2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.inffus.2005.09.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Genetic perceptual shaping: Utilizing cover image and conceivable attack information during watermark embedding

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
25
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 72 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The requirements for fulfilling desired characteristics and for succeeding against attacks are mutually conflicting [Heileman et al 1999;Servette et al 1998]. Several benchmark suites for testing performance robustness that combine many possible attacks into a unified framework are available [Voloshynovskiy et al 2001;Guitart et al 2006;Khan and Mirza 2007;Kutter and Petitcolas 1999].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The requirements for fulfilling desired characteristics and for succeeding against attacks are mutually conflicting [Heileman et al 1999;Servette et al 1998]. Several benchmark suites for testing performance robustness that combine many possible attacks into a unified framework are available [Voloshynovskiy et al 2001;Guitart et al 2006;Khan and Mirza 2007;Kutter and Petitcolas 1999].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The basic principle is to evolve a population of potential embedding parameters through time using a mix of robustness and quality metrics as objective function [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. Genetic programming has also been proposed in a similar context [18]. Such EC-based approaches are not feasible in high data rate applications because of their high computational cost [10], mainly because the optimization of a single image may require hundreds of thousands of embedding and detection operations [12][13][14].…”
Section: Page 2 Of 33mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a watermarking system, there is an intrinsic relationship between three of its contradicting attributes: (1) robustness, (2) imperceptibility, and (3) capacity. Imperceptibility means that the watermarked data should be perceptually equivalent to the original data.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Imperceptibility means that the watermarked data should be perceptually equivalent to the original data. On the other hand, robustness means that the watermark should be undetectable, unless that damages the usefulness of the original data [2]. Capacity refers to the maximum length of the message that can be hidden in the host image.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%