Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
c.
d.
e.
b.
( , ) cos
(2 + 1)
cos
2
(2 + 1)
2
where :
M ,N are the cover image dimensions.
c.
d.
and
,
=0
d.
max
(4,1),
(3,2),
min
(4,1),
(3,2),
(1,4) +
(1,4)
=1
=0
e.
f.
1,
(4,1),
(3,2),
(1,4)
0,
(4,1),
(3,2),
(1,4)
f.
e.
=0
( , ) cos
(2 + 1)
cos
2
(2 + 1)
2
RMSE
Corr
RMSE
LSB
0.9967
0.0039
0.7292
0.9965
0.1949
0.7048
0.9965
0.3401
0.5987
Figure (7): Perceptual results of digimarking with different 2DDCT based algorithms and K=1
Table (3): Numerical results of compression test with = 75%
Digimarking with
=1
RMSE
Corr
RMSE
0.9995
0.8744
0.2519
0.9884
0.0484
0.7160
0.9988
0.8701
0.2577
0.9873
0.3579
0.6003
0.9955
0.97981
0.9873
0.3695
0.6518
0.9893
0.9823
0.9430
0.6518
= 75%
V. CONCLUSION
In this research we started by understanding the available
2D-DCT techniques to get the benefits and avoid the
disadvantages in a proposed technique expected to be much
efficient in digimarking and more robust against any applied
process especially compression or even a watermark
removal trial.
REFERENCES
[1]. M. Kutter, F. Hartung, Introduction to Watermarking
Techniques in Information Techniques for Steganography and
Digital Watermarking, S.C. Katzenbeisser et al., Eds. Northwood,
MA: Artec House, pp 97-119, Dec. 1999
[2] G. Langelaar, I. Setyawan, R.L. Lagendijk, Watermarking Digital
Image and Video Data, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, Vol
17, pp 20-43, September 2000
[3] J.R. Hernandez, M.Amado, and F. Perez-Gonzalez, DCT-Domain
Watermarking Techniques for Still Images: Detector Performance
Analysis And a New Structure, IEEE Trans. Image Processing,
vol. 9, pp 55-68, Jan. 2000
[4] Zhao. J, Koch.E ,Embedding Robust Labels into Images for
Copyright Protection, in Proceedings of the International
Conference on Intellectual Property Rights for Information,
Knowledge
and
New
Techniques,Munchen,Wien:OldenbourgVerlag,pp.242-251, June,
1995.
[5] Zhao.J, Koch.E ,Towards Robust and Hidden Image Copyright
Labeling ,in IEEE Workshop on Nonlinear Signal and Image
Proccessing,pp.452-455,June.1995.
Appendix
The processing
description
No attack on the
watermarked
image
(256X256 pixels) from
which results a (32X32
pixels) watermark could
be extracted.
The extracted
watermark
The
processing
The extracted
watermark
JPEG
compress with
(75% quality
level)
Resizing
the
watermarked image to
(512X512 pixels) results
a watermark with the
same
resizing
rate
(64X64 pixels).
JPEG
compress with
(50% quality
level)
Cropping with
border size = 20 Pixel
JPEG
compress with
(40% quality
level)
JPEG
compress with
(30% quality
level)
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
0.9819
0.9761
0.9946
0.9910
0.9928
0.9885
0.9880
0.9871
0.9783
0.9869
0.9754
0.9904
0.9907
0.9907
0.9852
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
0.9901
0.9946
0.9598
0.9900
0.9927
0.9793
0.9856
0.9888
0.9839
0.9901
0.9934
0.9643
0.9825
0.9827
0.9841
Correlation
between
extracted
watermark
and the
original
0.9641
0.9621
0.9939
0.8763
0.9818
0.9980
0.9980
1
1
0.9959
1
1
1
1
0.9878
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Correlation
between
watermarked
image and
the original
0.9760
0.9940
0.9837
0.9903
0.9768
0.9706
0.9825
0.9958
0.9867
0.9809
0.9824
0.9901
0.9921
0.9945
0.9950
Correlation
between
extracted
watermark
and the
original
0.9898
1
0.9919
1
0.9838
1
0.9583
0.9878
0.9818
0.9858
0.9878
1
0.9980
0.9798
1
Image
Correlation
between
watermarked
image and
the original
Image
Correlation
between
extracted
watermark
and the
original
1
0.9959
1
0.9563
1
0.9959
0.8609
0.9468
1
0.9699
0.9878
1
0.9898
1
0.9919
Image
Image
Table (4): The correlation values of the watermarked images and the extracted watermarks
Correlation
between
watermarked
image and
the original
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Correlation
between
watermarked
image and
the original
0.9823
0.9957
0.9883
0.9956
0.9933
0.9793
0.9633
0.9984
0.9888
0.9819
0.9929
0.9924
0.9576
0.9786
0.9740
Correlation
between
extracted
watermark
and the
original
1
1
1
0.9898
1
1
1
0.9980
0.9939
1
1
0.9980
1
0.9919
0.9680