Copyright Protection of Images Based on Large-Scale Image Recognition Koichi Kise, Satoshi Yokota, Akira Shiozaki Osaka Prefecture University.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints
Advertisements

Object Recognition using Local Descriptors Javier Ruiz-del-Solar, and Patricio Loncomilla Center for Web Research Universidad de Chile.
Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints David Lowe.
Aggregating local image descriptors into compact codes
Presented by Xinyu Chang
Summary of Friday A homography transforms one 3d plane to another 3d plane, under perspective projections. Those planes can be camera imaging planes or.
A NOVEL LOCAL FEATURE DESCRIPTOR FOR IMAGE MATCHING Heng Yang, Qing Wang ICME 2008.
Object Recognition using Invariant Local Features Applications l Mobile robots, driver assistance l Cell phone location or object recognition l Panoramas,
Image alignment Image from
IBBT – Ugent – Telin – IPI Dimitri Van Cauwelaert A study of the 2D - SIFT algorithm Dimitri Van Cauwelaert.
T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A November 2005Analysis of Attacks on Common Watermarking Techniques 1 A study on the robustness.
Object Recognition with Invariant Features n Definition: Identify objects or scenes and determine their pose and model parameters n Applications l Industrial.
Fast High-Dimensional Feature Matching for Object Recognition David Lowe Computer Science Department University of British Columbia.
Effective Image Database Search via Dimensionality Reduction Anders Bjorholm Dahl and Henrik Aanæs IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision.
Robust and large-scale alignment Image from
Fifth International Conference on Information
A Study of Approaches for Object Recognition
Pattern Recognition Topic 1: Principle Component Analysis Shapiro chap
Object Recognition with Invariant Features n Definition: Identify objects or scenes and determine their pose and model parameters n Applications l Industrial.
Distinctive Image Feature from Scale-Invariant KeyPoints
Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. David G. Lowe, Int. Journal of Computer Vision, 60, 2 (2004), pp Presented by: Shalomi.
Scale Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT)
1 Invariant Local Feature for Object Recognition Presented by Wyman 2/05/2006.
Automatic Image Alignment (feature-based) : Computational Photography Alexei Efros, CMU, Fall 2006 with a lot of slides stolen from Steve Seitz and.
Predicting Matchability - CVPR 2014 Paper -
Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints David G. Lowe – IJCV 2004 Brien Flewelling CPSC 643 Presentation 1.
Sebastian Thrun CS223B Computer Vision, Winter Stanford CS223B Computer Vision, Winter 2005 Lecture 3 Advanced Features Sebastian Thrun, Stanford.
FLANN Fast Library for Approximate Nearest Neighbors
Right Protection via Watermarking with Provable Preservation of Distance-based Mining Spyros Zoumpoulis Joint work with Michalis Vlachos, Nick Freris and.
Digital Signal Processing Final Project Proposal R 資工碩一 馬智釗 Reference : “Rotation, scale, and translation resilient digital watermarking based.
Large-Scale Content-Based Image Retrieval Project Presentation CMPT 880: Large Scale Multimedia Systems and Cloud Computing Under supervision of Dr. Mohamed.
Image Based Positioning System Ankit Gupta Rahul Garg Ryan Kaminsky.
What Is the Most Efficient Way to Select Nearest Neighbor Candidates for Fast Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search? Masakazu Iwamura, Tomokazu Sato and.
Final Exam Review CS485/685 Computer Vision Prof. Bebis.
Internet-scale Imagery for Graphics and Vision James Hays cs195g Computational Photography Brown University, Spring 2010.
Oriented Local Binary Patterns for Offline Writer Identification
Hurieh Khalajzadeh Mohammad Mansouri Mohammad Teshnehlab
Thái Chí Minh Trần Lương Khiêm 1. Content  Introduction  History  Applications  Requirements  Techniques  Attacks 2.
A Statistical Approach to Speed Up Ranking/Re-Ranking Hong-Ming Chen Advisor: Professor Shih-Fu Chang.
80 million tiny images: a large dataset for non-parametric object and scene recognition CS 4763 Multimedia Systems Spring 2008.
Features-based Object Recognition P. Moreels, P. Perona California Institute of Technology.
Radoslav Forgáč, Igor Mokriš Pulse Coupled Neural Network Models for Dimension Reduction of Classification Space Institute of Informatics Slovak Academy.
CVPR 2003 Tutorial Recognition and Matching Based on Local Invariant Features David Lowe Computer Science Department University of British Columbia.
Dengsheng Zhang and Melissa Chen Yi Lim
A NOVEL METHOD FOR COLOR FACE RECOGNITION USING KNN CLASSIFIER
A Tutorial on using SIFT Presented by Jimmy Huff (Slightly modified by Josiah Yoder for Winter )
Lecture 5: Image Interpolation and Features
Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints
Scale Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT)
Presented by David Lee 3/20/2006
An Improved Approach For Image Matching Using Principle Component Analysis(PCA An Improved Approach For Image Matching Using Principle Component Analysis(PCA.
776 Computer Vision Jan-Michael Frahm Spring 2012.
Recognizing specific objects Matching with SIFT Original suggestion Lowe, 1999,2004.
Martina Uray Heinz Mayer Joanneum Research Graz Institute of Digital Image Processing Horst Bischof Graz University of Technology Institute for Computer.
Scalability of Local Image Descriptors Björn Þór Jónsson Department of Computer Science Reykjavík University Joint work with: Laurent Amsaleg (IRISA-CNRS)
776 Computer Vision Jan-Michael Frahm Spring 2012.
Author : Sang Hwa Lee, Junyeong Choi, and Jong-Il Park
Radoslav Forgáč, Igor Mokriš
Pat P. W. Chan,  Michael R. Lyu, Roland T. Chin*
Scale Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT)
Nearest-neighbor matching to feature database
Cheng-Ming Huang, Wen-Hung Liao Department of Computer Science
Object recognition Prof. Graeme Bailey
Nearest-neighbor matching to feature database
CAP 5415 Computer Vision Fall 2012 Dr. Mubarak Shah Lecture-5
The SIFT (Scale Invariant Feature Transform) Detector and Descriptor
ECE734 Project-Scale Invariant Feature Transform Algorithm
Author: Minoru Kuribayashi, Hatsukazu Tanaka
Presented by Xu Miao April 20, 2005
Recognition and Matching based on local invariant features
Presentation transcript:

Copyright Protection of Images Based on Large-Scale Image Recognition Koichi Kise, Satoshi Yokota, Akira Shiozaki Osaka Prefecture University

Outline  Demo  Image Recognition with Local Descriptors  Our Research Topics  Copyright Protection and Digital Watermarking  Proposed Method  Experiments  Conclusion 2

DEMO Large-Scale Image Recognition

Outline  Demo  Image Recognition with Local Descriptors  Our Research Topics  Copyright Protection and Digital Watermarking  Proposed Method  Experiments  Conclusion 4

Image Recognition with Local Descriptors Database Images are represented by local descriptors (feature vectors) Typically a few hundreds to a few thousands are extracted Image 1 Image 2 Image 3 Image 4 Query 5

Database Image 1 Image 2 Image 3 Image 4 Query Image Recognition with Local Descriptors Nearest Neighbor Search no. of votes max. votes 6 Nearest vector in the DB Nearest vector in the DB

Pros and Cons  Extraction of descriptors a few seconds / query  Matching By brute-force NN search with the DB of 1,000 images 315 seconds / query PROS CONS Robust to occlusion and variations Locality and stability of descriptors Large number of expensive descriptors 7

Outline  Demo  Image Recognition with Local Descriptors  Our Research Topics  Copyright Protection and Digital Watermarking  Proposed Method  Experiments  Conclusion 8

Our Research Topics Extraction of Descriptors Matching (with 10,000 images) BaselineSoftware2.3 sec.Brute-force3,000 sec. Existing Technologies ANN (Approximate Nearest Neighbor) 50 ms 60,000 times faster Our MethodsGPU & CUDA0.57 sec.Hash & Cascade0.78 ms 4 times faster60 times faster 9 Application Copyright Protection

Outline  Demo  Image Recognition with Local Descriptors  Our Research Topics  Copyright Protection and Digital Watermarking  Proposed Method  Experiments  Conclusion 10

Copyright Protection and Digital Watermarking  Digital Watermarking is a technology to embed information (copyright notice) to original digital data.  Embedded information (watermark) is often unnoticeable.  We focus on digital images as original data.  Methods:  Non-blind  Blind 11 Copyright: A Purchaser: B Copyright: A Purchaser: B original watermarked

Non-Blind and Blind Watermarking  Non-blind watermarking  Blind watermarking  History  From non-blind to blind watermarking  Non-blind watermarking needs matching of images  spoils the scalability  Blind watermarking has been the focus of interest 12 watermarked image & originalimage Copyright: A Purchaser: B Copyright: A Purchaser: B watermarked image Copyright: A Purchaser: B Copyright: A Purchaser: B

Limitations of Blind Watermarking  StirMark  distorts images imperceptibly  severely damages the wartermark 13 OriginalStirMark

StirMark: Some Image Transformations 14 corner shift cropping punch / pinch original fraction of pixel displacement

Outline  Demo  Image Recognition with Local Descriptors  Our Research Topics  Copyright Protection and Digital Watermarking  Proposed Method  Experiments  Conclusion 15

Proposed Method: Ideas  How do we solve the problem of blind watermarking?  Cancel the effect of StirMark, especially geometric transformations  Normalization could be done by comparing with the original image  Blind to non-blind 16 StirMark’ed OriginalStirMark’ed normalization normalized StirMark’ed

Proposed Method: Ideas  How to solve the problem of non-blind watermarking?  Matching problem  solved by the efficient and robust image recognition  How about the normalization?  Image recognition with local descriptors  provides matching of descriptors as a side effect  helpful for normalization 17

Proposed Method: Ideas  To solve the problem of StirMark  Image normalization is required to detect the watermark  Normalization could be done by comparing with the original image  Non-blind watermarking  Efficient and robust image recognition  overcome the difficulty of matching in non-blind watermarking  precise matching of local descriptors (feature points) is obtained as a side effect of recognition  This helps us to normalize the StirMark’ed image to detect the watermark 18

Proposed Method: Processing Steps 19 STEP1: Recognition Image Database query image point matching STEP2: Normalization STEP3: Detection Embedded Watermark

Proposed Method: Processing Steps 20 STEP2: Normalization Embedded Watermark STEP3: Detection Local Descriptors: PCA-SIFT Matching: ANN Local Descriptors: PCA-SIFT Matching: ANN STEP1: Recognition Image Database query image point matching

Outline  Demo  Image Recognition with Local Descriptors  Our Research Topics  Copyright Protection and Digital Watermarking  Proposed Method  Experiments  Conclusion 21

Experiments: Overview  Experiment 1  Robustness against StirMark with default setting (imperceptible change)  Experiment 2  Robustness against perceptible changes  Experiment 3  Robustness against watermarking 22

Experiments: Overview  Experiment 1  Robustness against StirMark with default setting (imperceptible change)  Experiment 2  Robustness against perceptible changes  Experiment 3  Robustness against watermarking 23

Experiments: Dataset & Task 24 10,000 images 100 Base set WatermarkStirMark query images Input : query image Task: find its original from 10,000 images Input : query image Task: find its original from 10,000 images

Experiment 1 25 imperceptible 100 random application with default setting 10,000 images 100 StirMark query images 10,000 images 100 query images watermarkingwithoutwith accuracy100%99.49% time (per query)217ms216ms Watermark with StirMark without 10,000

Experiment2  4 image transformations  cropping, fraction of pixel displacement, punch/pinch, corner shift  perceptible 26 perceptible 4 trans. 43 application in total 10,000 images 100 StirMark query images Watermark 10,000 images 100 StirMark query images with without 4,300

97% Cropping: 100 ; Accuracy: 97%

Cropping: Original Image

97% Cropping: 70; Accuracy 97% 29

95% Cropping: 50; Accuracy: 95% 30

92% Cropping: 30; Accuracy: 92% 31

Cropping 32 With watermarking Without watermarking Accuracy [%] Cropping parameter

Punch / Pinch Original Image 33

99% Punch / Pinch: 1; Accuracy: 99% 34

99% Punch / Pinch: 25; Accuracy: 99% 35

97% Punch / Pinch: 50; Accuracy: 97% 36

50% Punch / Pinch: 100; Accuracy: 50% 37

Punch / Pinch 38 Accuracy [%] Punch / Pinch Parameter With watermarking Without watermarking

Conclusion  A non-blind framework for copyright protection of images has been proposed  Efficient image recognition technology with local descriptors  Fundamental experiments on image recognition  Image recognition is robust to StirMark attacks and watermarking  Future Work  Completion of overall method 39

Copyright Protection of Images Based on Large-Scale Image Recognition Thank you for your attention

Image Recognition: Local Descriptors  PCA-SIFT (PCA Scale-Invariant Feature Transform)  36 dimensions  Invariant to scale and rotation changes 41

Image Recognition: Matching  ANN(Approximate Nearest Neighbor)  Tree structure Feature Space Feature Vector

ANN : Feature Vector of a query

ANN Nearest Neighbor Search for

ANN NN Search for Approximate Result This cell is not searched

ANN more approximation with a smaller circle Wrong Correct Errors caused by approximation NN Search for Approximate

NNS accuracy vs. Image recognition rate Image recognition rate[%] NNS accuracy[%] ANN dist E2LSH

Corner Shift Original Image 48

99% Corner Shift: 1; Accuracy: 99% 49

98% Corner Shift: 100; Accuracy: 98% 50

96% Corner Shift: 150; Accuracy: 96% 51

74% Corner Shift: 225; Accuracy: 74% 52

Corner Shift 53 Accuracy [%] Corner Shift Parameter With watermarking Without watermarking

Fraction of Pixel Displacement Original Image 54

99% Fraction of Pixel Displacement: 1; Accuracy 99% 55

94% Fraction of Pixel Displacement: 3 Accuracy: 94% 56

81% Fraction of Pixel Displacement: 5; Accuracy: 81% 57

58% Fraction of Pixel Displacement: 8 Accuracy: 58% 58

24% Fraction of Pixel Displacement: 10 Accuracy: 24% 59

Fraction of Pixel Displacement 60 Accuracy [%] Fraction Parameter With watermarking Without watermarking