Signs that can reveal a fake photo

There&#x27;s a YouTuber by the name of Captain Disillusion that has a series of debunking fake videos, using many of the same techniques described here.<p>Where it really gets cool is that he does video work for a living, and in many cases can <i>even tell you what special effects and stock images from the software library were specifically used</i>.<p>It&#x27;s great stuff. Example: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=rsXQInxxzBU" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=rsXQInxxzBU</a>

Regarding JPEG compression, there used to be a site that would make a heatmap of JPEG-induced noise for a given image, so you could see hotspots where it looked like it had been compressed twice (i.e. manipulated).

Great to read <i>the government or other criminal groups</i> in a BBC article!

It would be interesting if digital cameras would cryptographically sign photos. I&#x27;m sure there would be ways around that too (see also DRM arms race). Or at the very least use the photographer&#x27;s private key to sign the photo. That might not prevent photo manipulation if the photographer wants to manipulate their photo but would prevent others from manipulating it.

Experts can still spot these clues -- for now. How much longer before better tools can create altered images&#x2F;videos that correct for all these defects? Aligning shadows&#x2F;reflections seems like something that software should be able to do.<p>I think that within the decade, photo&#x2F;video &quot;evidence&quot; will be something that can be legitimately questioned unless there&#x27;s some kind of cryptographic proof that it hasn&#x27;t been altered. Cameras will need to &quot;sign&quot; their images, perhaps?

Check out Real-time Face Capture and Reenactment:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;ohmajJTcpNk" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;ohmajJTcpNk</a>

This is surprisingly good stuff (for being a bbc.com article - they tend to be overly light on details).