2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.diin.2014.03.016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A passive approach for effective detection and localization of region-level video forgery with spatio-temporal coherence analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
44
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 65 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
44
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The performance of the proposed technique is compared with techniques proposed in [27], [30] and [43]. These selected techniques are considered because of their popularity and average performance rate of 96.61, 93.40 and 97.52 respectively for video inpainting forgery detection over the years.…”
Section: Comparison With Other Detection Techniquesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The performance of the proposed technique is compared with techniques proposed in [27], [30] and [43]. These selected techniques are considered because of their popularity and average performance rate of 96.61, 93.40 and 97.52 respectively for video inpainting forgery detection over the years.…”
Section: Comparison With Other Detection Techniquesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An improvement on the work of [42] was presented in [43] by automatically locating the exact region of tampering in a 3D video. The technique detects and locate tampered region in a video from inpainting using spatio-temporal slicing and coherence analysis (STCA).…”
Section: Video Inpaintingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In [87], the authors proposed an approach for detecting and localizing region-level forgeries in videos. The approach was designed to detect irregularities caused by inpainting in spatio-temporal coherence between consecutive frames.…”
Section: Pixel-similarity and Correlation Analysis-based Techniquesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We analyzed the performances of the following copy-paste detection techniques: the noise-based approaches proposed in [38,82], the noise and quantization residue-based scheme of [84], motion-residue-based approach proposed in [86], the pixel-coherence analysis technique 2 suggested in [87], the object-based technique suggested in [94], and the optical-flow-based method proposed in [98]. Table 2 presents a comparative summary of the outcomes, as a function of various compression quality factors (QF) and bitrates.…”
Section: Comparative Analysis Of Copy-paste Forgery Detection Techniquesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such approaches are utilized to detect any unauthorized manipulation performed either at intra-frame level or at inter-frame level. Forgery performed at intra-frame level manipulates a frame at pixel level, object level [6], [7] or at entire frame level [8]. On the other hand, Inter-frame tampering can be performed by mere removal [9], insertion [10] and/or replication [11] of a frame or set of frames to/from a video.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%