#Deepfakes are everywhere, but #DigitalForensics investigators are fighting back:
-
#Deepfakes are everywhere, but #DigitalForensics investigators are fighting back:
@FabMusacchio especially with the first image the building might be a bit crooked or the lines might just be a bit off. It's pretty close to having a vanishing point. It's even closer to having a vanishing point if you remove the wall line, that might not be perfectly parallel and look just at the tiles.
But yeah go to know about this technique anyway.
-
@FabMusacchio Great to have a sure way to prove things, but honestly, just zoom in on details see if they're coherent? In most if not any genai image? Not even talking about the dinausore/crocodile one because if you're under 50 you could tell in one blink
@Ragon2 @FabMusacchio they're just example pics. There's a lots of tells, but here they're just concentrating on the perspective lines for this part of the analysis. These are a lot more subtle and missed by folks, and can quickly reveal things in times where other tells are not available.
-
@FabMusacchio to be fair, the first one the perspective doesn't 100% mean it's fake. It could be that some builder somewhere did a shite job of the tiling.
As a photographer who is very fond of extremely wide angle lenses, I can tell you these tests will often fail on real images, as well. But the points made are valid...
-
#Deepfakes are everywhere, but #DigitalForensics investigators are fighting back:
@FabMusacchio defeated by simple trigonometry. nice.
-
#Deepfakes are everywhere, but #DigitalForensics investigators are fighting back:
@FabMusacchio in the soldiers pictures… there are like a hundred giveaways that it's fake easier to spot than the sligthly off parallel line.
nothing makes sens. the chains ?? so much to say about them. Why ? where are they attached ? Why are they so unconsistent ?
The uniforms that are not uniform. like. You had one job. The helmets… the nonesense "text". the collars. the trousers too large ? In the military ? I don't buy it. the shirt that looks heavy and "cargo" at the top bit they look light like an everyday summer shirt painted green. And what are those white dots ? The masks, what... what are are they ? are they masks or chinstrap ? and what do they seam to eat them, are they nervous ? They you look at the figures behind and find that they make less and less sens at each row. they sort of melt.
And The guns. what are they. you can't even identify each parts of the weapon. and then you look a the hands. why are they blended ?and. look between the legs of the front figure. it like there are no one behind him.
I could go on all day about so many obvious mistakes.
It feels like an "early" Dall•e picture the way it kind of seems painted and blended.
-
@FabMusacchio in the soldiers pictures… there are like a hundred giveaways that it's fake easier to spot than the sligthly off parallel line.
nothing makes sens. the chains ?? so much to say about them. Why ? where are they attached ? Why are they so unconsistent ?
The uniforms that are not uniform. like. You had one job. The helmets… the nonesense "text". the collars. the trousers too large ? In the military ? I don't buy it. the shirt that looks heavy and "cargo" at the top bit they look light like an everyday summer shirt painted green. And what are those white dots ? The masks, what... what are are they ? are they masks or chinstrap ? and what do they seam to eat them, are they nervous ? They you look at the figures behind and find that they make less and less sens at each row. they sort of melt.
And The guns. what are they. you can't even identify each parts of the weapon. and then you look a the hands. why are they blended ?and. look between the legs of the front figure. it like there are no one behind him.
I could go on all day about so many obvious mistakes.
It feels like an "early" Dall•e picture the way it kind of seems painted and blended.
@FabMusacchio I find it so frustrating that we're trying to find mathematical proof that it's fake where it so obvious. Just watch the pictures !!! I hate these times.
-
@leah agreed, I just wished the technique they described came with that as a warning, because the (obviously generated, "read" the uniform patches) hallway picture shown would be a *prime* candidate for taking with a fisheye lens or a similarly distorting lens; and the piece of flooring used to extrapolate the straight lines is already honestly too short in the example to be sure. I cannot, over the length of maybe 50px, draw a 1000px line with < 1° error.
@funkylab @leah @mansr @nCrazed @FabMusacchio also wth are these chains doing here lol
-
#Deepfakes are everywhere, but #DigitalForensics investigators are fighting back:
Good points… except the bad one: the dinosaur graphic shows a line connecting different toes to the horizon
-
#Deepfakes are everywhere, but #DigitalForensics investigators are fighting back:
@FabMusacchio What is wild to me is that any photoshopper worth their salt in 2005 wouldn't have screwed the lighting or reflections up.
-
#Deepfakes are everywhere, but #DigitalForensics investigators are fighting back:
@FabMusacchio Plus, in the first photo, those lines of "moving" soldiers are just a little too perfect. Nobody can march in formation without *some* deviation.
-
#Deepfakes are everywhere, but #DigitalForensics investigators are fighting back:
@FabMusacchio Interesting. Should models be able to learn this?
-
#Deepfakes are everywhere, but #DigitalForensics investigators are fighting back:
@FabMusacchio so basically you can determine if an image is a fake using parallel lines. Neat.
-
#Deepfakes are everywhere, but #DigitalForensics investigators are fighting back:
@FabMusacchio Another group of lines I often follow is from the knees, and from the backbone/visible parts of hip, towards the hip joints.
Years of anatomical drawing lessons paying of. -
@FabMusacchio How does this method handle lens distortion?
@mansr @FabMusacchio the middle lines should still meet, the outer ones will cross a little bit in an orderly manner. Not the second to the left and the third to the right.
-
@FabMusacchio I find it so frustrating that we're trying to find mathematical proof that it's fake where it so obvious. Just watch the pictures !!! I hate these times.
@Steel_Virgin @FabMusacchio The goal wasn't to show that picture was fake. The goal was to show the technique of analyzing vanishing point perspective errors.
-
Ooooh - what I like about this is, unlike a lot of "here's how you spot this stuff" advice, these seem like maybe things AI-generated images will have a *very* hard time ever getting consistently right.
@aearo @FabMusacchio What's interesting to me is WHY AI generated images will maybe never get it right.
Put simply, the consumers of the AI generated images do not care whether or not all the lines properly converge onto a vanishing point. Human vision may care about weird extra fingers, but vanishing point convergence? Nope. Don't care.
Human viewers will never notice these perspective errors, so AI models have no incentive to fix them.
-
@f4grx @FabMusacchio sun rays are parallel, yet they meet at a point...?
It's not the sun's rays that meet at a point, it's the lines from the objects' shadows to the corresponding points on the objects that should meet at a point.
The statement about the sun's rays being effectively parallel just means that the direction of the light source can be considered the same for all objects.
-
@FabMusacchio So if I want to commit a murder, I have years to prepare it and I know the place will be surveilled with cameras, I should pave it with slightly non-parallell tiles, to get a plausible deniability.
@microblogc @FabMusacchio I was thinking, what if it was just paved a bit wonky.
-
@FabMusacchio Interesting. Should models be able to learn this?
@jfparis as soon as there are programs to do those analysis automatically, this will be used as feedback loop for the models....
-
#Deepfakes are everywhere, but #DigitalForensics investigators are fighting back:
@FabMusacchio In the third photo, the second paragraph of added text contradicts the first paragraph. (The first paragraph is correct, and the second is false. What is wrong is not a slightly inconsistent vanishing point, it is that the shadows are at visibly different angles in the first place. There should be no measurable vanishing point at all.)
