4 ms·

Invisible watermarking can be encoded into video frames. https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/45/099/45099925.pdf?r=1&r=1 https://inis.i

Invisible watermarking can be encoded into video frames. https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/45/099/45099925.pdf?r=1&r=1 https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/... I remember visiting the MIT media lab when I was in college, they described the audio version of "invisible watermarking" - manipulating the source audio with a generated acoustic effect, similar to a doppler shift. The effect is not detected by the human ear, but signal analysis can translate it into binary metadata, such as a DRM signature.

buildzr 7y ago
What's the relevant application here? If you're suggesting this could be added by video editing software or display hardware, it seems if everyone knew about such watermarking it'd be trivial to strip out and turn into noise, so it would work publicly exactly once. If you're saying it'd be added by legitimate camera sensors, well it wouldn't beat the possibilities I suggested already of simply feeding tampered data to the sensor.
- nessunodoro 7y ago
  As it was described to me, the watermarking is encoded in such a way that it would be prohibitively expensive computationally to offset or overwrite it.
  - buildzr 7y ago
    Okay, let's assume that's remotely possible. Injecting such a watermark at the camera doesn't help you - in fact, such a watermark you're describing is attempting to be resistant to things like re-transcoding so it might actually be carried through an editing process successfully. Not to mention the previous camera sensor bypasses. So let's ignore camera based options. You have to get all video editing software or displays to inject such a watermark while keeping their keys private. Getting direct LVDS access to a panel and being able to write your own firmware pretty much bypasses most display options, and well... software based options are even worse I'd say, software is open to such a wide array of attacks and the mere existence of open source video editing tools, including FaceSwap itself makes this seem... questionable at best.

buildzr 7y ago

What's the relevant application here? If you're suggesting this could be added by video editing software or display hardware, it seems if everyone knew about such watermarking it'd be trivial to strip out and turn into noise, so it would work publicly exactly once. If you're saying it'd be added by legitimate camera sensors, well it wouldn't beat the possibilities I suggested already of simply feeding tampered data to the sensor.

nessunodoro 7y ago
As it was described to me, the watermarking is encoded in such a way that it would be prohibitively expensive computationally to offset or overwrite it.
- buildzr 7y ago
  Okay, let's assume that's remotely possible. Injecting such a watermark at the camera doesn't help you - in fact, such a watermark you're describing is attempting to be resistant to things like re-transcoding so it might actually be carried through an editing process successfully. Not to mention the previous camera sensor bypasses. So let's ignore camera based options. You have to get all video editing software or displays to inject such a watermark while keeping their keys private. Getting direct LVDS access to a panel and being able to write your own firmware pretty much bypasses most display options, and well... software based options are even worse I'd say, software is open to such a wide array of attacks and the mere existence of open source video editing tools, including FaceSwap itself makes this seem... questionable at best.