Methods to Distinguish Photorealistic Computer Generated Images from Photographic Images: A Review

  • Kunj Bihari Meena
  • Vipin TyagiEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1045)


Uses of digital images have increased multifold in last few years in various important fields such as virtual reality, gaming, social media, magazine, news papers, medical, legal issues, law, academics etc. At the same time, image editing and rendering tools have also evolved significantly. With the help of computers and such advanced image rendering tools it is possible to create photorealistic computer graphics images effortlessly. It is very difficult to discriminate such photorealistic computer graphics images from actual photographic images taken from digital cameras by human visual system. If computer generated images are used with malicious intentions it creates negative impact on the society. Therefore, several methods have been proposed in last few years to distinguish computer generated images from photographic images. This paper presents a comprehensive review of the existing methods. A classification of all existing methods is also provided based on the use of feature extraction techniques and classifier used. Accordingly, all the existing methods are grouped into four categories: statistical feature based, acquisition process based, visual feature based, and hybrid feature based methods. This paper also reviews publically available related image datasets and suggests the future directions.


Image forgery detection Computer graphics Photorealistic computer generated images Photographic images Support Vector Machine SVM RGB color model Classification accuracy Feature extraction 


  1. 1.
    Tyagi, V.: Understanding Digital Image Processing. CRC Press (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meena, K.B., Tyagi, V.: Image forgery detection: survey and future directions. In: Shukla, R.K., Agrawal, J., Sharma, S., Singh Tomer, G. (eds.) Data, Engineering and Applications, pp. 163–194. Springer, Singapore (2019). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ansari, M.D., Ghrera, S.P., Tyagi, V.: Pixel-based image forgery detection: a review. IETE J. Educ. 55, 40–46 (2014). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Seitz, S.S.S.M., Kemelmacher-Shlizerman, I.: Synthesizing obama: learning lip sync from audio. ACM Trans. Graph. 36, 95 (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Birajdar, G.K., Mankar, V.H.: Digital image forgery detection using passive techniques: a survey. Digit. Investig. 10, 226–245 (2013). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tokuda, E., Pedrini, H., Rocha, A.: Computer generated images vs. digital photographs : a synergetic feature and classifier combination approach. J. Vis. Commun. Image Represent. 24, 1276–1292 (2013). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holmes, O., Banks, M.S., Farid, H.: Assessing and improving the identification of computer generated portraits. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept. 13, 1–12 (2016). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ng, T.T., Chang, S.F.: Discrimination of computer synthesized or recaptured images from real images. In: Sencar, H., Memon, N. (eds.) Digital Image Forensics, pp. 275–309. Springer, New York (2013). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ng, T., Chang, S., Hsu, J., Pepeljugoski, M.: Columbia Photographic Images and Photorealistic Computer Graphics Dataset (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ng, T., Chang, S.: An online system for classifying computer graphics images from natural photographs. In: Proceedings of SPIE 6072, Security, Steganography, and Watermarking of Multimedia Contents VIII, 607211, pp. 397–405 (2006).
  11. 11.
    Wang, J., Li, T., Shi, Y., Lian, S., Ye, J.: Forensics feature analysis in quaternion wavelet domain for distinguishing photographic images and computer graphics. Multimed. Tools Appl. 76, 23721–23737 (2016). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guo, K., Wang, R.: A new method for detecting computer-generated images based on multiwavelets. J. Inf. Comput. Sci. 8, 1449–1456 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tan, D.Q., Shen, X.J., Qin, J., Chen, H.P.: Detecting computer generated images based on local ternary count. Pattern Recognit. Image Anal. 26, 720–725 (2016). Scholar
  14. 14.
    He, P., Jiang, X., Sun, T., Member, S., Li, H.: Computer graphics identification combining convolutional and recurrent neural network. IEEE Signal Process. Lett. 25, 1369–1373 (2018). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen, W., Shi, Y.Q., Xuan, G., Su, W.: Computer graphics identification using genetic algorithm. In: IEEE International Conference on Pattern Recognition, pp. 1–4 (2009).
  16. 16.
    Li, Z., Ye, J., Shi, Y.Q.: Distinguishing computer graphics from photographic images using local binary patterns. In: Shi, Y.Q., Kim, H.-J., Pérez-González, F. (eds.) IWDW 2012. LNCS, vol. 7809, pp. 228–241. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Talib, A., Mahmuddin, M., Husni, H., George, L.E.: Influencing factors on classification of photographic and computer generated images. J. Comput. 4, 74–79 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lyu, S., Farid, H.: How realistic is photorealistic? IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 53, 845–850 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ozparlak, L., Avcıbas, I.: Differentiating between images using wavelet-based transforms: a comparative study. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 6, 1418–1431 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ng, T., Chang, S., Hsu, J., Xie, L.: Physics-motivated features for distinguishing photographic images and computer graphics. In: Proceedings of ACM Multimedia, pp. 239–248 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gallagher, A.C., Chen, T.: Image authentication by detecting traces of demosaicing. In: 2008 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, CVPR Workshop (2008).
  22. 22.
    Sutthiwan, P., Ye, J., Shi, Y.Q.: An enhanced statistical approach to identifying photorealistic images. In: Ho, A.T.S., Shi, Yun Q., Kim, H.J., Barni, M. (eds.) IWDW 2009. LNCS, vol. 5703, pp. 323–335. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). Scholar
  23. 23.
    De Rezende, E.R.S., Ruppert, G.C.S., Archer, C.T.I.R.: Exposing computer generated images by using deep convolutional neural networks. In: 30th SIBGRAPI Conference on Graphics, Patterns and Images, pp. 71–78, Niteroi, Brazil (2017)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nguyen, H.H., Nozick, V.: Modular convolutional neural network for discriminating between computer-generated images and photographic images. In: 13th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, Hamburg, Germany (2018)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ng, T., Chang, S.: Classifying photographic and photorealistic computer graphic images using natural image statistics, New York, NY 10027 (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chen, D., Li, J., Wang, S., Li, S.: Identifying computer generated and digital camera images using fractional lower order moments. In: 4th IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications, pp. 230–235 (2009).
  27. 27.
    He, M.: Distinguish computer generated and digital images: a CNN solution. Concurr. Comput. Pract. Exp. 4788, 1–10 (2018). Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yu, I.J., Kim, D.G., Park, J.S., Hou, J.U., Choi, S., Lee, H.K.: Identifying photorealistic computer graphics using convolutional neural networks. In: Proceedings - International Conference on Image Processing, ICIP, pp. 4093–4097 (2018).
  29. 29.
    Wu, R., Li, X., Bin, Y.: Identifying computer generated graphics via histogram features. In: 2011 18th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, pp. 1973–1976 (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang, Y., Moulin, P.: On discrimination between photorealistic and photographic images. In: IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (2006)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chen, Y., Li, Z., Li, M., Ma, W.Y.: Automatic classification of photographs and graphics. In: 2006 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia Expo, ICME 2006 - Proceedings 2006, pp. 973–976 (2006).
  32. 32.
    Chen, W., Shi, Y.Q.: Identifying computer graphics using HSV color model and statistical moments of characteristic functions. In: IEEE International Conference on Multimedia, pp. 1123–1126, Beijing, China (2007).
  33. 33.
    Cui, X., Tong, X., Xuan, G.: Discrimination between photo images and computer graphics based on statistical moments in the frequency domain of histogram. In: Chinese Information Hiding Workshop, Nanjing, China, pp. 276–279 (2007)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sutthiwan, P., Cai, X., Shi, Y.Q., Zhang, H.: Computer graphics classification based on Markov process model and boosting feature selection technique. In: Proceedings - International Conference on Image Process, ICIP, pp. 2913–2916 (2009).
  35. 35.
    Lu, W., Sun, W., Chung, F.L., Lu, H.: Revealing digital fakery using multiresolution decomposition and higher order statistics. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 24, 666–672 (2011). Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bo, X., Junwen, W., Guangjie, L., Yuewei, D.: Photorealistic computer graphics forensics based on leading digit law. J. Electron. 28, 1933–1936 (2011). Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fan, S., Wang, R., Zhang, Y., Guo, K.: Classifying computer generated graphics and natural images based on image contour information. J. Inf. Comput. Sci. 10, 2877–2895 (2012)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Birajdar, G.K., Mankar, V.H.: Computer graphic and photographic image classification using local image descriptors. Def. Sci. J. 67, 654–663 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wang, J., Li, T., Luo, X., Shi, Y., Liu, R., Jha, S.K.: Identifying computer generated images based on quaternion central moments in color quaternion. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol. PP, 1 (2018).
  40. 40.
    Yu, I.-J., Kim, D.-G., Park, J.-S., Hou, J.-U., Choi, S.: Identifying photorealistic computer graphics using convolutional neural networks. In: IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, pp. 4093–4097 (2017)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Deng, L.I.N., Liu, C., Sun, Y.: Photorealistic computer graphics identifying algorithm based on improvement local binary pattern. In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Engineering Applications, pp. 834–838 (2017)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rocha, A., Goldenstein, S.: Is it fake or real? In: Brazilian Symposium Computer Graphics Image Processing (2006)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Li, W., Zhang, T., Zheng, E., Ping, X.: Identifying photorealistic computer graphics using second-order difference statistics. In: International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery, pp. 2316–2319 (2010)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rahmouni, N., et al.: Distinguishing computer graphics from natural images using convolution neural networks. In: 2017 IEEE Workshop on Information Forensics and Security (WIFS), pp. 228–241 (2017)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Athitsos, V., Swain, M.J., Frankel, C.: Distinguishing photographs and graphics on the World Wide Web. In: IEEE Workshop on Content-Based Access Image Video Libraries (1997)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wu, J., Kamath, M.V., Poehlman, S.: Detecting differences between photographs and computer generated images. In: 24th IASTED International Conference on Signal Processing, Pattern Recognition, and Applications, pp. 268–273 (2006)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pan, F., Chen, J., Huang, J.: Discriminating between photorealistic computer graphics and natural images using fractal geometry. Sci. China Ser. F Inf. Sci. 52, 329–337 (2009). Scholar
  48. 48.
    Dang-Nguyen, D.-T., Boato, G., De Natale, F.G.B.: Discrimination between computer generated and natural human faces based on asymmetry information. In: 20th European Signal Processing Conference, pp. 1234–1238, Bucharest, Romania (2012)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zhang, R., Wang, R.-D., Ng, T.-T.: Distinguishing photographic images and photorealistic computer graphics using visual vocabulary on local image edges. In: Shi, Y.Q., Kim, H.-J., Perez-Gonzalez, F. (eds.) IWDW 2011. LNCS, vol. 7128, pp. 292–305. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  50. 50.
    Peng, F., Zhou, D.: Discriminating natural images and computer generated graphics based on the impact of CFA interpolation on the correlation of PRNU. Digit. Investig. 11, 1–9 (2014). Scholar
  51. 51.
    Dehnie, S., Taha, S., Memon, N.: Digital image forensics for identifying computer generated and digital camera images. In: IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, pp. 2313–2316 (2006)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Dirik, A.E., Bayram, S., Memon, N.D.: New features to identify computer generated images. In: International Conference on Image Processing, pp. 2–6 (2007).
  53. 53.
    Khanna, N., Chiu, G.T., Allebach, J.P., Delp, E.J.: Forensic techniques for classifying scanner, computer generated and digital camera images. In: IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pp. 1653– 1656 (2008)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Peng, F., Shi, J., Long, M.: Identifying photographic images and photorealistic computer graphics using multifractal spectrum features of PRNU. In: IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, pp. 1–6 (2014)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Yao, Y., Hu, W.: Distinguishing computer-generated graphics from natural images based on sensor pattern noise and deep learning. Adv. Sens. Pattern Noise Used Multimed. Forensics Count. Forensic 18, 1–11 (2018). Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sankar, G., Zhao, V., Yang, Y.H.: Feature based classification of computer graphics and real images. In: IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech Signal Processing - Proceedings, ICASSP, pp. 1513–1516 (2009).
  57. 57.
    Peng, F., Liu, J., Long, M.: Identification of natural images and computer generated graphics based on hybrid features. Int. J. Digit. Crime Forensics. 4, 1–16 (2012). Scholar
  58. 58.
    Chen, Z.: A novel photographic and computer graphic composites detection method. In: National Conference on Information Technology and Computer Science, pp. 935–938 (2012)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wang, X., Liu, Y., Xu, B., Li, L., Xue, J.: A statistical feature based approach to distinguish PRCG from photographs. Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 128, 84–93 (2014). Scholar
  60. 60.
    Zhang, R., Wang, R.: Distinguishing photorealistic computer graphics from natural images by imaging features and visual features. In: International Conference on Electronics, Communications and Control, pp. 226–229 (2011)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Conotter, V., Cordin, L.: Detecting photographic and computer generated composites. In: SPIE Symposium on Electronic Imaging (2011)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Peng, F., Zhou, D., Long, M., Sun, X.: Discrimination of natural images and computer generated graphics based on multi-fractal and regression analysis. Int. J. Electron. Commun. 71, 72–81 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Pan, F., Huang, J.: Discriminating computer graphics images and natural images using hidden Markov Tree Model. In: Kim, H.-J., Shi, Y.Q., Barni, M. (eds.) IWDW 2010. LNCS, vol. 6526, pp. 23–28. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  64. 64.
    Art-CG gallery database.
  65. 65.
    Piaskiewicz, M.: Level-design reference database.
  66. 66.
    Dang-Nguyen, D., Pasquini, C., Conotter, V.: Raise: a raw images dataset for digital image forensics. In: 6th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference, pp. 219–224 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jaypee University of Engineering and TechnologyRaghogarh, GunaIndia

Personalised recommendations