There is a small handfull of cameras coming out soon that will use a form of digital image verification.. meaning, after the shot is taken, the news crews, the cops, or "experts" can use decrypting software to chop up the image to see an imbedded watermark... changes in the watermark mean that the image was edited after the shot was taken...
here's a simple "concept" representation of the technology. The image on the left is the original, unedited version.. and the image on the right has 2 cats that have changed color. Image C shows how the software breaks it up into a grid, and image D shows the watermark altered by the editing.



Source 1
source 2.
Canon has a similar technology that I believe was recently released..

The question is.. will this technology allow photographs to be "hard evidence" ?

sounds interesting. the only thing is:

people taking pictures that are supposedly real, will need one of those cameras.

some people can still fake them then take a pic, like orbs or smoke looking like ghosts etc

people could get the encrypt code and change it that way.


it would be a good way of proving fakes. but then again....if someones faking, why not just use a normal camera. chances are many of these pics will be taken with non holographic encryption

Good point, Frey. But you know this new technology might eventually become mainstream. I don't know many people that use normal cameras (opposed to digital ones) anymore. It's the same with most technology. Ps2 came out, and people slowly stopped playing ps1. Game boy color > Game Boy. etc, etc, etc.

As for this technology, if people can find out the code that shows to tampered watermark, what's stopping them from actually fixing the watermark in an edited photo?

yeh thats true janel. but then you have to think that there are so many manufactuers of digital camera. for there to be a chance for it tto become mainstream, most of them will have to be willing to use the technology. but why would they do that and add more cost to the production of cameras when they are selling well anyway.

for standard normal users, it doesnt offer much. wow noone can edit my photos. why would they want to edit my holiday photos etc etc.... until it becomes mainstream, it will probably only be used by people who have everything riding on a unedited photo. for example at trials

So, you're saying that most likely it'll become a common name amongst lawers etc. to use for proof? Good point. Then again, there are people who would want this kind of technology because of its potential for better photographs. Or, even, since it (I'm assuming) makes the watermark when you take the picture - copyright issues.

yes copyright issues too. but does it give a better quality picture?



i still think, even with this watermark, we will still have out of focused pictures. all its doing is stopping the editing. unless someone can get the codes for it.

Yep, there's probably no way to stop people from taking crappy pictures, putting them on the net, and claiming their something they aren't. But what about pictures that don't have this watermark? Will they be able to use the codes to see if it's unedited?

the codes will only work if it has the watermark. so will need to be taken with a watermark camera.

people will probably come out with software that puts watermarks on non watermarked pics, so that it looks un eddited