sonradan photoshop ile eklenmis gibi duran ama aslinda gercek olma ihtimali photoshoptan daha yuksek olan yilan.
jpegsnoop'tan
exif header'a bakinca cikan bilgilerden bir kismi.
sw :[adobe photoshop 7.0 ] [save as 07 ]
sw :[apple quicktime ] [0466-0467 ]
sw :[digital photo professiona] [05 ]
photoshop sadece sikistirmak
* amacli kullanilmis olabilir.
10 tane forgery detection algoritmasiyla detect etmeye calistim, hicbirinde forgery'ye rastlanmadi.
alg1alg2alg3alg4alg5kullandigim forgery detection algoritmalari asagida:
`fast, automatic and fine-grained tampered jpeg image detection via dct coefficient analysis.`
`passive detection of doctored jpeg image via block artifact grid extraction.`
`content-aware detection of jpeg grid ınconsistencies for ıntuitive ımage forensics`
`ımage forgery localization via fine-grained analysis of cfa artifacts`
`ımage tamper detection based on demosaicing artifacts.`
`detecting digital image forgeries by measuring inconsistencies of blocking artifact`
`a pictures worth- digital ımage analysis and forensics`
exposing digital forgeries from jpeg ghosts`using noise inconsistencies for blind image forensics`
`exposing region splicing forgeries with blind local noise estimation`
daha iyi bileniniz varsa, bilgilendirirse sevinirim.
bu analiz, gercek oldugu anlamina gelmiyor, sadece gercek degilse bu 10 tane algoritmayi asmasi sasirtici.
olmasi gereken soyle bir seydi:
tamper1tamper2tamper3tanim: deli mi saapti da 1 saat ugrastim dedirten fotograf.