Loading analysis, please wait.....
Double Quantization analysis detects the traces left by consecutive JPEG compressions on an image. When a spliced region from one image is inserted into another, if the compression histories of the two images differ, the discrepancy may be detected by this algorithm. A typical case of forgery that is detectable by this algorithm is when an item is taken from an image of high quality (or an uncompressed image, or an image that had its past JPEG traces destroyed by scaling/filtering) and placed in an image of lower quality. If the resulting spliced image is then saved as at a high quality, this should result in a successful detection. In the output map, red values (=1) correspond to high probability of a single compression for the corresponding block, while low values (=0) correspond to low probability of single compression. Localized red areas in an otherwise blue image are very likely to contain splices. Images with non-localized high values and values in the range (0.2-0.8) (green/yellow/orange) should not be taken into account.
For more details, see: Lin, Zhouchen, Junfeng He, Xiaoou Tang, and Chi-Keung Tang. "Fast, automatic and fine-grained tampered JPEG image detection via DCT coefficient analysis." Pattern Recognition 42, no. 11 (2009): 2492-2501.
×JPEG ghosts are based on the premise that, when a splice is taken from a JPEG image and placed in another one of different quality, traces of the original JPEG compression are carried over. In order to detect them, the image is recompressed in all possible quality levels, and each result is subtracted from the original. If the image contains a splice, a "Ghost" (i.e. a gap) should appear at the quality level that the splice was originally compressed. In reality, Ghosts often appear as regions of high difference, in contrast to the rest of the image. This approach is vulnerable to variations in image content, as high localized differences due to edges will appear at various quality levels. However, an entire localized region -corresponding to a scene object- that stands out in contrast to the entire rest of the image, is a very strong indicator of tampering. As the algorithm outputs a large number of result maps, we only display those having a high probability of containing meaningful results. Still, it is almost certain that only a subset of all the maps displayed for a single image will contain any useful information.
For more details, see: Farid, Hany. "Exposing digital forgeries from JPEG ghosts." Information Forensics and Security, IEEE Transactions on 4, no. 1 (2009): 154-160.
×JPEG blocking artifact inconsistencies are traces left when tampering JPEG images by splicing, copy-moving or inpainting. JPEG compression is based on a non-overlapping grid of adjacent blocks of 8×8 pixels. Any part of an image that has undergone at least one JPEG compression carries a blocking trace of this dimension, and its presence is stronger at lower JPEG qualities. When performing any forgery, it is highly likely that the 8×8 grid of the spliced or moved area will misalign with the rest of the image and leave a visible trace. The outputs of this algorithm are often noisy, and are occasionally activated by high-variance image content, so an investigator should look for inconsistencies in regions that should be uniform. In the third ȐDetectionsȑ example, the high values around the keyboard keys are to be expected due to the sharp edges. The discontinuities in the areas around the lower post-it, the upper badge and the upper marker, on the other hand, cannot be attributed to image content, as they occur in the middle of the (uniform) table surface. Thus, they have to be attributed to alterations of the image content.
For more details, see: Li, Weihai, Yuan Yuan, and Nenghai Yu. "Passive detection of doctored JPEG image via block artifact grid extraction." Signal Processing 89, no. 9 (2009): 1821-1829.
×Error Level Analysis is based on a technique very similar to JPEG Ghosts, that is the subtraction of a recompressed JPEG version of the suspect image from the image itself. In contrast to JPEG Ghosts, only a single version of the image is subtracted -in our case, of quality 75. Furthermore, while the output of JPEG Ghosts is normalized and filtered to enhance local effects, ELA output is returned to the user as-is. The assumption is that, when subtracting a recompressed version of the image from itself, regions that have undergone fewer (or less disruptive, higher-quality) compressions will yield a higher residual. When interpreted by an analyst, areas of interest are those that return higher values than other similar parts of the image. It is important to remember that only similar regions should be compared, i.e. edges should be compared to edges, and uniform regions should be compared to uniform regions.
For more details, see: http://fotoforensics.com/tutorial-ela.php
×Median Noise Residuals operate based on the observation that different images feature different high-frequency noise patterns. To isolate noise, we apply median filtering on the image and then subtract the filtered result from the original image. As the median-filtered image contains the low-frequency content of the image, the residue will contain the high-frequency content. The output maps should be interpreted by a rationale similar to Error Level Analysis, i.e. if regions of similar content feature different intensity residue, it is likely that the region originates from a different image source. As noise is generally an unreliable estimator of tampering, this algorithm should best be used to confirm the output of other descriptors, rather than as an independent detector.
For more details, see: https://29a.ch/2015/08/21/noise-analysis-for-image-forensics
×High-frequency noise patterns can be used for splicing detection, as the local noise variance of an image is often unique and distinctive. This method detects the local variance of high-frequency information on an image. In the resulting output maps, whether values are high or low is irrelevant. What is significant is the presence of localized consistent differences in noise variance values. Since high-frequency noise can be affected by the image content, comparisons should be made between visually similar areas (e.g. edges to edges, smooth areas to smooth areas). Methods based on noise patterns are not particularly precise, and unless extremely clear patterns appear, this algorithm should be used in conjunction with other detectors.
For more details, see: Mahdian, Babak, and Stanislav Saic. "Using noise inconsistencies for blind image forensics." Image and Vision Computing 27, no. 10 (2009): 1497-1503.
×JPEG Blocking artifacts appear as a regular pattern of visible block boundaries in a JPEG compressed image, as a result of the quantization of the coefficients and the independent processing of the non-overlapping 8x8 blocks, during the DCT Transform. CAGI locates grid alignment abnormalities in a JPEG compressed image bitmap, as an indicator of possible forgery. Multiple grid positions are investigated in order to maximize a fitting function. Areas of lower contribution are recognized as grid discontinuities (possible tampering). An image segmentation step is introduced to differentiate between discontinuities produced by tampering and those that are attributed to image content, clearing the output maps by suppressing non-relevant activations. The higher readability of the maps comes with a cost in the form of coarser-grained detection results, more so for low resolution images. CAGI-Inversed accounts for tampering scenarios where the discontinuities appear as areas of averagely higher contribution. The suppression of non-relevant activations is inversed during the image segmentation step, and an alternative output maps is produced. The user can then estimate the most appropriate output based on visual inspection.
Input
CAGI
CAGI-Inversed
Input
CAGI
CAGI-Inversed
Input
CAGI
CAGI-Inversed
JPEG Blocking artifacts appear as a regular pattern of visible block boundaries in a JPEG compressed image, as a result of the quantization of the coefficients and the independent processing of the non-overlapping 8x8 blocks, during the DCT Transform. CAGI locates grid alignment abnormalities in a JPEG compressed image bitmap, as an indicator of possible forgery. Multiple grid positions are investigated in order to maximize a fitting function. Areas of lower contribution are recognized as grid discontinuities (possible tampering). An image segmentation step is introduced to differentiate between discontinuities produced by tampering and those that are attributed to image content, clearing the output maps by suppressing non-relevant activations. The higher readability of the maps comes with a cost in the form of coarser-grained detection results, more so for low resolution images. CAGI-Inversed accounts for tampering scenarios where the discontinuities appear as areas of averagely higher contribution. The suppression of non-relevant activations is inversed during the image segmentation step, and an alternative output maps is produced. The user can then estimate the most appropriate output based on visual inspection.
Input
CAGI
CAGI-Inversed
Input
CAGI
CAGI-Inversed
Input
CAGI
CAGI-Inversed
This is a deep learning approach on copy-move forgery detection. This approch aims to highlight the copied and the correspoding original region with high values and the rest with low values.
×The DCT algorithm operates on JPEG files. Tampered areas should appear as high values on a low-valued background. Usually, if medium-valued regions are present, then no conclusion can be made.
×Mantra-Net is a deep learning approach for forgery manipulation detection. It shows regions which it believes are forged. However, in the absence of automatic analysis of the results, visual interpretation is needed to distinguish true detections from noise.
×Each image carries invisible noise as a result of the image processing pipeline. Residual noise is estimated and then used to extract features. Regions having different features than the rest of the image are pointed as suspicious. Due to the normalization, there will always be at least one pixel at a high value even on an authentic image. Furthermore, care should be taken analyzing saturated regions; when those are not automatically masked by the algorithm they may be detected as forgeries even when they are authentic.
×Due to the design of each particular camera, traces are left on every captured image. These traces are a sort of camera fingerprint. This method extracts this fingerprint and detects regions where this fingerprint is inconsistant with the rest of the image. Care should be taken analysing saturated regions, which tend to produce false positives when they are not automatically masked by the algorithm.
×The OMGFuser algorithm detects regions of the image that have been visually altered. It provides a forgery localization mask, that highlights in red color the altered regions, while the authentic ones are highlighted in blue. Furthermore, it provides an overall forgery probability for the image, that indicates whether some of its parts have been forged. To achieve this, it combines the outputs of multiple AI-based filters that analyze different low-level traces of the image, using a novel deep-learning framework, thus greatly reducing the amount of false-positives. OMGFuser is currently in an experimental release stage.
×The MM-Fusion algorithm detects regions of the image that have been visually altered. It provides a forgery localization mask, that highlights in red color the altered regions, while the authentic ones are highlighted in blue. To achieve this it combines the output of several noise-sensitive filters, in order to capture different traces left by the manipulation operations.
Related paper: Triaridis, K., & Mezaris, V. (2023). Exploring Multi-Modal Fusion for Image Manipulation Detection and Localization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.01790.
The development of this model was supported by the EU's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement H2020-101021866 CRiTERIA.
×The TruFor The algorithm detects regions of the image that have been visually altered. It provides a forgery localization mask, that highlights in red color the altered regions, while the authentic ones are highlighted in blue. Furthermore, it provides an overall forgery probability for the image, that indicates whether some parts have been forged. To achieve this it utilizes a novel AI-based filter, called Noiseprint++, that captures the detail of the noise pattern in different regions of the image.
Related paper: Guillaro, F., Cozzolino, D., Sud, A., Dufour, N., & Verdoliva, L. (2023). TruFor: Leveraging all-round clues for trustworthy image forgery detection and localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 20606-20615).
×OW-Fusion is a deep learning based approach that combines multiple forensic filters and provides a overall localization. Tampered areas should appear as high values on a low-valued background.
×
Delete uploaded image and results
Generating PDF...
