The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Physics-motivated features for distinguishing photographic images and computer graphics
Abstract
The increasing photorealism for computer graphics has made computer graphics a convincing form of image forgery. Therefore, classifying photographic images and photorealistic computer graphics has become an important problem for image forgery detection. In this paper, we propose a new geometry-based image model, motivated by the physical image generation process, to tackle the above-mentioned problem. The proposed model reveals certain physical differences between the two image categories, such as the gamma correction in photographic images and the sharp structures in computer graphics. For the problem of image forgery detection, we propose two levels of image authenticity definition, i.e., imaging-process authenticity and scene authenticity, and analyze our technique against these definitions. Such definition is important for making the concept of image authenticity computable. Apart from offering physical insights, our technique with a classification accuracy of 83.5% outperforms those in the prior work, i.e., wavelet features at 80.3% and cartoon features at 71.0%. We also consider a recapturing attack scenario and propose a counter-attack measure. In addition, we constructed a publicly available benchmark dataset with images of diverse content and computer graphics of high photorealism.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Nonlinear Statistics of High-Contrast Patches in Natural Images
Lee, A. B., Pedersen, K. S., & Mumford, D. (2003) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1023/a:1023705401078 · Cited by 234
Cited by
Detecting Image Splicing using Geometry Invariants and Camera Characteristics Consistency
Hsu, Y.-F., & Chang, S.-F. (2006) · 2006 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo · doi:10.1109/icme.2006.262447 · Cited by 434
Self-citationInformation Forensics: An Overview of the First Decade
Stamm, M. C., Wu, M., & Liu, K. J. R. (2013) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2013.2260814 · Cited by 394
Robust Detection of Region-Duplication Forgery in Digital Image
Luo, W., Huang, J., & Qiu, G. (2006) · 18th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR'06) · doi:10.1109/icpr.2006.1003 · Cited by 299
Exploiting Prediction Error Inconsistencies through LSTM-based Classifiers to Detect Deepfake Videos
Amerini, I., & Caldelli, R. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Workshop on Information Hiding and Multimedia Security · doi:10.1145/3369412.3395070 · Cited by 64
Anti-forensics of median filtering and contrast enhancement
Sharma, S., Ravi, H., Subramanyam, A. V., & Emmanuel, S. (2020) · Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation · doi:10.1016/j.jvcir.2019.102682 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Ng, T.-T., Chang, S.-F., Hsu, J., Xie, L., & Tsui, M.-P.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 13th annual ACM international conference on Multimedia
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2005-11-06
- Pages
- 239-248
- OpenAlex
- W2062503914
- Cited by
- 188
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.03
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Physics-motivated features for distinguishing photographic images and computer graphics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1101149.1101192
- The paper
- Ng, T.-T., Chang, S.-F., Hsu, J., Xie, L., & Tsui, M.-P. (2005). Physics-motivated features for distinguishing photographic images and computer graphics. Proceedings of the 13th annual ACM international conference on Multimedia. https://doi.org/10.1145/1101149.1101192
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.