2019
DOI: 10.9781/ijimai.2018.08.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Detecting Image Brush Editing Using the Discarded Coefficients and Intentions

Abstract: This paper describes a quick and simple method to detect brush editing in JPEG images. The novelty of the proposed method is based on detecting the discarded coefficients during the quantization of the image. Another novelty of this paper is the development of a subjective metric named intentions. The method directly analyzes the allegedly tampered image and generates a forgery mask indicating forgery evidence for each image block. The experiments show that our method works especially well in detecting brush s… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 43 publications
(55 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The second article describes a work of F. López Hernández, L. dela-Fuente Valentín and I. Sarría Martínez de Mendivil [2] about a quick and simple method to detect brush editing in images, which can be used in image-tampering detection tools. Their two main contributions are: the design of a new approach to detect brush editing and the algorithm of the filter that detects this editing; and the introduction of intentions as subjective metric, in contrast to other classical objective forgery metrics.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The second article describes a work of F. López Hernández, L. dela-Fuente Valentín and I. Sarría Martínez de Mendivil [2] about a quick and simple method to detect brush editing in images, which can be used in image-tampering detection tools. Their two main contributions are: the design of a new approach to detect brush editing and the algorithm of the filter that detects this editing; and the introduction of intentions as subjective metric, in contrast to other classical objective forgery metrics.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%