensor fingerprint digests for fast camera identification from geometrically distorted images. In: Media watermarking, security, and forensics 2013, vol 8665, p 86650bGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goljan M, Fridrich J, Filler T (2009) Large scale test of sensor fingerprint camera identification. In: Media forensics and security, vol 7254, p 72540iGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goljan M, Fridrich J, Filler T (2010) Managing a large database of camera fingerprints. In: Media forensics and security II, vol 7541, p 754108Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Healey GE, Kondepudy R (1994) Radiometric ccd camera calibration and noise estimation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 16(3):267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holst GC (1998) Ccd arrays, cameras, and displays. SPIE Optical Engineering Press, BellinghamGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holub V, Fridrich J, Denemark T (2014) Universal distortion function for steganography in an arbitrary domain. EURASIP J Inf Secur 2014(1):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hu Y, Li CT, Lai Z (2015) Fast source camera identification using matching signs between query and reference fingerprints. Multimedia Tools and Applications 74 (18):7405–7428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Janesick JR (2001) Scientific charge-coupled devices, vol 83. SPIE Press, BellinghamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kay SM (1998) Fundamentals of statistical signal processing, vol. ii: Detection theory. Signal Processing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li R, Li CT, Guan Y (2018) Inference of a compact representation of sensor fingerprint for source camera identification. Pattern Recogn 74:556–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lukas J, Fridrich J, Goljan M (2006) Digital camera identification from sensor pattern noise. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 1(2):205–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luo X, Song X, Li X, Zhang W, Lu J, Yang C, Liu F (2016) Steganalysis of hugo steganography based on parameter recognition of syndrome-trellis-codes. Multimedia Tools and Applications 75(21):13557–13583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ma Y, Luo X, Li X, Bao Z, Zhang Y (2018) Selection of rich model steganalysis features based on decision rough set α-positive region reduction IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nakamura J (2017) Image sensors and signal processing for digital still cameras. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pandey RC, Singh SK, Shukla KK (2016) Passive forensics in image and video using noise features: a review. Digit Investig 19:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Qiao T, Retraint F, Cogranne R (2013) Image authentication by statistical analysis. In: 2013 proceedings of the 21st European signal processing conference (EUSIPCO), pp 1–5Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Qiao T, Retraint F, Cogranne R, Thai TH (2015) Source camera device identification based on raw images. In: 2015 IEEE international conference on image processing (ICIP), pp 3812– 3816Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Qiao T, Retraint F, Cogranne R, Zitzmann C (2015) Steganalysis of jsteg algorithm using hypothesis testing theory. EURASIP J Inf Secur 2015(1):2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Qiao T, Retraint F, Cogranne R, Thai TH (2017) Individual camera device identification from jpeg images. Signal Process Image Commun 52:74–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Qiao T, Zhu A, Retraint F (2018) Exposing image resampling forgery by using linear parametric model. Multimedia Tools and Applications 77(2):1501–1523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ramanath R, Snyder WE, Yoo Y, Drew MS (2005) Color image processing pipeline. IEEE Signal Proc Mag 22(1):34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thai TH, Cogranne R, Retraint F (2014) Camera model identification based on the heteroscedastic noise model. IEEE Trans Image Process 23(1):250–263MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thai TH, Retraint F, Cogranne R (2016) Camera model identification based on the generalized noise model in natural images. Digital Signal Process 48:285–297MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Xu B, Wang X, Zhou X, Xi J, Wang S (2016) Source camera identification from image texture features. Neurocomputing 207:131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yao H, Qiao T, Xu M, Zheng N (2018) Robust multi-classifier for camera model identification based on convolution neural network. IEEE Access 6:24973–24982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhang Y, Qin C, Zhang W, Liu F, Luo X (2018) On the fault-tolerant performance for a class of robust image steganography. Sig Process 146:99–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer Science and TechnologyHangzhou Dianzi UniversityHangzhouChina
  2. 2.School of CyberspaceHangzhou Dianzi UniversityHangzhouChina
  3. 3.Zhengzhou Science and Technology InstituteZhengzhouChina

Personalised recommendations