Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Digital Noise Links Image to Camera

Reply
Thread Tools

Digital Noise Links Image to Camera

 
 
fishfry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2006
Interesting! They can use the noise in an image to id the exact camera
the image came from.


http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs...noise_tec.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2006
hey thats good. Now when some pornographer
uses a Rebel XT to take pictures, they'll have only
about 5 million suspects instead of 7 million!!!!

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
RW+/-
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2006
On 6 May 2006 19:47:12 -0700, Rich wrote:

> hey thats good. Now when some pornographer
> uses a Rebel XT to take pictures, they'll have only
> about 5 million suspects instead of 7 million!!!!


LOL, good one Rich.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mxsmanic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2006
fishfry writes:

> Interesting! They can use the noise in an image to id the exact camera
> the image came from.
>
> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs...noise_tec.html


No surprise here. It's roughly the same as identifying a gun by the
marks it makes on a bullet, and of comparable utility and reliability.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bryan Olson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2006
fishfry wrote:
> Interesting! They can use the noise in an image to id the
> exact camera the image came from.
>
> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs...noise_tec.html


I've heard of similar research, and I always think about
working the other side to beat these techniques. If they
can profile my camera, so can I. If there's a consistent
patter, I ought to be able to correct for it. Then if I
have access to a bunch of photos from some other camera,
I ought to be able to develop a profile and add that
camera's noise pattern in.

How odd: the review sample lent to bobs-digital-cameras.com
also photographed all this porn.


--
--Bryan
 
Reply With Quote
 
Marvin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2006
fishfry wrote:
> Interesting! They can use the noise in an image to id the exact camera
> the image came from.
>
>
> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs...noise_tec.html


My remarks apply only to the news item. I haven't read the
eoriginal publication.

By technical definition, noise is random. Therefore, noise
in a camera does not repeat from photo to photo. There are
irregularities in the sensor response that, in a good
camera, are mapped and corrected by software. Some
irregularities may not be corrected so well that they don't
affect the image. I'd be surprised if, except in exceptional
cases, the residual irregularites can be separated from the
image and the true noise.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mxsmanic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2006
Marvin writes:

> By technical definition, noise is random. Therefore, noise
> in a camera does not repeat from photo to photo.


Noise can be consistent from one photo to the next when it is due to
random, permanent defects in the sensor or in other parts of the
camera (usually the sensor, though).

> There are irregularities in the sensor response that, in a good
> camera, are mapped and corrected by software.


They cannot be corrected, they can only be masked. Masking them won't
prevent them from being used for identification.

> Some irregularities may not be corrected so well that they don't
> affect the image.


That isn't possible. Defects always degrade the image.

> I'd be surprised if, except in exceptional
> cases, the residual irregularites can be separated from the
> image and the true noise.


I'd be surprised if they couldn't. It's not rocket science.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2006
Marvin <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>fishfry wrote:
>> Interesting! They can use the noise in an image to id the
>> exact camera the image came
>> from. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs...noise_tec.html

>
>My remarks apply only to the news item. I haven't read the
>eoriginal publication.
>
>By technical definition, noise is random.


A false premise that invalidates your entire statement.

>Therefore, noise in a
>camera does not repeat from photo to photo. There are
>irregularities in the sensor response that, in a good camera,
>are mapped and corrected by software. Some irregularities may
>not be corrected so well that they don't affect the image. I'd
>be surprised if, except in exceptional cases, the residual
>irregularites can be separated from the image and the true noise.


--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Noise Reduction software (Neat Image, Noise Ninja, etc.) John Navas Digital Photography 0 10-19-2007 03:22 PM
Nikon D80 Digital Camera Daytime Image Noise Tests Wayne J. Cosshall Digital Photography 0 08-20-2007 01:26 AM
Nikon D80 Digital Camera Dark Frame Image Noise Tests Wayne J. Cosshall Digital Photography 1 08-15-2007 12:36 AM
Nikon D80 Digital Camera Night Image Noise Tests Wayne J. Cosshall Digital Photography 0 08-11-2007 12:52 AM
Non-noise words are incorrectly recognised as noise words. Peter Strĝiman ASP .Net 1 08-23-2005 01:26 PM



Advertisments