Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Using Wavelet Domain Fingerprints to Improve Source Camera Identification

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read By comparing camera fingerprints directly in the wavelet domain and skipping the inverse transform, the proposed WDLAW method improves source-camera identification accuracy and speed on tested real-world images.

desk verdict Useful efficiency idea, but the main experiment conflates grayscale-first with wavelet-domain comparison; needs a gray-LAW control before the gains can be attributed as claimed. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01712 v1 pith:PH4BXSZD submitted 2025-07-02 cs.CV eess.IVstat.AP

Xinle Tian , Matthew Nunes , Emiko Dupont , Shaunagh Downing , Freddie Lichtenstein , Matt Burns This is my paper
classification cs.CVeess.IVstat.AP
keywords sensorpatternnoisesourcecameraidentificationwaveletdomainfingerprintdiscretetransformPRNUdual-treecomplexcosinesimilarityimageforensics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that a camera's sensor pattern noise (SPN) can be compared as a wavelet-domain fingerprint, without ever rebuilding the full image-domain fingerprint. This removes the inverse wavelet transform from the extraction pipeline, shrinking the fingerprint and lowering comparison cost. On a subset of the Dresden Image Database, the proposed gray-WDLAW method improved both identification accuracy and processing speed over the standard LAW method. The same idea also transfers to a dual-tree complex wavelet version, offering comparable accuracy with faster extraction. The practical goal is large-scale image-to-database camera matching, where computational efficiency matters.

What carries the argument

The central object is the wavelet-domain fingerprint: a vector formed by concatenating the filtered detail coefficients (horizontal, vertical, diagonal at each level) from a discrete wavelet transform, or the six complex coefficient subimages from a dual-tree complex wavelet transform. The argument rests on two facts: the DWT is an orthonormal linear transform, so by Parseval's theorem signal energy is preserved, and cosine similarity is invariant under orthonormal transformations. These make the inverse wavelet transform informationally redundant for comparison purposes, allowing the pipeline to skip reconstruction and apply the second Wiener filter directly to the wavelet coefficients per subimage.

What would settle it

Run gray-WDLAW and the standard LAW method on the full Dresden Image Database (or another multi-camera corpus) under the same settings (db4 wavelet, decomposition level J=4, noise variance sigma_n=1.82) and compare TPR at TNR=0.99, AUC, and wall-clock time. If gray-WDLAW does not match or beat LAW on accuracy and speed there, the claim that the wavelet-domain pipeline preserves discriminative SPN information would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the final inversion step of wavelet-based PRNU extraction is unnecessary for source camera identification: an orthonormal wavelet transform preserves the cosine similarity used for fingerprint comparison, so the filtered detail coefficients can serve directly as the fingerprint. The proposed wavelet-domain fingerprint, called WDLAW, applies locally adaptive Mihcak filtering and then Fourier-domain Wiener filtering to each wavelet subimage, concatenates the coefficients, and compares them with cosine similarity. This reduces the fingerprint dimension to less than the full image size (about 75% for small decomposition levels) and skips the inverse DWT and the zero-mean artifact-removal step. In experiments on 26 cameras from the Dresden Image Database, gray-WDLAW achieved higher TPR/TNR and AUC than the standard LAW method while reducing average extraction time from 1.127 to 0.502 seconds per pair and total runtime from 96.7 to 37.8 seconds. A DTCWT-based variant, gray-WDLAW-DTCWT, also matched or exceeded the accuracy of its image-domain counterparts while cutting extraction time.

Load-bearing premise

The central bet is that the nonlinear processing sequence still works when moved into the wavelet domain: discarding the approximation coefficients, applying Fourier-domain Wiener filtering per wavelet subimage, and converting color to grayscale before decomposition do not destroy the camera-specific signal. Only one small empirical comparison supports this, so if the sequence fails on other data the reported accuracy and speed advantages would not generalize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Source-camera identification pipelines can store and compare fingerprints that are only about 75% of the image size, reducing memory and per-comparison cost.
  • The gray-WDLAW method reported TPR/TNR of 0.90/0.97 versus 0.87/0.95 for LAW, with TPR at TNR=0.99 improving from 0.80 to 0.87, showing a concrete accuracy gain on the tested data.
  • Total runtime for the DWT-based comparison dropped from about 96.7 seconds to 37.8 seconds on the 8385-pair test set, a speed gain that should scale to larger databases.
  • The same skip-inversion principle extends to the dual-tree complex wavelet transform, where the gray-WDLAW-DTCWT variant reached an AUC of 0.97 with faster extraction than the original DTCWT method.
  • Because the modification is structural rather than tied to a specific denoising filter, other wavelet-domain filters could be plugged into the same fingerprint framework.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension is to replace the Daubechies-4 wavelet with other orthonormal or biorthogonal wavelets; if the cosine-invariance argument is the true driver, the speed benefit should persist while accuracy may vary with the basis.
  • The reported accuracy gain may partly come from discarding the approximation coefficients, which acts as an aggressive high-pass operation; comparing against an image-domain high-passed PRNU could isolate that effect.
  • The speed advantage is most pronounced when comparison volume is large; on very small databases, the removed inversion step may be negligible, so the method's practical benefit is workload-dependent.
  • Storing fingerprints as wavelet coefficients also reduces storage, which is an implicit benefit for large-scale forensic databases that the paper notes but does not quantify.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes representing camera sensor pattern noise fingerprints directly in the wavelet domain, avoiding the inverse DWT and image-domain reconstruction, and comparing the resulting wavelet coefficients with cosine similarity. Three DWT-based variants (gray-WDLAW, rgb-WDLAW, WDLAW-gray) and one DTCWT-based variant (gray-WDLAW-DTCWT) are introduced. The methods are evaluated on a subset of the Dresden Image Database (130 images from 26 cameras, 8385 pairwise comparisons) against the LAW and DTCWT baselines, reporting TPR/TNR, TPR at TNR=0.99, AUC, and runtimes. The paper claims that wavelet-domain fingerprints give higher or comparable accuracy while substantially improving processing speed.

Significance. If the empirical claims were established, the idea would be practically useful: removing the inversion step and comparing directly in the wavelet domain could reduce runtime in large-scale forensic searches while preserving the discriminative PRNU signal. The algorithm descriptions are clear and the methods build on publicly available implementations, which aids reproducibility. However, the current experimental evidence does not isolate the wavelet-domain mechanism from the grayscale-first pre-processing change, the evaluation protocol is self-referential because thresholds are chosen on the test set, and the stated dimensionality-reduction argument is quantitatively wrong for the J=4 setting used in the experiments. The contribution is therefore plausible but not yet demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, §4.2.1, Table 2] The headline comparison is confounded. gray-WDLAW differs from LAW in two simultaneous changes: grayscale conversion is moved before the DWT, and the inverse DWT/Fourier-domain Wiener processing is replaced by wavelet-domain filtering without reconstruction. The paper itself cites [2] for the grayscale-first idea, so this change alone can account for much of the extraction-time drop (1.127 s to 0.502 s). No gray-LAW baseline (grayscale-first but with image-domain reconstruction and Fourier-domain Wiener filtering) is reported. Without this control, the claimed accuracy and speed advantages cannot be attributed to the wavelet-domain fingerprint representation, which is the paper's central claim.
  2. [§2.3 and §4.1] The thresholds λ_YI and the TNR=0.99 threshold are selected from the ROC curve of the same 8385 pairwise comparisons on which TPR, TNR, and AUC are then reported. This makes the reported accuracy metrics optimistic by construction; no held-out validation, cross-validation, or per-camera/image-level bootstrap is provided. With only 260 same-source pairs (26 cameras × C(5,2)), the TPR differences of 0.03–0.07 in Table 1 are also within plausible sampling variability, and no error bars are given. Please report validation on held-out data, for example splitting by camera, and provide confidence intervals for all accuracy metrics.
  3. [§3.1, Eq. (6)] The first displayed expression for l is correct, but the simplification and the surrounding claim are not. The sum evaluates to m²(1−4^{−J}); for the J=4 setting used in the experiments this is 255/256 m² ≈ 0.996 m², not 'about 75%'. Thus the retained wavelet-domain fingerprint is only about 0.4% smaller than the image-domain fingerprint, and the 10× comparison-time reduction in Table 2 (0.010 s vs 0.001 s) cannot be explained by the claimed dimensionality reduction. Please correct the formula and reconcile the timing figures with the actual coefficient count.
  4. [Table 2] The timing columns are internally inconsistent. If extraction is 1.127 s per pair, 8385 pairs alone would require about 9,450 s, not the reported 96.7 s total; if it is per image, 130 images require about 146.5 s, still exceeding the reported total. Please clarify whether the extraction time is per image, per pair, or averaged differently, and report total extraction time and total comparison time separately so that the speed claims can be evaluated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.3] The sentence 'since TNR(λ) = 1 − TPR(λ)' is incorrect; TNR = 1 − FPR, and the threshold for TNR = R should set FPR(λ) = 1 − R. The same paragraph also defines TNR as the proportion of actual positives, which should be actual negatives.
  2. [§3.1] The paper states that omitting the row-/columnwise zero-mean operation 'does not impact the final results,' but no supporting ablation is shown. Please include the comparison with and without this step.
  3. [§3.3, Algorithm 4] The output notation f4l is used in Algorithm 4 before being defined; please introduce it explicitly, for example next to Eq. (6), and clarify the relationship between the six complex-valued DTCWT subimages and the real vector of length 4l.
  4. [General] The paper cites the base PRNU and DTCWT implementations but does not state whether the modified WDLAW/WDLAW-DTCWT code will be made available; please add a data and code availability statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the wavelet-domain fingerprint claim is justified by an external mathematical invariance and benchmarked against external baselines on the Dresden dataset.

full rationale

The derivation chain is empirical and self-contained. The proposed simplification—performing SPN comparison on wavelet detail coefficients rather than on the reconstructed image—is justified in Section 3 by the external mathematical fact that cosine similarity is invariant under orthonormal transforms, not by a conclusion that assumes the paper's own result. The WD fingerprint size is computed directly from the specified coefficient structure, and Algorithms 3 and 4 define processing steps that differ from the LAW baseline in concrete, testable ways. The accuracy and runtime claims are benchmarked against external baselines (LAW, DTCWT, and the method of [45]) on the Dresden Image Database, so the central claim is not an input to itself. There are no self-citations by the present authors; the grayscale-first idea is explicitly attributed to external prior work [2]. The only cautionary notes are evaluation-related: decision thresholds are selected from the same ROC curves used to report TPR/TNR, and gray-WDLAW changes both grayscale-first preprocessing and wavelet-domain comparison simultaneously relative to LAW, leaving a missing gray-LAW control. These are confounds or in-sample evaluation risks, not circular reductions. No step equates a fitted parameter to a prediction, and no load-bearing argument reduces by definition to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard wavelet theory, a domain assumption about where SPN lives, and several processing choices specific to this paper. The free parameters are mostly carried over from prior work, but the decision thresholds are fitted to the evaluation set, which is the main in-sample element.

free parameters (5)
  • Noise variance sigma_n = 1.82 (taken from [45])
    Used in the locally adaptive Mihcak filter for all methods; not estimated from the Dresden subset, so it is a tuning choice from prior literature rather than a fitted parameter, but it affects extraction quality.
  • Primary resolution level J = 4 (recommended LAW setting)
    Sets the number of wavelet levels and hence the fingerprint size; chosen from prior work, not by validation here.
  • Youden-index threshold lambda_YI = not reported
    Selected by maximizing TPR minus FPR on the same pairwise comparison set used for evaluation; this data-fitted threshold directly determines the reported TPR/TNR.
  • TNR=0.99 threshold = not reported
    Selected on the same evaluation set to control false positives; also data-fitted and in-sample.
  • Mihcak local window sizes = 3x3, 5x5, 7x7, 9x9
    Standard window sizes from the Mihcak filter; not optimized in this paper.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The DWT is orthonormal and the DTCWT is a tight frame, so Parseval's theorem and cosine-similarity invariance hold.
    Invoked in Section 3 to justify skipping the inverse transform; the DTCWT case requires stating the frame bound, which the paper does not do.
  • domain assumption SPN information is concentrated in the high-frequency (detail) wavelet coefficients, so approximation coefficients can be discarded.
    Standard assumption from [11], used in Algorithm 3 and the dimension discussion; if false, WD fingerprints omit useful low-frequency fingerprint content.
  • domain assumption Grayscaling before wavelet decomposition retains enough fingerprint information for source identification.
    Adopted in gray-WDLAW and gray-WDLAW-DTCWT; tested only on one dataset, and the paper notes per-channel processing may carry extra information.
  • ad hoc to paper Applying Fourier-domain Wiener filtering to each wavelet subimage has an equivalent artifact-suppressing effect to applying it in the image domain after reconstruction.
    This is a key processing change in Algorithms 3 and 4; no theoretical argument or ablation isolating this step is provided, only the overall method comparison.
  • domain assumption The selected Dresden subset is representative of operational large-scale forensic image comparisons.
    Used to generalize the pairwise comparison results; only 26 cameras and 5 images each.
invented entities (1)
  • Wavelet-domain fingerprint (WD fingerprint)
    purpose: A representation of the sensor pattern noise as concatenated wavelet detail coefficients, enabling comparison without inverse DWT.
    This is a new data representation defined by the paper's algorithms, not a physical entity; it has no falsifiable handle outside the PRNU comparison results reported here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Using Wavelet Domain Fingerprints to Improve Source Camera Identification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PH4BXSZD

@misc{pith2026250701712,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Using Wavelet Domain Fingerprints to Improve Source Camera Identification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PH4BXSZD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01712}
}
read the original abstract

Camera fingerprint detection plays a crucial role in source identification and image forensics, with wavelet denoising approaches proving to be particularly effective in extracting sensor pattern noise (SPN). In this article, we propose a modification to wavelet-based SPN extraction. Rather than constructing the fingerprint as an image, we introduce the notion of a wavelet domain fingerprint. This avoids the final inversion step of the denoising algorithm and allows fingerprint comparisons to be made directly in the wavelet domain. As such, our modification streamlines the extraction and comparison process. Experimental results on real-world datasets demonstrate that our method not only achieves higher detection accuracy but can also significantly improve processing speed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01712 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of DWT applied to an image with level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the LAW method applied to an image. The PRNU extraction image [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the WDLAW method applied to the grayscale image from Figure 2, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    On the SPN estimation in image forensics: A systematic empirical evaluation

    Al-Ani, M., Khelifi, F., 2016. On the SPN estimation in image forensics: A systematic empirical evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Information Foren- sics and Security 12, 1067–1081

    work page 2016

  2. [1]

    Akshatha, K., Karunakar, A.K., Anitha, H., Raghavendra, U., Shetty, D.,

    work page

  3. [3]

    Checking PRNU usability on modern devices, in: ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), IEEE

    Albisani, C., Iuliani, M., Piva, A., 2021. Checking PRNU usability on modern devices, in: ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), IEEE. pp. 2535–2539

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Amerini, I., Caldelli, R., Cappellini, V., Picchioni, F., Piva, A., 2009. Anal- ysis of denoising filters for photo response non uniformity noise extraction in source camera identification, in: 2009 16th International Conference on Digital Signal Processing, IEEE. pp. 1–7

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    MMSE filtering of gener- alised signal-dependent noise in spatial and shift-invariant wavelet domains

    Argenti, F., Torricelli, G., Alparone, L., 2006. MMSE filtering of gener- alised signal-dependent noise in spatial and shift-invariant wavelet domains. Signal Processing 86, 2056–2066

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Identifying sensors from fingerprint images, in: 2009 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, IEEE

    Bartlow, N., Kalka, N., Cukic, B., Ross, A., 2009. Identifying sensors from fingerprint images, in: 2009 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, IEEE. pp. 78–84

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Source camera iden- tification based on CFA interpolation, in: IEEE International Conference on Image Processing 2005, IEEE

    Bayram, S., Sencar, H., Memon, N., Avcibas, I., 2005. Source camera iden- tification based on CFA interpolation, in: IEEE International Conference on Image Processing 2005, IEEE. pp. III–69

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Efficient sensor fingerprint matching through fingerprint binarization

    Bayram, S., Sencar, H.T., Memon, N., 2012. Efficient sensor fingerprint matching through fingerprint binarization. IEEE Transactions on Informa- tion Forensics and Security 7, 1404–1413

    work page 2012

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Accurate detection of demosaicing regularity for digital image forensics

    Cao, H., Kot, A.C., 2009. Accurate detection of demosaicing regularity for digital image forensics. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 4, 899–910

    2009

  2. [10]

    Camera model identification framework using an ensemble of demosaicing features, in: 2015 IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security (WIFS), IEEE

    Chen, C., Stamm, M.C., 2015. Camera model identification framework using an ensemble of demosaicing features, in: 2015 IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security (WIFS), IEEE. pp. 1–6

    2015

  3. [11]

    Determining image origin and integrity using sensor noise

    Chen, M., Fridrich, J., Goljan, M., Lukás, J., 2008. Determining image origin and integrity using sensor noise. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 3, 74–90

    2008

  4. [12]

    Automatic source camera identi- fication using the intrinsic lens radial distortion

    Choi, K.S., Lam, E.Y., Wong, K.K., 2006. Automatic source camera identi- fication using the intrinsic lens radial distortion. Optics Express 14, 11551– 11565. 19

    2006

  5. [13]

    An Introduction to Wavelets

    Chui, C.K., 1992. An Introduction to Wavelets. volume 1. Academic Press

    1992

  6. [14]

    Performance comparison of denoising filters for source camera identification, in: Media Watermarking, Security, and Forensics III, SPIE

    Cortiana, A., Conotter, V., Boato, G., De Natale, F.G., 2011. Performance comparison of denoising filters for source camera identification, in: Media Watermarking, Security, and Forensics III, SPIE. pp. 60–65

    2011

  7. [15]

    Camera fingerprint - matlab implementation

    Digital Data Embedding Laboratory, Binghampton University, . Camera fingerprint - matlab implementation. URL: https://dde.binghamton. edu/download/camera\_fingerprint/

  8. [16]

    Deep learning for source camera identification on mobile devices

    Freire-Obregon, D., Narducci, F., Barra, S., Castrillon-Santana, M., 2019. Deep learning for source camera identification on mobile devices. Pattern Recognition Letters 126, 86–91

    2019

  9. [17]

    Digital forensics research: The next 10 years

    Garfinkel, S.L., 2010. Digital forensics research: The next 10 years. Digital Investigation 7, S64–S73

    2010

  10. [18]

    Improving source camera identification using a simplified total variation based noise removal algorithm

    Gisolf, F., Malgoezar, A., Baar, T., Geradts, Z., 2013. Improving source camera identification using a simplified total variation based noise removal algorithm. Digital Investigation 10, 207–214

    2013

  11. [19]

    The’Dresden Image Database’for benchmarking digital image forensics, in: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp

    Gloe, T., Böhme, R., 2010. The’Dresden Image Database’for benchmarking digital image forensics, in: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1584–1590

    2010

  12. [20]

    Unexpected artefacts in PRNU- based camera identification: a ’dresden image database’ case-study, in: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Multimedia and Security, pp

    Gloe, T., Pfennig, S., Kirchner, M., 2012. Unexpected artefacts in PRNU- based camera identification: a ’dresden image database’ case-study, in: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Multimedia and Security, pp. 109– 114

    2012

  13. [21]

    Camera identification from cropped and scaled images, in: Security, Forensics, Steganography, and Watermarking of Multimedia Contents X, SPIE

    Goljan, M., Fridrich, J., 2008. Camera identification from cropped and scaled images, in: Security, Forensics, Steganography, and Watermarking of Multimedia Contents X, SPIE. pp. 154–166

    2008

  14. [22]

    Large scale test of sensor finger- print camera identification, in: Media Forensics and Security, SPIE

    Goljan, M., Fridrich, J., Filler, T., 2009. Large scale test of sensor finger- print camera identification, in: Media Forensics and Security, SPIE. pp. 170–181

    2009

  15. [23]

    Identifica- tion of the source camera of images based on convolutional neural network

    Huang, N., He, J., Zhu, N., Xuan, X., Liu, G., Chang, C., 2018. Identifica- tion of the source camera of images based on convolutional neural network. Digital Investigation 26, 72–80

    2018

  16. [24]

    A prnu-based method to expose video device compositions in open-set setups, in: 2019IEEEInternationalConferenceon ImageProcessing(ICIP),IEEE

    Júnior, P.R.M., Bondi, L., Bestagini, P., Rocha, A., Tubaro, S., 2019. A prnu-based method to expose video device compositions in open-set setups, in: 2019IEEEInternationalConferenceon ImageProcessing(ICIP),IEEE. pp. 96–100

    2019

  17. [25]

    Enhancing source camera iden- tification performance with a camera reference phase sensor pattern noise

    Kang, X., Li, Y., Qu, Z., Huang, J., 2011. Enhancing source camera iden- tification performance with a camera reference phase sensor pattern noise. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 7, 393–402. 20

    2011

  18. [26]

    Blind source camera iden- tification, in: 2004 International Conference on Image Processing, 2004

    Kharrazi, M., Sencar, H.T., Memon, N., 2004. Blind source camera iden- tification, in: 2004 International Conference on Image Processing, 2004. ICIP’04., IEEE. pp. 709–712

    2004

  19. [27]

    The dual-tree complex wavelet transform: a new efficient tool for image restoration and enhancement, in: 9th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO 1998), IEEE

    Kingsbury, N., 1998. The dual-tree complex wavelet transform: a new efficient tool for image restoration and enhancement, in: 9th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO 1998), IEEE. pp. 1–4

    1998

  20. [28]

    Forensic camera model identification

    Kirchner, M., Gloe, T., 2015. Forensic camera model identification. Hand- book of Digital Forensics of Multimedia Data and Devices , 329–374

    2015

  21. [29]

    Digital camera identification from sensor pattern noise

    Lukas, J., Fridrich, J., Goljan, M., 2006. Digital camera identification from sensor pattern noise. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 1, 205–214

    2006

  22. [30]

    Cnn-based fast source device identification

    Mandelli, S., Cozzolino, D., Bestagini, P., Verdoliva, L., Tubaro, S., 2020. Cnn-based fast source device identification. IEEE Signal Processing Letters 27, 1285–1289

    2020

  23. [31]

    Beyond prnu: Learning robust device-specific fingerprint for source camera identification

    Manisha, Li, C.T., Lin, X., Kotegar, K.A., 2022. Beyond prnu: Learning robust device-specific fingerprint for source camera identification. Sensors 22, 7871

    2022

  24. [32]

    Mihcak, M.K., Kozintsev, I., Ramchandran, K., 1999a. Spatially adaptive statistical modeling of wavelet image coefficients and its application to de- noising, in: 1999 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing. Proceedings. ICASSP99 (Cat. No. 99...

    1999

  25. [33]

    Low- complexity image denoising based on statistical modeling of wavelet coeffi- cients

    Mihcak, M.K., Kozintsev, I., Ramchandran, K., Moulin, P., 1999b. Low- complexity image denoising based on statistical modeling of wavelet coeffi- cients. IEEE Signal Processing Letters 6, 300–303

  26. [34]

    Wavelet Methods in Statistics with R

    Nason, G.P., 2008. Wavelet Methods in Statistics with R. Springer

    2008

  27. [35]

    ForWaRD: Fourier-wavelet regularized deconvolution for ill-conditioned systems

    Neelamani, R., Choi, H., Baraniuk, R., 2004. ForWaRD: Fourier-wavelet regularized deconvolution for ill-conditioned systems. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 52, 418–433

    2004

  28. [36]

    Digital image forensics: A booklet for beginners

    Redi, J.A., Taktak, W., Dugelay, J.L., 2011. Digital image forensics: A booklet for beginners. Multimedia Tools and Applications 51, 133–162

    2011

  29. [37]

    Vision of the unseen: Current trends and challenges in digital image and video forensics

    Rocha, A., Scheirer, W., Boult, T., Goldenstein, S., 2011. Vision of the unseen: Current trends and challenges in digital image and video forensics. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 43, 1–42

    2011

  30. [38]

    The dual-tree complex wavelet transform

    Selesnick, I.W., Baraniuk, R.G., Kingsbury, N.C., 2005. The dual-tree complex wavelet transform. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 22, 123– 151. 21

    2005

  31. [39]

    Discrete wavelet transform: a signal processing approach

    Sundararajan, D., 2016. Discrete wavelet transform: a signal processing approach. John Wiley & Sons

    2016

  32. [40]

    Identifying source cell phone using chromatic aberration, in: 2007 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, IEEE

    Van, L.T., Emmanuel, S., Kankanhalli, M.S., 2007. Identifying source cell phone using chromatic aberration, in: 2007 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, IEEE. pp. 883–886

    2007

  33. [41]

    Statistical Modeling by Wavelets

    Vidakovic, B., 2009. Statistical Modeling by Wavelets. John Wiley & Sons

    2009

  34. [42]

    Source camera model iden- tification based on convolutional neural networks with local binary patterns coding

    Wang, B., Yin, J., Tan, S., Li, Y., Li, M., 2018. Source camera model iden- tification based on convolutional neural networks with local binary patterns coding. Signal Processing: Image Communication 68, 162–168

    2018

  35. [43]

    Index for rating diagnostic tests

    Youden, W.J., 1950. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 3, 32–35

    1950

  36. [44]

    Source camera identification with dual-tree complex wavelet transform: Matlab codes

    Zeng, H., . Source camera identification with dual-tree complex wavelet transform: Matlab codes. URL: https://github.com/zengh5/SCI\ _DTCWT

  37. [45]

    Source camera identification with dual-tree complex wavelet transform

    Zeng, H., Wan, Y., Deng, K., Peng, A., 2020. Source camera identification with dual-tree complex wavelet transform. IEEE Access 8, 18874–18883. 22

    2020

  38. [2016]

    Digital Investigation 19, 69–77

    Digital camera identification using prnu: A feature based approach. Digital Investigation 19, 69–77

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.