Advertisement

Differentiating Photographic and PRCG Images Using Tampering Localization Features

  • Roshan Sai Ayyalasomayajula
  • Vinod Pankajakshan
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 460)

Abstract

A large number of sophisticated, yet easily accessible computer graphics softwares (STUDIO MAX, 3D MAYA, etc.) have been developed in the recent past. The images generated with these softwares appear to be realistic and cannot be distinguished from natural images visually. As a result, distinguishing between photographic images (PIM) and Photo-realistic computer generated (PRCG) images of real world objects has become an active area of research. In this paper, we propose that “a computer generated image” would have the features corresponding to a “completely tampered image”, whereas a camera generated picture would not. So, the differentiation is done on the basis of tampering localization features viz., block measure factors based on JPEG compression and re-sampling. It has been observed experimentally, that these measure factors vary for a PIM from a PRCG image. The experimental results show that the proposed simple and robust classifier is able to differentiate between PIM and PRCG images with an accuracy of 96 %.

Keywords

Image forensics Photographic images Photorealistic computer generated images Tampering localization Steganalysis 

References

  1. 1.
    Farid, Hany. “Image forgery detection.” Signal Processing Magazine, IEEE 26.2 (2009): 16–25.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ng, Tian-Tsong, and Shih-Fu Chang. “Classifying photographic and photorealistic computer graphic images using natural image statistics,” ADVENT Technical report, 2004.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lyu, Siwei, and Hany Farid. “How realistic is photorealistic?” Signal Processing, IEEE Transactions on 53.2 (2005): 845–850.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang, Xiaofeng, et al. “A statistical feature based approach to distinguish PRCG from photographs,” Computer Vision and Image Understanding 128 (2014): 84–93.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. Ng, S. Chang, J. Hsu, L. Xie, MP. Tsui, “Physics motivated features for distinguishing photographic images and computer graphics,” in: Proceedings of MULTIMEDIA 05, New York, NY, USA, ACM2005, pp. 239–248.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Dehnie, H.T. Sencar, N.D. Memon, “Digital image forensics for identifying computer generated and digital camera images”, ICIP, IEEE, Atlanta, USA (2006), pp. 2313–2316.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Andrew C. Gallagher, Tsuhan Chen, “Image authentication by detecting traces of demosaicing,” in: Proceedings of the CVPR WVU Workshop, Anchorage, AK, USA, June 2008, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    H. Farid, M.J. Bravo, “Perceptual discrimination of computer generated and photographic faces,” Digital Invest. 8 (3–4) (2012) 226 (10).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tian-Tsong Ng, Shih-Fu Chang, Jessie Hsu, Martin Pepeljugoski, “Columbia Photographic Images and Photorealistic Computer Graphics Dataset,” ADVENT Technical Report #205-2004-5, Columbia University, Feb 2005.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zuo, J., Pan, S., Liu, B., & Liao, X., “Tampering detection for composite images based on re-sampling and JPEG compression,” In Pattern Recognition (ACPR), 2011 First Asian Conference on (pp. 169–173). IEEE.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chih-Chung Chang, Chih-Jen Lin, “LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines,” ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), v.2 n.3, pp. 1–27, April 2011.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gloe, T., & Böhme, R., “The ‘Dresden Image Database’ for benchmarking digital image forensics,” In Proceedings of the 25th Symposium on Applied Computing (ACM SAC 2010) (Vol. 2, pp. 1585–1591).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. Schaefer and M. Stich (2003) “UCID - An Uncompressed Colour Image Database”, Technical Report, School of Computing and Mathematics, Nottingham Trent University, U.K.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Kundu and B. L. Evans, “Full-reference visual quality assessment for synthetic images: A subjective study,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Image Processing., Sep. 2015, accepted, September 2015.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kundu, D.; Evans, B.L., “Spatial domain synthetic scene statistics,” Signals, Systems and Computers, 2014 48th Asilomar Conference on, vol., no., pp. 948–954, 2–5 Nov. 2014.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tian-Tsong Ng, Shih-Fu Chang, “Discrimination of computer synthesized or recaptured images from real images,” Digital Image Forensics, 2013, p. 275– 309.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roshan Sai Ayyalasomayajula
    • 1
  • Vinod Pankajakshan
    • 1
  1. 1.Electronics and Communication Engineering DepartmentIndian Institute of Technology RoorkeeRoorkeeIndia

Personalised recommendations