2018
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-00692-1_41
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Digital Image Forensics Technique for Copy-Move Forgery Detection Using DoG and ORB

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
8
1
Order By: Relevance
“…DoG and ORB are two widely used techniques to automatically detect copy–move manipulation in photos. This method was suggested by Niyishaka et al [ 32 ] and comprises three steps: corners detection with Sobel algorithm [ 33 ]; features extraction with DoG and ORB [ 32 , 34 ]; and, finally, features correspondence. This method combines detection techniques based on blocks and key points in a single model.…”
Section: Literature Review and State Of The Artmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…DoG and ORB are two widely used techniques to automatically detect copy–move manipulation in photos. This method was suggested by Niyishaka et al [ 32 ] and comprises three steps: corners detection with Sobel algorithm [ 33 ]; features extraction with DoG and ORB [ 32 , 34 ]; and, finally, features correspondence. This method combines detection techniques based on blocks and key points in a single model.…”
Section: Literature Review and State Of The Artmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The corresponding mean scores obtained with the 10-fold crossvalidation are also indicated. The results obtained show a mean F1-score above 99.52%, which outperforms the state-of-the-art documented work [2]. The mean value obtained for accuracy (A) is 99.52%, which surpasses the result of 93.52% achieved in [2].…”
Section: Technical Validationmentioning
confidence: 56%
“…The results obtained show a mean F1-score above 99.52%, which outperforms the state-of-the-art documented work [2]. The mean value obtained for accuracy (A) is 99.52%, which surpasses the result of 93.52% achieved in [2]. The number of incorrectly classified examples, namely FP and FN, is low, having a mean value of 7 and 12, respectively.…”
Section: Technical Validationmentioning
confidence: 65%
See 2 more Smart Citations