Assessing and Improving the Identification of Computer-Generated Portraits

Modern computer graphics are capable of generating highly photorealistic images. Although this can be considered a success for the computer graphics community, it has given rise to complex forensic and legal issues. A compelling example comes from the need to distinguish between computer-generated a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:ACM transactions on applied perception 2016-03, Vol.13 (2), p.1-12
Hauptverfasser: Holmes, Olivia, Banks, Martin S., Farid, Hany
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 12
container_issue 2
container_start_page 1
container_title ACM transactions on applied perception
container_volume 13
creator Holmes, Olivia
Banks, Martin S.
Farid, Hany
description Modern computer graphics are capable of generating highly photorealistic images. Although this can be considered a success for the computer graphics community, it has given rise to complex forensic and legal issues. A compelling example comes from the need to distinguish between computer-generated and photographic images as it pertains to the legality and prosecution of child pornography in the United States. We performed psychophysical experiments to determine the accuracy with which observers are capable of distinguishing computer-generated from photographic images. We find that observers have considerable difficulty performing this task—more difficulty than we observed 5 years ago when computer-generated imagery was not as photorealistic. We also find that observers are more likely to report that an image is photographic rather than computer generated, and that resolution has surprisingly little effect on performance. Finally, we find that a small amount of training greatly improves accuracy.
doi_str_mv 10.1145/2871714
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1808048304</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1808048304</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c291t-c9ed3ab548d1c980407bb21369c0e26a831ed8b6eada223b4c4f0585e863bd683</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo1kE1LxDAYhIMouK7iX-hNL9V8dtPjUnStLOhBzyVN3mpk29S8qeC_t8uup5mBh2EYQq4ZvWNMqnuuV2zF5AlZMCVlLspCnf57pfQ5uUD8opTLUqkFeV4jAqIfPjIzuKzuxxh-9il9QlY7GJLvvDXJhyELXVaFfpwSxHwDA0STwGWvIaZofMJLctaZHcLVUZfk_fHhrXrKty-bulpvc8tLlnJbghOmVVI7ZktNJV21LWeiKC0FXhgtGDjdFmCc4Vy00sqOKq1AF6J1hRZLcnvonad-T4Cp6T1a2O3MAGHChmk6t2pB5YzeHFAbA2KErhmj7038bRht9m81x7fEH2dkW_4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1808048304</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessing and Improving the Identification of Computer-Generated Portraits</title><source>ACM Digital Library Complete</source><creator>Holmes, Olivia ; Banks, Martin S. ; Farid, Hany</creator><creatorcontrib>Holmes, Olivia ; Banks, Martin S. ; Farid, Hany</creatorcontrib><description>Modern computer graphics are capable of generating highly photorealistic images. Although this can be considered a success for the computer graphics community, it has given rise to complex forensic and legal issues. A compelling example comes from the need to distinguish between computer-generated and photographic images as it pertains to the legality and prosecution of child pornography in the United States. We performed psychophysical experiments to determine the accuracy with which observers are capable of distinguishing computer-generated from photographic images. We find that observers have considerable difficulty performing this task—more difficulty than we observed 5 years ago when computer-generated imagery was not as photorealistic. We also find that observers are more likely to report that an image is photographic rather than computer generated, and that resolution has surprisingly little effect on performance. Finally, we find that a small amount of training greatly improves accuracy.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1544-3558</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1544-3965</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1145/2871714</identifier><language>eng</language><subject>Accuracy ; Communities ; Computer graphics ; Observers ; Perception ; Photorealistic ; Prosecutions</subject><ispartof>ACM transactions on applied perception, 2016-03, Vol.13 (2), p.1-12</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c291t-c9ed3ab548d1c980407bb21369c0e26a831ed8b6eada223b4c4f0585e863bd683</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c291t-c9ed3ab548d1c980407bb21369c0e26a831ed8b6eada223b4c4f0585e863bd683</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Holmes, Olivia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Banks, Martin S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farid, Hany</creatorcontrib><title>Assessing and Improving the Identification of Computer-Generated Portraits</title><title>ACM transactions on applied perception</title><description>Modern computer graphics are capable of generating highly photorealistic images. Although this can be considered a success for the computer graphics community, it has given rise to complex forensic and legal issues. A compelling example comes from the need to distinguish between computer-generated and photographic images as it pertains to the legality and prosecution of child pornography in the United States. We performed psychophysical experiments to determine the accuracy with which observers are capable of distinguishing computer-generated from photographic images. We find that observers have considerable difficulty performing this task—more difficulty than we observed 5 years ago when computer-generated imagery was not as photorealistic. We also find that observers are more likely to report that an image is photographic rather than computer generated, and that resolution has surprisingly little effect on performance. Finally, we find that a small amount of training greatly improves accuracy.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Communities</subject><subject>Computer graphics</subject><subject>Observers</subject><subject>Perception</subject><subject>Photorealistic</subject><subject>Prosecutions</subject><issn>1544-3558</issn><issn>1544-3965</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo1kE1LxDAYhIMouK7iX-hNL9V8dtPjUnStLOhBzyVN3mpk29S8qeC_t8uup5mBh2EYQq4ZvWNMqnuuV2zF5AlZMCVlLspCnf57pfQ5uUD8opTLUqkFeV4jAqIfPjIzuKzuxxh-9il9QlY7GJLvvDXJhyELXVaFfpwSxHwDA0STwGWvIaZofMJLctaZHcLVUZfk_fHhrXrKty-bulpvc8tLlnJbghOmVVI7ZktNJV21LWeiKC0FXhgtGDjdFmCc4Vy00sqOKq1AF6J1hRZLcnvonad-T4Cp6T1a2O3MAGHChmk6t2pB5YzeHFAbA2KErhmj7038bRht9m81x7fEH2dkW_4</recordid><startdate>20160301</startdate><enddate>20160301</enddate><creator>Holmes, Olivia</creator><creator>Banks, Martin S.</creator><creator>Farid, Hany</creator><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160301</creationdate><title>Assessing and Improving the Identification of Computer-Generated Portraits</title><author>Holmes, Olivia ; Banks, Martin S. ; Farid, Hany</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c291t-c9ed3ab548d1c980407bb21369c0e26a831ed8b6eada223b4c4f0585e863bd683</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Communities</topic><topic>Computer graphics</topic><topic>Observers</topic><topic>Perception</topic><topic>Photorealistic</topic><topic>Prosecutions</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Holmes, Olivia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Banks, Martin S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farid, Hany</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts – Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><jtitle>ACM transactions on applied perception</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Holmes, Olivia</au><au>Banks, Martin S.</au><au>Farid, Hany</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessing and Improving the Identification of Computer-Generated Portraits</atitle><jtitle>ACM transactions on applied perception</jtitle><date>2016-03-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>12</epage><pages>1-12</pages><issn>1544-3558</issn><eissn>1544-3965</eissn><abstract>Modern computer graphics are capable of generating highly photorealistic images. Although this can be considered a success for the computer graphics community, it has given rise to complex forensic and legal issues. A compelling example comes from the need to distinguish between computer-generated and photographic images as it pertains to the legality and prosecution of child pornography in the United States. We performed psychophysical experiments to determine the accuracy with which observers are capable of distinguishing computer-generated from photographic images. We find that observers have considerable difficulty performing this task—more difficulty than we observed 5 years ago when computer-generated imagery was not as photorealistic. We also find that observers are more likely to report that an image is photographic rather than computer generated, and that resolution has surprisingly little effect on performance. Finally, we find that a small amount of training greatly improves accuracy.</abstract><doi>10.1145/2871714</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1544-3558
ispartof ACM transactions on applied perception, 2016-03, Vol.13 (2), p.1-12
issn 1544-3558
1544-3965
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1808048304
source ACM Digital Library Complete
subjects Accuracy
Communities
Computer graphics
Observers
Perception
Photorealistic
Prosecutions
title Assessing and Improving the Identification of Computer-Generated Portraits
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T13%3A17%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessing%20and%20Improving%20the%20Identification%20of%20Computer-Generated%20Portraits&rft.jtitle=ACM%20transactions%20on%20applied%20perception&rft.au=Holmes,%20Olivia&rft.date=2016-03-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=12&rft.pages=1-12&rft.issn=1544-3558&rft.eissn=1544-3965&rft_id=info:doi/10.1145/2871714&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1808048304%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1808048304&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true