I am working on a project I wanted to do for quite a while. I wanted to make an all-round huffman compressor, which will work, not just in theory, on various types of files, and I am writing it in python:
text - which is, for obvious reasons, the easiet one to implement, already done, works wonderfully.
images - this is where I am struggling. I don't know how to approach images and how to read them in a simple way that it'd actually help me compress them easily.
I've tried reading them pixel by pixel, but somehow, it actually enlarges the picture instead of compressing it.
What I've tried:
Reading the image pixel by pixel using Image(PIL), get all the pixels in a list, create a freq table (for each pixel) and then encrypt it. Problem is, imo, that I am reading each pixel and trying to make a freq table out of that. That way, I get way too many symbols, which leads to too many lengthy huffman codes (over 8 bits).
I think I may be able to solve this problem by reading a larger set of pixels or anything of that sort because then I'd have a smaller code table and therefore less lengthy huffman codes. If I leave it like that, I can, in theory, get 255^3 sized code table (since each pixel is (0-255, 0-255, 0-255)).
Is there any way to read larger amount of pixels at a time (>1 pixel) or is there a better way to approach images when all needed is to compress?
Thank you all for reading so far, and a special thank you for anyone who tries to lend a hand.
edited: If huffman is a real bad compression algorithm for images, are there any better ones you can think off? The project I'm working on can take different algorithms for different file types if it is neccessary.
Encoding whole pixels like this often results in far too many unique symbols, that each are used very few times. Especially if the image is a photograph or if it contains many coloured gradients. A simple way to fix this is splitting the image into its R, G and B colour planes and encoding those either separately or concatenated, either way the actual elements that are being encoded are in the range 0..255 and not multi-dimensional.
But as you suspect, exploiting just 0th order entropy is not so great for many images, especially photographs. As example of what some existing formats do, PNG uses filters to take some advantage of spatial correlation (great for smooth gradients), JPG uses quantized discrete cosine transforms and (usually) a colour space transformation to YCbCr (to decorrelate the channels, and to crush Chroma more mercilessly than Luma) and (usually) Chroma subsampling, JPEG2000 uses wavelets and colour space transformation both in its lossy and lossless forms (though different wavelets, and a different colour space transformation) and also supports subsampling though dropping a wavelet scale achieves a similar effect.
As we all know, the JPEG decoding process is shown in the following:
VLD - Variable length decoding,
ZZ - Zigzag scan,
DQ - Dequantization,
IDCT - Inverse discrete cosine transform,
Color conversion (YUV to RGB) and reorder.
My question is: for different characters of different JPEG images, which of the above decoding process will take more time?
For example:
For decoding this type of image with noise, which of the above Five process will take relatively more time?
Another example:
For two same images wit different quality, which one of the above Five processes will take more time when decoding a image with higher quality?
JPEG tends to compress linearly with size (timewise). The major factor in that would affect the decoding time is whether you use sequential or progressive scans. In sequential, each component is processed once. In progressive, it is at least 2 and possibly as many as 500 (but that would be absurd) for each component.
For your specific questions:
VLD - Variable length decoding,
It depends upon whether you do this once (sequential) or multiple times (progressive)
ZZ - Zigzag scan
Easy to do. Array indices.
DQ - Dequantization
Depends upon how many times you do it. Once for sequential. It could be done multiple times for progressive (but does not need to be unless you want continuous updates on the screen).
IDCT - Inverse discrete cosine transform,
This depends a lot on the algorithm used, whether it is done using scaled integers or floating, and if it is down multiple times (as may (or may not) be done with a progressive JPEG)
Color conversion (YUV to RGB) and reorder.
You only have to do this once. However, if there is sampling, it gets more complicated.
In other words, the decoding time is the same no matter what the image is. However, the decoding time depends upon how that image is encoded.
I qualify that by saying that a smaller file tends to decode faster than a larger one simply because of the time to read off the disk. The more random the data is the larger the file tends to be. It often takes more time to read and display a large BMP file than a JPEG of the same image because of the file size.
I have 16-bit raw image (12 effective bits). I convert it to rgb and now I want to change the dynamic range. I created 2 map functions. You can see them visualized below. As you can see the first function maps values 0-500 to 0-100 and the second one maps the rest values to 101-255.
Now I want to apply the map-functions on the rgb image. What I'm doing is iterating through each pixel, find appropriate function for each channel and apply it on the channel. For example, the pixel is RGB=[100 2000 4000]. On R channel I'll apply the first function since 100 is in 0-500 range. But, on G and B channels I'll apply the second function since their values are in 501-4095.
But, in doing this way I'm actually changing the actual color of the pixel since I apply different functions on the channels of the pixel.
Can you suggest how to do it or at least give me a direction or show some articles?
What you're doing is a very straightforward imaging operation, frequently applied in image and video processing. Sometimes it's (imprecisely) called a lookup table (LUT), even though it's not always implemented via an actual lookup table. Examples of this are gamma adjustment or log encoding.
For instance, an example of this kind of encoding is sRGB, which is a gamma encoding from linear light. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRGB. You'll see that it has a nonlinear adjustment.
The name LUT implies a good way of doing it. If you can make your image a uint8 or uint16 valued set, you can create a vector of desired output values for any input value. The lookup table has the same number of elements as the possible range of the variable type. If you were using a uint8, you'd have a lookup table of 256 values. Then the lookup is easy, you just use the image value as an index into your LUT to get the resulting value. That computational efficiency is why LUTS are so widely used.
In your case, since you're working in RGB space, it is acceptable to apply the curves in exactly the same way to each of the three color channels. RGB space is nice for that reason. However, for various reasons, sometimes different LUTs are implemented per-channel.
So if you had an image (we'll use one included in MATLAB and pretend it's 12 bit by scaling it):
someimage = uint16(imread('autumn.tif')).*16;
image(someimage.*16); % Need to multiply again to display 16 bit data scaled properly
For your LUT, you would implement this as:
lut = uint8([(0:500).*(1/5), (501:4095).*((255-101)/(4095-501)) + 79.5326]);
plot(lut); %Take a look at the lut
This makes the piecewise calculation you described in your question.
You could make a new image this way:
convertedimage = lut(double(someimage)+1);
image(convertedimage);
Note that because MATLAB indexes with doubles--one based--you need to cast properly and add one. This doesn't slow things down as much as you may think; MATLAB is made to do this. I've been using MATLAB for decades and this still looks odd to me.
This method lets you get fancy with the LUT creation (logs, exp, whatever) and it still runs very fast.
In your case, your LUT only needs 4096 elements since your input data is only 12 bits. You may want to be careful with the bounds, since it's possible a uint16 could have higher values. One clean way to bound this is to use the min and end functions:
convertedimage = lut(min(double(someimage)+1, end));
Now, this has implemented your function, but perhaps you want a slightly different function. For instance, a common function of this type is a simple gamma adjustment. A gamma of 2.2 means that the incoming image values are scaled by taking them to the 1/2.2 power (if scaled between 0 and 1). We can create such a LUT as follows:
lutgamma = uint8(256.*(((0:4095)./4095).^(1/2.2)));
plot(lutgamma);
Again, we apply the LUT with a simple indexing:
convertedimage = lutgamma(min(double(someimage)+1, end));
And we get the following image:
Using a smooth LUT will usually improve overall image quality. A piecewise linear LUT will tend to cause the resulting image to have odd discontinuities in the shaded regions.
These are so common in many imaging systems that LUTs have file formats. To see what I mean, look at this LUT generator from a major camera company. LUTs are a big deal, and it looks like you're on the right track.
I think you are referring to something that Photoshop calls "Enhance Monochromatic Contrast", which is described here - look at "Step 3: Try Out The Different Algorithms".
Basically, I think you find a single min from all the channels and a single max from across all 3 channels and apply the same scaling to all the channels, rather than doing each channel individually with its own min and max.
Alternatively, you can convert to Lab (Lightness plus a and b) mode and apply your function to the Lightness channel (without affecting the a and b channels which hold the colour information) then transform back to RGB, your colour unaffected.
Objective: Digit recognition by using Neural Networks
Description: images are normalized into 8 x 13 pixels. For each row ever black pixel is represented by 1and every white white 0. Every image is thus represented by a vector of vectors as follows:
Problem: is it possible to use a vector of vectors in Neural Networks? If not how should can the image be represented?
Combine rows into 1 vector?
Convert every row to its decimal format. Example: Row1: 11111000 = 248 etc.
Combining them into one vector simply by concatenation is certainly possible. In fact, you should notice that arbitrary reordering of the data doesn't change the results, as long as it's consistent between training and classification.
As to your second approach, I think (I am really not sure) you might lose some information that way.
To use multidimensional input, you'd need multidimensional neurons (which I suppose your formalism doesn't support). Sadly you didn't give any info on your network structure, which i think is your main source of problems an confusion. Whenever you evaluate a feature representation, you need to know how the input layer will be structured: If it's impractical, you probably need a different representation.
Your multidimensional vector:
A network that accepts 1 image as input has only 1 (!) input node containing multiple vectors (of rows, respectively). This is the worst possible representation of your data. If we:
flatten the input hierarchy: We get 1 input neuron for every row.
flatten the input hierarchy completely: we get 1 input neuron for every pixel.
Think about all 3 approaches and what it does to your data. The latter approach is almost always as bad as the first approach. Neural networks work best with features. Features are not restructurings of the pixels (your row vectors). They should be META-data you can gain from the pixels: Brightness, locations where we go from back to white, bounding boxes, edges, shapes, masses of gravity, ... there's tons of stuff that can be chosen as features in image processing. You have to think about your problem and choose one (or more).
In the end, when you ask about how to "combine rows into 1 vector": You're just rephrasing "finding a feature vector for the whole image". You definitely don't want to "concatenate" your vectors and feed raw data into the network, you need to find information before you use the network. This is critical for pre-processing.
For further information on which features might be viable for OCR, just read into some papers. The most successful network atm is Convolutional Neural Network. A starting point for the topic feature extraction is here.
1 ) Yes combine into one vector is suitable i use this way
http://vimeo.com/52775200
2) No it is not suitable because after normalization from rang ( 0-255 ) -> to range ( 0 - 1 ) differt rows gives aprox same values so lose data
Given two different image files (in whatever format I choose), I need to write a program to predict the chance if one being the illegal copy of another. The author of the copy may do stuff like rotating, making negative, or adding trivial details (as well as changing the dimension of the image).
Do you know any algorithm to do this kind of job?
These are simply ideas I've had thinking about the problem, never tried it but I like thinking about problems like this!
Before you begin
Consider normalising the pictures, if one is a higher resolution than the other, consider the option that one of them is a compressed version of the other, therefore scaling the resolution down might provide more accurate results.
Consider scanning various prospective areas of the image that could represent zoomed portions of the image and various positions and rotations. It starts getting tricky if one of the images are a skewed version of another, these are the sort of limitations you should identify and compromise on.
Matlab is an excellent tool for testing and evaluating images.
Testing the algorithms
You should test (at the minimum) a large human analysed set of test data where matches are known beforehand. If for example in your test data you have 1,000 images where 5% of them match, you now have a reasonably reliable benchmark. An algorithm that finds 10% positives is not as good as one that finds 4% of positives in our test data. However, one algorithm may find all the matches, but also have a large 20% false positive rate, so there are several ways to rate your algorithms.
The test data should attempt to be designed to cover as many types of dynamics as possible that you would expect to find in the real world.
It is important to note that each algorithm to be useful must perform better than random guessing, otherwise it is useless to us!
You can then apply your software into the real world in a controlled way and start to analyse the results it produces. This is the sort of software project which can go on for infinitum, there are always tweaks and improvements you can make, it is important to bear that in mind when designing it as it is easy to fall into the trap of the never ending project.
Colour Buckets
With two pictures, scan each pixel and count the colours. For example you might have the 'buckets':
white
red
blue
green
black
(Obviously you would have a higher resolution of counters). Every time you find a 'red' pixel, you increment the red counter. Each bucket can be representative of spectrum of colours, the higher resolution the more accurate but you should experiment with an acceptable difference rate.
Once you have your totals, compare it to the totals for a second image. You might find that each image has a fairly unique footprint, enough to identify matches.
Edge detection
How about using Edge Detection.
(source: wikimedia.org)
With two similar pictures edge detection should provide you with a usable and fairly reliable unique footprint.
Take both pictures, and apply edge detection. Maybe measure the average thickness of the edges and then calculate the probability the image could be scaled, and rescale if necessary. Below is an example of an applied Gabor Filter (a type of edge detection) in various rotations.
Compare the pictures pixel for pixel, count the matches and the non matches. If they are within a certain threshold of error, you have a match. Otherwise, you could try reducing the resolution up to a certain point and see if the probability of a match improves.
Regions of Interest
Some images may have distinctive segments/regions of interest. These regions probably contrast highly with the rest of the image, and are a good item to search for in your other images to find matches. Take this image for example:
(source: meetthegimp.org)
The construction worker in blue is a region of interest and can be used as a search object. There are probably several ways you could extract properties/data from this region of interest and use them to search your data set.
If you have more than 2 regions of interest, you can measure the distances between them. Take this simplified example:
(source: per2000.eu)
We have 3 clear regions of interest. The distance between region 1 and 2 may be 200 pixels, between 1 and 3 400 pixels, and 2 and 3 200 pixels.
Search other images for similar regions of interest, normalise the distance values and see if you have potential matches. This technique could work well for rotated and scaled images. The more regions of interest you have, the probability of a match increases as each distance measurement matches.
It is important to think about the context of your data set. If for example your data set is modern art, then regions of interest would work quite well, as regions of interest were probably designed to be a fundamental part of the final image. If however you are dealing with images of construction sites, regions of interest may be interpreted by the illegal copier as ugly and may be cropped/edited out liberally. Keep in mind common features of your dataset, and attempt to exploit that knowledge.
Morphing
Morphing two images is the process of turning one image into the other through a set of steps:
Note, this is different to fading one image into another!
There are many software packages that can morph images. It's traditionaly used as a transitional effect, two images don't morph into something halfway usually, one extreme morphs into the other extreme as the final result.
Why could this be useful? Dependant on the morphing algorithm you use, there may be a relationship between similarity of images, and some parameters of the morphing algorithm.
In a grossly over simplified example, one algorithm might execute faster when there are less changes to be made. We then know there is a higher probability that these two images share properties with each other.
This technique could work well for rotated, distorted, skewed, zoomed, all types of copied images. Again this is just an idea I have had, it's not based on any researched academia as far as I am aware (I haven't look hard though), so it may be a lot of work for you with limited/no results.
Zipping
Ow's answer in this question is excellent, I remember reading about these sort of techniques studying AI. It is quite effective at comparing corpus lexicons.
One interesting optimisation when comparing corpuses is that you can remove words considered to be too common, for example 'The', 'A', 'And' etc. These words dilute our result, we want to work out how different the two corpus are so these can be removed before processing. Perhaps there are similar common signals in images that could be stripped before compression? It might be worth looking into.
Compression ratio is a very quick and reasonably effective way of determining how similar two sets of data are. Reading up about how compression works will give you a good idea why this could be so effective. For a fast to release algorithm this would probably be a good starting point.
Transparency
Again I am unsure how transparency data is stored for certain image types, gif png etc, but this will be extractable and would serve as an effective simplified cut out to compare with your data sets transparency.
Inverting Signals
An image is just a signal. If you play a noise from a speaker, and you play the opposite noise in another speaker in perfect sync at the exact same volume, they cancel each other out.
(source: themotorreport.com.au)
Invert on of the images, and add it onto your other image. Scale it/loop positions repetitively until you find a resulting image where enough of the pixels are white (or black? I'll refer to it as a neutral canvas) to provide you with a positive match, or partial match.
However, consider two images that are equal, except one of them has a brighten effect applied to it:
(source: mcburrz.com)
Inverting one of them, then adding it to the other will not result in a neutral canvas which is what we are aiming for. However, when comparing the pixels from both original images, we can definatly see a clear relationship between the two.
I haven't studied colour for some years now, and am unsure if the colour spectrum is on a linear scale, but if you determined the average factor of colour difference between both pictures, you can use this value to normalise the data before processing with this technique.
Tree Data structures
At first these don't seem to fit for the problem, but I think they could work.
You could think about extracting certain properties of an image (for example colour bins) and generate a huffman tree or similar data structure. You might be able to compare two trees for similarity. This wouldn't work well for photographic data for example with a large spectrum of colour, but cartoons or other reduced colour set images this might work.
This probably wouldn't work, but it's an idea. The trie datastructure is great at storing lexicons, for example a dictionarty. It's a prefix tree. Perhaps it's possible to build an image equivalent of a lexicon, (again I can only think of colours) to construct a trie. If you reduced say a 300x300 image into 5x5 squares, then decompose each 5x5 square into a sequence of colours you could construct a trie from the resulting data. If a 2x2 square contains:
FFFFFF|000000|FDFD44|FFFFFF
We have a fairly unique trie code that extends 24 levels, increasing/decreasing the levels (IE reducing/increasing the size of our sub square) may yield more accurate results.
Comparing trie trees should be reasonably easy, and could possible provide effective results.
More ideas
I stumbled accross an interesting paper breif about classification of satellite imagery, it outlines:
Texture measures considered are: cooccurrence matrices, gray-level differences, texture-tone analysis, features derived from the Fourier spectrum, and Gabor filters. Some Fourier features and some Gabor filters were found to be good choices, in particular when a single frequency band was used for classification.
It may be worth investigating those measurements in more detail, although some of them may not be relevant to your data set.
Other things to consider
There are probably a lot of papers on this sort of thing, so reading some of them should help although they can be very technical. It is an extremely difficult area in computing, with many fruitless hours of work spent by many people attempting to do similar things. Keeping it simple and building upon those ideas would be the best way to go. It should be a reasonably difficult challenge to create an algorithm with a better than random match rate, and to start improving on that really does start to get quite hard to achieve.
Each method would probably need to be tested and tweaked thoroughly, if you have any information about the type of picture you will be checking as well, this would be useful. For example advertisements, many of them would have text in them, so doing text recognition would be an easy and probably very reliable way of finding matches especially when combined with other solutions. As mentioned earlier, attempt to exploit common properties of your data set.
Combining alternative measurements and techniques each that can have a weighted vote (dependant on their effectiveness) would be one way you could create a system that generates more accurate results.
If employing multiple algorithms, as mentioned at the begining of this answer, one may find all the positives but have a false positive rate of 20%, it would be of interest to study the properties/strengths/weaknesses of other algorithms as another algorithm may be effective in eliminating false positives returned from another.
Be careful to not fall into attempting to complete the never ending project, good luck!
Read the paper: Porikli, Fatih, Oncel Tuzel, and Peter Meer. “Covariance Tracking Using Model Update Based
on Means on Riemannian Manifolds”. (2006) IEEE Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.
I was successfully able to detect overlapping regions in images captured from adjacent webcams using the technique presented in this paper. My covariance matrix was composed of Sobel, canny and SUSAN aspect/edge detection outputs, as well as the original greyscale pixels.
An idea:
use keypoint detectors to find scale- and transform- invariant descriptors of some points in the image (e.g. SIFT, SURF, GLOH, or LESH).
try to align keypoints with similar descriptors from both images (like in panorama stitching), allow for some image transforms if necessary (e.g. scale & rotate, or elastic stretching).
if many keypoints align well (exists such a transform, that keypoint alignment error is low; or transformation "energy" is low, etc.), you likely have similar images.
Step 2 is not trivial. In particular, you may need to use a smart algorithm to find the most similar keypoint on the other image. Point descriptors are usually very high-dimensional (like a hundred parameters), and there are many points to look through. kd-trees may be useful here, hash lookups don't work well.
Variants:
Detect edges or other features instead of points.
It is indeed much less simple than it seems :-) Nick's suggestion is a good one.
To get started, keep in mind that any worthwhile comparison method will essentially work by converting the images into a different form -- a form which makes it easier to pick similar features out. Usually, this stuff doesn't make for very light reading ...
One of the simplest examples I can think of is simply using the color space of each image. If two images have highly similar color distributions, then you can be reasonably sure that they show the same thing. At least, you can have enough certainty to flag it, or do more testing. Comparing images in color space will also resist things such as rotation, scaling, and some cropping. It won't, of course, resist heavy modification of the image or heavy recoloring (and even a simple hue shift will be somewhat tricky).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGB_color_space
http://upvector.com/index.php?section=tutorials&subsection=tutorials/colorspace
Another example involves something called the Hough Transform. This transform essentially decomposes an image into a set of lines. You can then take some of the 'strongest' lines in each image and see if they line up. You can do some extra work to try and compensate for rotation and scaling too -- and in this case, since comparing a few lines is MUCH less computational work than doing the same to entire images -- it won't be so bad.
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/amos/hough.html
http://rkb.home.cern.ch/rkb/AN16pp/node122.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hough_transform
In the form described by you, the problem is tough. Do you consider copy, paste of part of the image into another larger image as a copy ? etc.
What we loosely refer to as duplicates can be difficult for algorithms to discern.
Your duplicates can be either:
Exact Duplicates
Near-exact Duplicates. (minor edits of image etc)
perceptual Duplicates (same content, but different view, camera etc)
No1 & 2 are easier to solve. No 3. is very subjective and still a research topic.
I can offer a solution for No1 & 2.
Both solutions use the excellent image hash- hashing library: https://github.com/JohannesBuchner/imagehash
Exact duplicates
Exact duplicates can be found using a perceptual hashing measure.
The phash library is quite good at this. I routinely use it to clean
training data.
Usage (from github site) is as simple as:
from PIL import Image
import imagehash
# image_fns : List of training image files
img_hashes = {}
for img_fn in sorted(image_fns):
hash = imagehash.average_hash(Image.open(image_fn))
if hash in img_hashes:
print( '{} duplicate of {}'.format(image_fn, img_hashes[hash]) )
else:
img_hashes[hash] = image_fn
Near-Exact Duplicates
In this case you will have to set a threshold and compare the hash values for their distance from each
other. This has to be done by trial-and-error for your image content.
from PIL import Image
import imagehash
# image_fns : List of training image files
img_hashes = {}
epsilon = 50
for img_fn1, img_fn2 in zip(image_fns, image_fns[::-1]):
if image_fn1 == image_fn2:
continue
hash1 = imagehash.average_hash(Image.open(image_fn1))
hash2 = imagehash.average_hash(Image.open(image_fn2))
if hash1 - hash2 < epsilon:
print( '{} is near duplicate of {}'.format(image_fn1, image_fn2) )
If you take a step-back, this is easier to solve if you watermark the master images.
You will need to use a watermarking scheme to embed a code into the image. To take a step back, as opposed to some of the low-level approaches (edge detection etc) suggested by some folks, a watermarking method is superior because:
It is resistant to Signal processing attacks
► Signal enhancement – sharpening, contrast, etc.
► Filtering – median, low pass, high pass, etc.
► Additive noise – Gaussian, uniform, etc.
► Lossy compression – JPEG, MPEG, etc.
It is resistant to Geometric attacks
► Affine transforms
► Data reduction – cropping, clipping, etc.
► Random local distortions
► Warping
Do some research on watermarking algorithms and you will be on the right path to solving your problem. (
Note: You can benchmark you method using the STIRMARK dataset. It is an accepted standard for this type of application.
This is just a suggestion, it might not work and I'm prepared to be called on this.
This will generate false positives, but hopefully not false negatives.
Resize both of the images so that they are the same size (I assume that the ratios of widths to lengths are the same in both images).
Compress a bitmap of both images with a lossless compression algorithm (e.g. gzip).
Find pairs of files that have similar file sizes. For instance, you could just sort every pair of files you have by how similar the file sizes are and retrieve the top X.
As I said, this will definitely generate false positives, but hopefully not false negatives. You can implement this in five minutes, whereas the Porikil et. al. would probably require extensive work.
I believe if you're willing to apply the approach to every possible orientation and to negative versions, a good start to image recognition (with good reliability) is to use eigenfaces: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenface
Another idea would be to transform both images into vectors of their components. A good way to do this is to create a vector that operates in x*y dimensions (x being the width of your image and y being the height), with the value for each dimension applying to the (x,y) pixel value. Then run a variant of K-Nearest Neighbours with two categories: match and no match. If it's sufficiently close to the original image it will fit in the match category, if not then it won't.
K Nearest Neighbours(KNN) can be found here, there are other good explanations of it on the web too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-nearest_neighbor_algorithm
The benefits of KNN is that the more variants you're comparing to the original image, the more accurate the algorithm becomes. The downside is you need a catalogue of images to train the system first.
If you're willing to consider a different approach altogether to detecting illegal copies of your images, you could consider watermarking. (from 1.4)
...inserts copyright information into the digital object without the loss of quality. Whenever the copyright of a digital object is in question, this information is extracted to identify the rightful owner. It is also possible to encode the identity of the original buyer along with the identity of the copyright holder, which allows tracing of any unauthorized copies.
While it's also a complex field, there are techniques that allow the watermark information to persist through gross image alteration: (from 1.9)
... any signal transform of reasonable strength cannot remove the watermark. Hence a pirate willing to remove the watermark will not succeed unless they debase the document too much to be of commercial interest.
of course, the faq calls implementing this approach: "...very challenging" but if you succeed with it, you get a high confidence of whether the image is a copy or not, rather than a percentage likelihood.
If you're running Linux I would suggest two tools:
align_image_stack from package hugin-tools - is a commandline program that can automatically correct rotation, scaling, and other distortions (it's mostly intended for compositing HDR photography, but works for video frames and other documents too). More information: http://hugin.sourceforge.net/docs/manual/Align_image_stack.html
compare from package imagemagick - a program that can find and count the amount of different pixels in two images. Here's a neat tutorial: http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/compare/ uising the -fuzz N% you can increase the error tolerance. The higher the N the higher the error tolerance to still count two pixels as the same.
align_image_stack should correct any offset so the compare command will actually have a chance of detecting same pixels.