2 ms·
I wonder if these results hold when the CNN-generated images are converted to an analog medium and back to digital (say scanning a printout or taking a screenca
by blueblisters 7y ago
I wonder if these results hold when the CNN-generated images are converted to an analog medium and back to digital (say scanning a printout or taking a screencap).
If not, this might indicate that the fingerprints or artifacts left by the generators are not of the "perceptible" variety.
Also a discriminator trained from this experiment might be useful to train a more powerful generator.
- p4bl0 7y agoExactly what I wondered reading the abstract. Also, if the images are not recognizable as fakes by humans, then it's good enough. What would be interesting in going further than that? I actually see it as a feature if at the same time it's possible to prove when images are fake.
- manthideaal 7y agoFrom the paper: (1) We show that when the correct steps are taken, classifiers are indeed robust to common operations such as JPEG compression, blurring, and resizing. (2) When using Photoshop like methods the detector performs at chance (is useless).