You are on page 1of 6

 Coefficients must be on the same frequency level (the dark or light green locations in Figure (2)) which has almost same frequency influence in the two dimension transform.a. e. The user can use a coded watermark with secret key for more security. Applying the classical embedding algorithm on the three RGB channels instead of just one will exploit the channels as other two copies for each watermark bit. each watermark bit could be imbedded in parallel in three DCT blocks located differently. EMBEDDING PROCESS This new algorithm is based on modulating the relative size of four 2D-DCT coefficients within one image block using steps shown in Figure (4): a. The proposed technique in this paper can be considered as an improvement of the classic DCT approach with few modifications that could be listed as follows: a. Actually few conditions must be met when choosing these coefficients location :  Coefficients must be located in the middle frequency range (the colored area in Figure (2)) which is chosen as the embedding region to provide additional resistance to lossy compression techniques while avoiding significant modification of the original image.  The inside bounds with the other frequency range (High and Low ) should be avoided for more guarantee that the coefficient are in the middle as much as possible (the yellow locations in Figure (2)).  Within the area we must avoid the outer bound (the red locations in Figure (2)) where the horizontal or vertical frequency is zero. Figure (2): Analyzing the possible locations of the 4 DCT coefficients c. Figure (3): An example of where the first bit value could be inserted . III. b. III. THE PROPOSED 2D-DCT BASED TECHNIQUE The traditional and still most popular DCT-based algorithm allows an image to be broken up into different frequency bands. the other has much influence and could deform the watermarked image horizontally or vertically. Increasing the number used coefficients to three and four which will be more attractive to obtain better results. if the watermarked image is modified (as when compressed for transmitting). For more safety.  For robust watermarking. Using the JPEG compression algorithm steps until having the quantized 2D-DCT blocks. the DG (dark green) locations for 3 coefficient and the LG (light green) locations for 3 or 4 coefficient to serve the proposed algorithm. Split each channel data into several 8X8 (the best standard size for 2D-DCT) blocks located at different positions as in Figure (3). processing or even noise attack. making it much easier to embed watermarking information into the middle frequency bands of an image.  Thus the choices were limited to only two possible ones. One such technique utilizes the comparison of middle-band DCT coefficients to encode a single bit (0 if specified coefficient is smaller than the other one or 1 if it is bigger) into a DCT block. then the watermark bit in the middle frequency range as in the classic algorithm. When one frequency is zero. Simple implementation and fast computations. The middle frequency bands are chosen such that they avoid the most visual important parts of the image (low frequencies) without over-exposing themselves to removal through compression and noise attacks (high frequencies) [4.5]. the detected watermark should still match the embedded one well to give a clear judgment of the existence of the watermark. This is helpful against compression since it reduces the influence of quantization and rounding in the extraction stage. Later the three extracted values .one for each channelwill be used as inputs to a voter to increase the probability of having correct extracted watermark bit even if one value was changed during compressing. so the distribution of the splited blocks through the RGB channels could be used as a secret key between the authorized users. d.

ℎ . Comparing the four 2D-DCT coefficient value located as mentioned previously to extract three bit values using the following algorithm: = As mentioned in the last section . (3. f. where K is the strength factor : (2. Figure (4): The embedding flow chart When implementing the proposed technique acceptable results was obtained and evaluated: .3). (1. min (4. Perform the 2D-DCT transform on each three corresponding blocks in parallel as preparation to embed the watermarking bit into the middle frequency bands of each block. The inverse 2D-DCT is performed to map the coefficients back into the space domain and reconstruct the water marked image. coefficient in location (2.2). EXTRACTING PROCESS ( .u. but the users have to agree up on which location will express the watermark bit depending on the relative size of the other three coefficients. b. This means that the probability of overcoming such attacks will be doubled.v)  x.4) + (1. to a voting process that gives the final value of that bit (one if the majority is one and zero otherwise).3) and (1.  is the input values of each block in position (x.4).2). and .3) is larger than the other three coefficients.N are the cover image dimensions. (3. the extraction process can be performed as following: a. (2. Based on that.3) > max (4. d.3) < min (4. Perform the inverse 2D-DCT to reconstruct the watermarked image (WI) including the watermark (W) with no visible effect. ( . (3. ( . the 2D-DCT four coefficients are located in (4.2). An easy example to illustrate the idea is implementing the “and” logical operation between the bit value and the binary secret key bit by bit. (2.1).y. Since the affected pixel from the watermarked image may cause an error in one of three bit value. Divide the RGB channels into blocks at the same order of the embedding..(2.b.1).v =0 . For any block Bi encodes a“1” if Bi (2. ⎨ ⎩ .2). =0 ⎧ III.4) − .2).  is the transform coefficients matrix with positions (u. (3. ℎ d.4) Insert the three extracted values for one watermark bit. =0 ⎨ ⎩ . there are two other values to forcethe voter deviate to the correct value.This is repeated until the whole hidden bits are obtained. ) cos (2 + 1) cos 2 (2 + 1) 2 The user can use a coded watermark bits before embedding with secret key for more security. otherwise a “0” is encoded. =0 e. max (4. THE PROPOSED TECHNIQUE EVALUATION With this improvement technique the probability of extracting a correct watermark bit will be increased without degrading the original image even if the watermarked image has been compressed or exposed to an attack such as noise. a public/private key must be used again after the extraction process to decode the result value and forming the correct watermark. ) cos (2 + 1) cos 2 (2 + 1) 2 where :  M .1). c. e. 7 ⎧ = c.b.g.1). In other words to embed the corresponding watermark bit bi .1).3) = e. (1.(3. (1. )= f. Figure (5) shows an outline of the extraction algorithm. =1 . For getting higher security.y). )= ( . = Each watermark bit could be obtained by performing all the above in reverse order as in Figure(). 1. each block must be modified as follows. Perform the 2D-DCT transform on each three blocks in parallel.4) 0. Figure (5): The extraction flow chart IV.

 Much robust against compressing because of using the same JPEG compressing steps in the embedding stage which is clear in Table(3) and Figure(8).6518 .9884 0 0.8744 0.9965 0 0.8701 0.3401 0.0039 0.9967 0 0.7160 3coefficients & 3channels 0.97981 0 4coefficients & 1channel 0. Perceptually: where it is obviously to the human eye that the extracted watermark has better quality than the watermark extracted using the previous algorithms.6003 4coefficients & 1channel 0.7).9430 0.9965 0 0.9873 0 0.0484 0.6518 4coefficients & 3channels 0.9995 0 0.3695 0.9988 0 0.5987 Table (2): Numerical results of digimarking with different 2D-DCT based algorithms Digimarking with = 1 2D-DCT based algorithm Corr RMSE Corr RMSE Figure (7): Perceptual results of digimarking with different 2DDCT based algorithms and K=1 Table (3): Numerical results of compression test with = 75% Digimarking with =1 2D-DCT based algorithm Corr RMSE Corr RMSE 3coefficients & 1channel 0. The experimental results prove the strength of the proposed algorithm that could be noticed in the following points :  Efficient embedding and extracting the watermarks using lower strength factor value (The perfect value chosen experimentally) which provides less effecting on the original image while it must be 5 at least for other algorithms as shown in Table (1-2) and Figure(6.9893 0 1 0 4coefficients & 3channels 0.  Much secure due to the secret distribution of the 2D-DCT blocks in where the watermark bits will be embedded after coded with secret key and using three color channels with secret positions.2519 3coefficients & 1channel 0.3579 0.  Acceptable robustness against attacks such as noise or cropping because of using a voter that deviate the extracted bit to the correct value and much immune to compress with quality factor ranging up to C =30% (ratio of still image data) as shown in appendix Figure.9823 0 0.9873 0 0.1949 0.7048 0.9955 0 0.2577 3coefficients & 3channels 0.  Numerically: using two performance evaluation measures which are RMSE (Root-Mean-Square Error) (which must as small as possible where 0 is the perfect value when complete match) and correlation (which must be as great as possible where 1 is the perfect value when complete match) to illustrate the improvement extracted watermark quality in construct to the original embedded watermark and the watermarked image compared with the original one. Figure (6): Perceptual results of compression test with = 75% Table (1): Numerical results of compression test with = 75% Digimarking with = 5 The algorithm Corr RMSE Corr RMSE LSB 0.7292 2D-DCT based with 2 coefficients 2D-DCT based with 3 coefficients 0.

”Embedding Robust Labels into Images for Copyright Protection. Langelaar. Setyawan. F.” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Intellectual Property Rights for Information. S.Amado.”in IEEE Workshop on Nonlinear Signal and Image Proccessing. CONCLUSION In this research we started by understanding the available 2D-DCT techniques to get the benefits and avoid the disadvantages in a proposed technique expected to be much efficient in digimarking and more robust against any applied process especially compression or even a watermark removal trial. Figure(9) shows some of the used images. Koch.this will reduce the execution time on the expense of hardware cost .but it still be less expensive since it is paid only one time .452-455. and F. ” IEEE Trans.”Towards Robust and Hidden Image Copyright Labeling . “Introduction to Watermarking Techniques” in Information Techniques for Steganography and Digital Watermarking. Hartung. pp 55-68. 98% in average as recorded in the appendix Table(4). M.pp.Wien:OldenbourgVerlag. “Watermarking Digital Image and Video Data.  Hardware Redundancy : The proposed technique could be implemented in hardware by using three processors one for each channel data and a voter . June.. Koch. the proposed algorithm was applied on different images selected randomly (large image database contains 60 BMP image files with uncompressed 24-bit format that have been randomly selected from the World Wide Web). Knowledge and New Techniques.C.June. I. pp 97-119.L. Northwood. Kutter. R. Image Processing. J. ” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine. Vol 17.Figure (8): Perceptual results of compression test with = 75% To prove the fact that the performance of the proposed algorithm is independent from the image nature and properties. Figure (9): A sample from the image database REFERENCES [1].J. MA: Artec House. September 2000 [3] J. pp 20-43.1995. To be accurate any improved results will be on the expense of the total cost which will be increased because of:  Software Redundancy: Repeating the same embedding and extracting algorithm on three channels instead of only one requires adding voter unit and of course more instructions which meaning longer execution time. Dec.Munchen. Katzenbeisser et al.R. Hernandez. [5] Zhao.E .E . “DCT-Domain Watermarking Techniques for Still Images: Detector Performance Analysis And a New Structure. vol. M. 9. . 2000 [4] Zhao. 1999 [2] G. Lagendijk. Perez-Gonzalez. Eds.242-251.pp. and Figure(10) shows the extracted watermarks with correlation factors Figure (10): Extracted watermark from a set of watermarked images V. 1995. Jan.

8763 0.9819 0.9921 0.9945 0.9856 0.9900 0.9878 1 0.9980 0.9888 0.9956 0.9869 0.9841 Correlation between extracted watermark and the original 0.9958 0.9980 1 1 0.9839 0.9858 0.9598 0.9880 0.9871 0.9740 Correlation between extracted watermark and the original 1 1 1 0.9933 0.9621 0.9468 1 0.9878 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Correlation between watermarked image and the original 0.9939 1 1 0.9980 0.9643 0.9838 1 0.9928 0.9888 0.9980 1 0.9939 0.9940 0.9898 1 1 1 0.9907 0.9904 0.9898 1 0.9901 0.9576 0.9898 1 0.9934 0.9824 0.9680 .9929 0.9827 0.9919 1 0.9984 0.9825 0.9878 1 0.9959 1 0.9867 0.9903 0.9768 0.9633 0.9959 1 1 1 1 0.9946 0.9783 0.8609 0. JPEG compress with (50% quality level) Cropping with border size = 20 Pixel JPEG compress with (40% quality level) Adding random noise JPEG compress with (30% quality level) Figure (11): The proposed 2D-DCT based algorithm with = 1 to extract a watermark from a processed watermarked image 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 0.9760 0.9809 0.9563 1 0.9818 0.9798 1 Image Correlation between watermarked image and the original Image Correlation between extracted watermark and the original 1 0.9878 0.9699 0.9957 0.9706 0.9583 0.9946 0.9641 0.9980 0.9786 0.9823 0.9950 Correlation between extracted watermark and the original 0.Appendix The processing description No attack on the watermarked image (256X256 pixels) from which results a (32X32 pixels) watermark could be extracted.9761 0.9819 0.9825 0.9910 0.9837 0.9901 0.9959 0.9924 0.9793 0.9754 0.9883 0.9885 0.9818 0. The watermarked image after processing The extracted watermark The processing The watermarked image after processing The extracted watermark JPEG compress with (75% quality level) Resizing the watermarked image to (512X512 pixels) results a watermark with the same resizing rate (64X64 pixels).9901 0.9852 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 0.9927 0.9919 Image Image Table (4): The correlation values of the watermarked images and the extracted watermarks Correlation between watermarked image and the original 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Correlation between watermarked image and the original 0.9793 0.9919 0.9907 0.