Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
Watermarking systems can employ either informed detec- tion, where the original cover work is required, or blind detection ,w here it is not required. While early systems used informed detection, recent work has focused on blind detection, because it is considered more chal- lenging and general. Further, recent work on "dirty-paper watermarking" has suggested that informed detection provides no benefits over blind de- tection. This paper discusses the dirty-paper assumptions and questions whether they apply to real-world watermarking. We discuss three basic ways in which an informed video-watermark detector, developed at Sarnoff, uses the original work: canceling interference between the cover work and the watermark, canceling subsequent distortions, and tailoring the wa- termark to the perceptual characteristics of the source. Of these, only the first is addressed by theoretical work on dirty-paper watermarking. Whether the other two can be accomplished equally well with blind wa- termarking is an open question. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2004 | 10.1007/978-3-540-31805-7_3 | International Workshop on Digital Watermarking |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
cover work,original cover work,informed video-watermark detector,blind watermarking,informed detection,dirty-paper watermarking,recent work,blind detection,original work,theoretical work | Computer vision,Digital watermarking,Computer science,Side information,Watermark,Artificial intelligence,Interference (wave propagation),Detector,Perception,Channel capacity | Conference |
Volume | ISSN | ISBN |
3304 | 0302-9743 | 3-540-24839-0 |
Citations | PageRank | References |
0 | 0.34 | 12 |
Authors | ||
2 | ||
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey A Bloom | 1 | 377 | 52.32 |
| Matthew L. Miller | 2 | 572 | 51.96 |