2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.image.2012.12.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A novel chaos-based fragile watermarking for image tampering detection and self-recovery

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
57
0
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 103 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
1
57
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…(1) For the blocks whose 2 LSBs are embedded by 8 bits watermark information, the expectation value of MSE is 1.5 2 , then the PSNR's expectation can be computed by: PSNR = 10 log 10 ( 255 2 1.5 2 ) = 44.61 (dB), (12) (2) For the blocks whose 3 LSBs are embedded by 12 bits watermark information, the expectation value of MSE is 3.5 2 , then the PSNR's expectation is calculated by: PSNR = 10 log 10 ( 255 2 3.5 2 ) = 37.25 (dB), (13) In practical application, if the PSNR value of a processed image is larger than 35 dB, people cannot tell the difference between the original image and its processed version. Table 2 gives the analysis of watermark imperceptibility for the test images shown in Figure 5.…”
Section: Imperceptibility Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…(1) For the blocks whose 2 LSBs are embedded by 8 bits watermark information, the expectation value of MSE is 1.5 2 , then the PSNR's expectation can be computed by: PSNR = 10 log 10 ( 255 2 1.5 2 ) = 44.61 (dB), (12) (2) For the blocks whose 3 LSBs are embedded by 12 bits watermark information, the expectation value of MSE is 3.5 2 , then the PSNR's expectation is calculated by: PSNR = 10 log 10 ( 255 2 3.5 2 ) = 37.25 (dB), (13) In practical application, if the PSNR value of a processed image is larger than 35 dB, people cannot tell the difference between the original image and its processed version. Table 2 gives the analysis of watermark imperceptibility for the test images shown in Figure 5.…”
Section: Imperceptibility Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Besides, we compare the presented method with other two self-recovery fragile watermarking methods in [13,25]. Reference [13] is a watermarking scheme with a fixed watermark capacity, and reference [25] is variable capacity watermarking scheme. Figure 6 shows the performance of tamper detection and recovery for text addition attacks.…”
Section: Performance Of Tamper Detection and Self-recoverymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A set of minute changes can inadvertently modify it. The key objective of providing sensitivity is established by using stipulated procedures like the ones used in [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. Authors in ref.…”
Section: Fragile Watermarkingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Authors in ref. [5,9] highlight chaotic maps which themselves by property are sensitive to certain initial values manipulated on them, thereby providing fragility. Wei-Che Chen, MingShi Wang in [6], describe a fuzzy c-means clustering, wherein fuzzy constraints defined over certain range of pixel bound to unique clusters initiating sensitivity factor.…”
Section: Fragile Watermarkingmentioning
confidence: 99%