ReviewJournal of imaging2024
Source Camera Identification Techniques: A Survey.
Review in Journal of imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interpol review of forensic image and video analysis, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- Recent Advances in Deep Learning-Based Source Camera Identification and Device Linking.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Two-degree of freedom Mahalanobis classifier for smartphone-camera identification from natural digital images.PeerJ. Computer science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The successful investigation and prosecution of significant crimes, including child pornography, insurance fraud, movie piracy, traffic monitoring, and scientific fraud, hinge largely on the availability of solid evidence to establish the case beyond any reasonable doubt. When dealing with digital images/videos as evidence in such investigations, there is a critical need to conclusively prove the source camera/device of the questioned image. Extensive research has been conducted in the past decade to address this requirement, resulting in various methods categorized into brand, model, or individual image source camera identification techniques. This paper presents a survey of all those existing methods found in the literature. It thoroughly examines the efficacy of these existing techniques for identifying the source camera of images, utilizing both intrinsic hardware artifacts such as sensor pattern noise and lens optical distortion, and software artifacts like color filter array and auto white balancing. The investigation aims to discern the strengths and weaknesses of these techniques. The paper provides publicly available benchmark image datasets and assessment criteria used to measure the performance of those different methods, facilitating a comprehensive comparison of existing approaches. In conclusion, the paper outlines directions for future research in the field of source camera identification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.