Digital Photos Give Away a Camera's Make and Model 260
holy_calamity writes "Engineers at Polytechnic University Brooklyn have discovered that digital snaps shorn of any metadata still reveal the make and model of camera used to take them. It is possible to work backwards from the relationships of neighboring pixel values in a shot to identify the model-specific demosaicing algorithm that combines red, green, and blue pixels on the sensor into color image pixels. Forensics teams are already licking their chops."
Really... (Score:2, Funny)
All the more reason to use film.
Meta data? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So What? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What about multiple cameras using the same sens (Score:4, Funny)
Re:stretch? (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe so, but you still have the full size images on the camera. If someone were to get a hold of that they would be able to tell what camera took the images after a few weeks of intensive forensic study.
Re:stretch? (Score:1, Funny)
Troll? If they get a hold of the camera with the photos on it, they would already know what camera took the photos. Plus they would have all the meta data in the photos themselves. This technique is only useful when said exif meta-data is removed. Usually some post-processing is also performed at the same time if someone goes to the effort to remove this data.
Re:So What? (Score:2, Funny)
And you know that 1x1 pixel is all the evidence we need. You see, that pixel represents a single atom, which has bands of electrons, each with distinct spins, each of those with unique quantum signatures all the way up to other dimensions in other universes, all tied together with string theory back to the original untouched photograph.
You may sign the confession now or we will get a court order to further examine the evidence...
Re:stretch? (Score:5, Funny)
Joke------>
You
Re:stretch? (Score:1, Funny)
Yikes.
Re:stretch? (Score:1, Funny)
I got trolled :( Nonetheless, you could argue that the originals would still be stored somewhere prior to post-processing. And if they got a hold of that as opposed to the camera itself this technique may still be useful. But in such a case, the meta-data would typically still be in-tact as well. And the place in which it is stored would be a fair indicator of the camera used.
Re:So What? (Score:5, Funny)
A bank robber with THAT description really would stand out.
Hardly any of them look like that from what I see on TV.
Re:What about multiple cameras using the same sens (Score:4, Funny)
Ahh... That must of been you I saw at the park!
Good Gawd man, the poor lady didn't know what to think, haveing a bald, fat, nude man run up and take her holiday snap like that!
You left so sudden, she didn't get your number. For the picture, I believe.
Cherios....
Re:Oh my! (Score:3, Funny)
I better sell my Nikon D300.
Showoff!
Re:So What? (Score:3, Funny)
"Chief! We only got a 1x1 pixel area of the jpeg of the criminal!" "Okay take it downstairs to Abby and McGeek to check it out".
[Wiggly Lines]
"Yeah Chiefy it was pretty easy. We zoomed in on the 1x1 pixel image and we got this picture of the criminal which was inside there. And we got the model of camera he used too, an Motorola RAZR Smartphone." "Yeah Chief, there's only been ninety jillion RAZR phones made, so we hashed the 1x1 pixel image and got the phone's SIM number out of it. It's him all right. Science never fails. We get the criminal every time, just like in real life." "Good work Abbs, have a cookie. And McGeek, get a haircut, you look like a hippy." "Thanks Chief". [Exeunt all, Abby munching cookie]
Re:They're after you (Score:3, Funny)
You'll have to tell us who he is so we can be sure not to let him hear.
Re:So What? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:stretch? (Score:5, Funny)
Eric: Horatio, there does not look like there is any mosaicing information in this image.
Horatio: Eric, that means the image was taken with a camera with a Foveon X3 sensor.
Cally: Zeroing in on professional camera stores... I have an address
Horatio (menacingly): Eric, get on it.
Where's my CSI: Miami royalty check?
Re:stretch? (Score:2, Funny)
Half assed? You continued a joke without adding anything to it, and followed it up with a kinda sarcastic reply which reduces the chances that a reader would even recognize your joke.
That's not even a quarter-assed attempt. I'd put it somewhere in the neighborhood of 12.5% of an assed attempt.
Re:Raw images? (Score:3, Funny)
I'm never drinking Mountain Dew again.
Re:Raw images? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm never drinking Mountain Dew again.
And you're probably better off. I think Mountain Dew is the byproduct of people who never quite realized that you can't make soda from pee... Well, unless you're NASA I suppose...
-Taylor
the other way around (Score:2, Funny)
Its only matter of time before someone thinks up a way to manipulate an image such that it appears to be made with some camera and lens, and then this technology may be used to frame (haha) innocent people.
Re:Oh my! (Score:0, Funny)
Or talking about owning a Canon.
Re:stretch? (Score:4, Funny)
Seriously if you carried a suspect image around on a different camera you could now call an expert witness to show that it was not taken on this camera - and since the only other people who had access to the camera were the police it must be a frame.
Commonly called a "picture frame" I believe.
Re:stretch? (Score:2, Funny)
Ah, Slashdot, where the severely autistic come to get mocked by the high-functioning autistic.
Re:stretch? (Score:5, Funny)
You forgot the obligatory
Horatio: It looks like this photographer captured... himself
[Horatio puts sunglasses on over existing sunglasses]
[music: Yeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh]
Re:stretch? (Score:2, Funny)
I want to take back all the mod points I've ever received, and put them all on this post. Well done.
Re:Oh my! (Score:3, Funny)
so,
note to self:
for ransom photos buy a low-end point and shoot, pay cash, toss it in the fire/ocean/whatever when done.
-nB
Re:Even after image manipulation? (Score:2, Funny)