My future EXIF invention - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8-4.0D

11/24/2007 10:32:46 PM · #1

For any techno-bio-sci-fi-gear head, how about this for an idea.

There are 23 exclusive markers out of all the identical markers embedded in a DNA cell.

Those 23 markers say that I am me, and you are you, and she is not he, and he is not a woman.

What if it was possible to add into an EXIF file those 23 individual characteristic gnome traits.

No one could steal your photo's. Well, they could, but, they could not edit the EXIF file, at all.

This is my idea, on this date, and lay claim to being the father of the Gnome EXIF file idea.

Nikolai1024

Nikon D300

11/24/2007 11:36:09 PM · #2

kindda like signing PDF?

see

Canon PowerShot S95

11/24/2007 11:47:36 PM · #3

I don't know about using EXIF, someone will always find a way around that. Take it to the next level, find a way to code individual pixels just like DNA.

11/25/2007 12:00:54 AM · #4

Actually, I've been toying with that for a little while. Basically, taking a pixel set and changing the channel values to match some pattern. Then, apply a filter to view the digital signature.

There are plenty of tools out there to create pixel algorithms. MATLAB is a good one for matrix programing.

Only problem is that other jpg renderings can wipe out the signature. So, I'm working on other ideas that would still maintain the integrity after multiple compressions/decompressions.

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

11/25/2007 12:08:58 AM · #5

Na,naaaaaa,naaaaaaaa....

Your all drunk.

Think of it. Putting a bio signature onto what is yours. What better bio signature than DNA?

No one can alter DNA unless they have a laboratory and a whole bunch of money.

23

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

11/25/2007 12:13:53 AM · #6

You can zip your images with encryption and they won't get stolen.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/25/2007 12:51:07 AM · #7

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

You can zip your images with encryption and they won't get stolen.

encryption is so yesterday.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

11/25/2007 01:26:41 AM · #8

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

You can zip your images with encryption and they won't get stolen.

Or viewed(?) -- I don't think you can submit them that way for registration at the Copyright Office.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

11/25/2007 02:00:31 AM · #9

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
You can zip your images with encryption and they won't get stolen.

Or viewed(?) -- I don't think you can submit them that way for registration at the Copyright Office.

Anything put on the internet can be stolen. If anyone is worried about their images being stolen, putting them online is simply a bad idea, as we have discussed here many times.

Are you worried about the copyright office stealing your images?

garrywhite2

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/25/2007 02:39:24 AM · #10

(edit removed comment, it's a late night)

Message edited by author 2007-11-25 02:49:48.

Photologist

Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

11/25/2007 05:08:36 AM · #11

EXIF can be altered. Nothing is 100% protected with EXIF info. There is even a "Serial Number" that is assigned in the EXIF metadata--this is not 100% reliable either.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

11/25/2007 10:11:54 AM · #12

I'm sorry, but, I am just going to have to believe that all posters on this thread are still comatose from the turkey.

Let me explain once again.

I have a serious thought on using a personal gnome trait bio signature to be included, somehow, onto the EXIF file.

This signature would enhance the EXIF file. It would be a redundancy file. A file in a file if you will.

I am not talking about theft, or editing EXIF data. I am not interested in any other form of security.

I simply had an idea that I wanted to share, and in doing so, wanted to see if there were any ideas on how a gnome bio signature could be included onto an EXIF file.

trevytrev

Canon EOS-5D

11/25/2007 10:19:13 AM · #13

great idea until your evil identical twin brother comes along and says it's his photo and not yours. Identical twins have the same DNA so this would exclude the twin market from being able to utilize your product.

11/25/2007 10:28:48 AM · #14

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Even the 23 unique traits. I thought that is how people were defined were from those unique traits.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

11/25/2007 10:40:08 AM · #15

Exactly, which is why the best way is to digitally sign an image with a pattern within the image itself

Originally posted by AperturePriority:

EXIF can be altered. Nothing is 100% protected with EXIF info. There is even a "Serial Number" that is assigned in the EXIF metadata--this is not 100% reliable either.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

11/25/2007 10:45:53 AM · #16

Originally posted by PGerst:

Exactly, which is why the best way is to digitally sign an image with a pattern within the image itself

Originally posted by AperturePriority:
EXIF can be altered. Nothing is 100% protected with EXIF info. There is even a "Serial Number" that is assigned in the EXIF metadata--this is not 100% reliable either.

What you are talking about is an existing product, marketed by Digimarc. In fact, if you have Photoshop CS2 or CS3, you already have the capability to embed a mark into an image. If you search the forums here, there are a couple of old threads discussing the Digimarc technology.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/25/2007 11:45:43 AM · #17

In addition to the PS plugin, I found DigiMarc also has a standalone software solution, though I haven't used it myself.

The DigiMarc filter goes back at least to Photoshop 5. While it's free to watermark your images, you have to pay for a customized mark and tracking/reporting services.

Message edited by author 2007-11-25 11:47:33.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

11/25/2007 12:06:30 PM · #18

Does it alter the binary information around the image or to the pixels itself?

Originally posted by kirbic:

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

11/25/2007 12:56:01 PM · #19

Originally posted by PGerst:

Does it alter the binary information around the image or to the pixels itself?

Originally posted by kirbic:

What you are talking about is an existing product, marketed by Digimarc. In fact, if you have Photoshop CS2 or CS3, you already have the capability to embed a mark into an image. If you search the forums here, there are a couple of old threads discussing the Digimarc technology.

It alters the pixel data. You can apply it at various strengths; applying it more heavily makes it harder to remove. Stronger applications are visible, it looks like added random noise. It's possible, but *very* difficult to remove a digital watermark, and doing so almost always results in an image that is severely degraded.

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

11/25/2007 01:25:11 PM · #20

....but, but, but have you thought about the effects of evolution? Surely evolution will change the gnome bio signature as well as the EXIF file at some point and render it unstable in our globally warmed atmosphere. Possibly you could store this valuable data in a hermetically sealed thermos type container and get the people who froze Mickey Mantle's head to store it for you. Now there's another project for you. Find a way to retrive the data inside the container without opening it and preventing the contamination of said data. Good luck M_C_H. I know you can do it. :)

Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

11/25/2007 01:30:07 PM · #21

Thanks, I tried it out and saw the differences (using layer in difference mode followed by levels to expose the changed pixels)

Originally posted by kirbic:

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

11/25/2007 01:35:59 PM · #22

Originally posted by David Ey:

...Find a way to retrive the data inside the container without opening it and preventing the contamination of said data....

So David, tell us, is Schrodinger's cat alive or dead??

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

11/25/2007 01:50:58 PM · #23

Originally posted by David Ey:

....but, but, but have you thought about the effects of evolution? Surely evolution will change the gnome bio signature as well as the EXIF file at some point and render it unstable in our globally warmed atmosphere. Possibly you could store this valuable data in a hermetically sealed thermos type container and get the people who froze Mickey Mantle's head to store it for you. Now there's another project for you. Find a way to retrieve the data inside the container without opening it and preventing the contamination of said data. Good luck M_C_H. I know you can do it. :)

I didn't think of the evolution change thing. But, instead of a thermos, maybe a marker of some sort to be a file in a file in a file.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

11/25/2007 01:54:22 PM · #24

Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:

OK, so you encode your DNA sequence into your pictures. Cool.

I steal your pictures, I also steal your DNA sequence. Now, who owns your pictures, you or the clone slave I made from your DNA sequence?