Can we discuss Digimarc? - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

06/17/2007 05:44:36 PM · #1

Ok, there is yet another thread about protecting images... and I suppose this is yet another. But, can we discuss 'Digimarc' to protect our images.

It seems that we could get a corporate license for the site to embed digital watermarks into our images that 'digimarc' can track for us.

Personally, I'd be willing to pay a bit more for membership to have the feature or we could have it as an optional upgrade. Would be a nice added perk and a reason to "buy in" to DPC.

SC, Langdon, fellow members?

//www.'digimarc'.com/tech/dwm.asp

Message edited by author 2007-06-17 17:46:56.

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

06/17/2007 05:49:03 PM · #2

SO how many thousands of dollars does a corporate license cost? Remember corporate licenses are typically used by medium to large company's that make money. So they charge a lot for it. They also lose money versus selling individual licenses so they charge a lot.

06/17/2007 05:49:35 PM · #3

An interesting read on the topic.

'Digimarc'.....yes or no?

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

06/17/2007 05:55:26 PM · #4

Originally posted by Judi:

An interesting read on the topic.

'Digimarc'.....yes or no?

Did you buy into it?

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

06/17/2007 05:56:58 PM · #5

Everyone who is interested in not having their images stolen could buy 'digimarc' on their own.

06/17/2007 05:57:02 PM · #6

NO!

06/17/2007 06:49:50 PM · #7

Originally posted by Judi:

NO!

Uh why not? Price, performance?

06/17/2007 08:16:23 PM · #8

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by Judi:
NO!

Uh why not? Price, performance?

For this reason below....mainly!....edit to add...this was quoted from another thread on this same subject.

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
... Ken Rockwell (!) doesn't have a very high opinion of it.

Typical of Ken, spouting off on things he's really not paid much attention to. He has a couple good points...
- It does add grain equally to all areas of the image, and increases file sizes somewhat
- It can be removed, with degradation in quality
Beyond the above, he's not spent enough time to know what he's talking about, and yet he offers opinions.
I've tried embedding and then removing the 'Digimarc' watermarks. Removing them is not at all easy, and I have never removed one successfully and wound up with an image that is even remotely usable. I've tried various noise-reduction strategies, tried adding more noise and then running noise reduction, tried cropping, tried cropping plus the various noise strategies...
suffice to say, the 'Digimarc' watermarks are pretty tenacious, more so than I would have guessed! They do in fact result in visible added grain, even when added at default "durability" which is on the lower side. This, to me, is the biggest detractor of the system.
Ken's assumption that software such as Grain Surgery could be used to remove the watermark is no doubt correct, but only at extreme application levels. Further, his example of 40% file size increase, is, IMO, inflated. I applied a watermark at default durability to an image that was quite noise-free and had large smooth areas. The file size increased from 1.46MB to 1.66MB, or +13.7%; not a big deal.

Message edited by author 2007-06-17 20:17:01.

07/14/2007 01:29:24 PM · #9

kirbic,

Judi, and

fotomann_forever, I am curious as to your conclusion on the possibility of using 'Digimarc' to protect DPC images. Is it at all practical? If not, what are the limitations?

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

07/14/2007 01:40:31 PM · #10

Originally posted by pointandshoot:

kirbic, Judi, and fotomann_forever, I am curious as to your conclusion on the possibility of using 'Digimarc' to protect DPC images. Is it at all practical? If not, what are the limitations?

It's practical, but it is a tad costly. I could see it as a member perk or added feature (cost more like extra portfolio space). It does degrade image quality a tiny bit. Some might not be willing to risk the quality loss, I dunno. I don't see it as being THAT bad, bordering on barely noticeable.

Site integration could be an issue (possibly insurmountable) depending on the software and the servers DPC is running on.

Message edited by author 2007-07-14 13:41:20.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

07/14/2007 01:55:41 PM · #11

I *do* see it as potentially a workable option. Here are the pros and cons:

Pros:
- Difficult to remove, without destroying the image. Even cropping rather severely doesn't remove it. Noise reduction, in combination with some other changes, can remove them, but the images look like crap-ola after this process.
- Covertly marks the image. Thieves won't normally recognize that a mark is present
- Easy to apply, and can be applied at various strengths depending on needs.

Cons:
- Adds "grain" to the image. Even at the default "durability" setting the grain is visible in smooth areas.
- Cost of monitoring for unauthorized use is expensive. Unless you are protecting images with a relatively high commercial value, it is not worth it. The minimum cost to track your images once marked is $499 per year, for a maximum of 5000 images.
- Marking is a little useless if you don't plan on tracking unauthorized use. The only benefit then is enforcement (you can prove the image is yours).

07/14/2007 02:35:00 PM · #12

I assume that "batch" processing would not be an option because of the need to individually set the "durability level"? The inability to automate the process would also seem to eliminate the possibility of making it a member perk or added feature at DPC - even assuming the other cons (image degradation, server integration, cost, etc.) were overcome.
Is anyone aware of an Open Source alternative to 'Digimarc'?

07/14/2007 02:41:38 PM · #13

Originally posted by pointandshoot:

Is anyone aware of an Open Source alternative to 'Digimarc'?

Not that I know of, but definitely worth a look. However, there still would have to be a "server" or bot to scour the web searching for stolen images, which would eat a lot of bandwidth.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

07/14/2007 03:42:05 PM · #14

Yes, it would be much easier to use a system that is already in place. I just realized that I can experiment with 'digimarc' without buying their service. Probably a good place to start.

EBJones

Nikon D200

07/14/2007 05:43:00 PM · #15

Well, if cost was not a factor, this looks pretty cool. :)

Looks like it would be pretty expensive to lease this technology.

07/14/2007 05:46:44 PM · #16

Originally posted by pointandshoot:

kirbic, Judi, and fotomann_forever, I am curious as to your conclusion on the possibility of using 'Digimarc' to protect DPC images. Is it at all practical? If not, what are the limitations?

To me it isn't practical. One, the added noise...yuck! To me, I may as well paint a big yellow stripe across it...and two, as Kirbic said...this remedy is useless unless you are going to track and prove your ownership. It won't stop them. Only limit them.

07/14/2007 06:02:10 PM · #17

Originally posted by EBJones:

Well, if cost was not a factor, this looks pretty cool. :)

Looks like it would be pretty expensive to lease this technology.

That does look interesting. Where did you see the pricing?

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

07/14/2007 06:07:43 PM · #18

Originally posted by Judi:

The noise may be the big problem to get around. I'm assuming the tracking would be implemented.

EBJones

Nikon D200

07/14/2007 06:59:10 PM · #19

Originally posted by pointandshoot:

Originally posted by EBJones:
Well, if cost was not a factor, this looks pretty cool. :)

Looks like it would be pretty expensive to lease this technology.

That does look interesting. Where did you see the pricing?

Didn't see any pricing. You have to contact them for a quote. I imagine it's one of those "if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it" things. :)

07/14/2007 07:07:03 PM · #20

Originally posted by EBJones:

Didn't see any pricing. You have to contact them for a quote. I imagine it's one of those "if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it" things. :)

You may be right. I'll check with them. Maybe they have a DPC discount :)