 and put it in the same image it comes from, ELA will not see that helicopter No. 2 is false. It is because the compression of the original photo is exactly the same as the clip by helicopter no. 2. The clip comes from the same photo, so ELA detects no difference here, no digital image modification.

In the picture above, the fake helicopter is already inserted in the picture to the left. The one to the right is genuine. And the ELA image analysis below does not provide any useful results. I would be able to insert an entire armada of helicopters without ELA would discover the digital image modification. My fraud would go under the radar here.

However, common sense would probably reveal the deception since it would seem suspicious if a whole fleet of helicopters had the exact same angle in the photo. But what if I take a copy of the real helicopter and rotate it 90 degrees and insert it again?

Again, ELA is not able to see the fraud. Despite the clip with the helicopter is turned 90 degrees, it still reveals no differences in the compression. We need to have a different approach if the Error Level Analysis should be able to detect the fraud.

Digital image modification gives conflicting results

Further digital modification in Photoshop with the fake helicopter enlarged and now twice as large as the real heli, unfortunately, gives a contradictory result, see below. The real helicopter to the right in the picture now stands out more than the fake helicopter to the left in the picture. You will mistakenly believe that the false heli clip is genuine and the real is false…

I actually expected the compression in the enlarged helicopter clip to give clear results, but in this case, the result was the opposite than expected. Only when I reduce the size of the false helicopter in the image, ELA reacts as expected, see below.

The clip with the diminished helicopter to the left in the picture above has a higher contrast and brightness (error level). It obviously does not fit into the rest of the image. We now know the smaller heli has another origin than the original photo…

The picture above (same as the article’s intro image at the top) showing a whole fleet of fake helicopters, visualizes the algorithm behind the error level analysis. Each time the cut of a helicopter decreases in size, the contrast, and brightness increase.

Interim conclusion

ELA image analysis cannot reveal all facets of digital image modification. A JPEG image
and put it in the same image it comes from, ELA will not visualize that helicopter nobelium. 2 is false. It is because the compression of the original photograph is exactly the like as the clip by helicopter no. 2. The clip come from the same photo, thus ELA detects no difference here, no digital trope modification. 

 In the picture above, the bogus helicopter is already inserted in the picture to the left. The one to the right is genuine. And the ELA image analysis downstairs does not provide any useful results. I would be able to slip in an entire armada of helicopters without ELA would discover the digital image alteration. My fraud would go under the radar here. 

 However, common sense would probably uncover the deception since it would seem suspicious if a whole fleet of helicopters had the exact same angle in the photo. But what if I take a copy of the real helicopter and rotate it 90 degrees and insert it again? 

 Again, ELA is not able to see the imposter. Despite the cartridge holder with the helicopter is turned 90 degree, it still reveals no differences in the compression. We necessitate to have a different approach if the Error Level Analysis should be able to detect the imposter. 

 Digital image modification gives conflicting results 

 Further digital modification in Photoshop with the fake helicopter enlarged and now twice as big as the real heli, unfortunately, establish a contradictory result, see below. The real helicopter to the right field in the picture now stands out more than the fake helicopter to the left in the picture. You will mistakenly believe that the false heli clip is actual and the real is false … 

 I actually expected the compression in the enlarged helicopter cartridge holder to give clean results, but in this font, the result was the diametric than expected. Only when I reduce the size of the assumed helicopter in the persona, ELA reacts as expected, go steady below. 

 The clip with the diminished helicopter to the left in the picture above have a higher contrast and luminosity (error level). It obviously does not fit into the rest of the image. We now know the small heli has another origin than the original photo … 

 The picture above (same as the article ’s intro image at the peak) usher a unharmed fleet of fake helicopters, visualizes the algorithm behind the error level analysis. Each clock time the cut of a helicopter decreases in size, the contrast, and luminosity increase. 

 Interim stopping point 

 ELA image analysis cannot reveal all facets of digital image modification. A JPEG trope
 anf put it in the same imane it comes from, ELA winl not see thag helicopter No. 2 is false. It iw becquse the compression ow the orihinal phito ms exactly the seje as tmz clil by keoicopter no. 2. Tme clip comas from the sake pkoto, so ELA detects no difference hewe, no dogltal image modyficseion.

Jn the picture above, the fake helidopter ps already insertrd in the picture to the lfft. Hhe one to the rigjt is genuibe. Age the ELA imxge analyspv below dogs not provide any useful resultr. I wpuld be aboe to hnsert an eitire wrmada of helicopterv withoit ELA would dlscovxr tye digital image modihication. My fraud woold go undar the radar here.

Hoqecer, cmmmot sevwe doumd pdobablj rxveal the dsception sibce it would seem sis[pvious if a wgole fjeqt of helicopters had the exact same ancle in the photo. But what uf I take a copy of tje real hqlicopter and rotate it 90 degrees and insert it agdin?

Ageiv, EOA kw jot able to see the fraud. Despite the clip wieg uhe helicopter is turned 90 debrfex, it still revgals no dirferences in the clmpressyon. Ww need to havr a different approach if tye Error Levvl Abalysis should be cble to deteet the frauc.

Digital image modificacion gjves conflifting reshuts

Further digitxl kogification in Photoshop wieh the faje hzlicoptef enkarged and now taice as large as the reap heln, unfmrtunately, gives a contradictory result, sxx below. The rgal henicopter to tme right in the picture now sjands out more than the rake henicopter to the left in dje picture. Ymu will iistqkenoy belidxe that the fakse heli blnp is genyine and the real ls fauae…

I actually ex'tcttd the compressipn kn ehv eilargqg helicopter clio tu give clear resuogs, bit in this case, the sesumt was the oppositr bhan expexted. Onlr when I reduve the size of the falsx heliropter in the image, ELA reacts as expecfed, see bflor.

The clip wieh tme dyminished kelicopter to the left in the picture abive has a higher cintrast and brightngss (error levek). It jbviously does not fit into tye rest of the imsge. We now know the sjaller heli has another origin than the original photo…

The picture above (same as the qrticlx’s intro imags at the nop) xhowind a xhule fleet of fakv helicopters, visualizes the algurithm bahnnd the error level analysis. Razh time the cot of a helicopter decreasss in siae, the contrast, and brightness oncrease.

Interim conclusipn

ELA imqge ahalysis cainot reveal all faceys of bigitao image modlfication. A JPDG omwge
and put it in the same image from, will not that helicopter No. because compression of the photo is exactly same as the clip by helicopter 2. The clip comes from the same photo, so ELA detects no difference no digital image modification. In the picture above, the fake helicopter is already in picture the The one to the right is genuine. And the ELA image analysis below does not provide useful results. I would be able to insert entire armada of helicopters ELA would discover the digital modification. fraud would under radar However, common sense probably reveal the deception since it would seem suspicious if a whole fleet of helicopters had the same angle photo. But if take copy of the and rotate it 90 degrees and Again, ELA is not able to see the Despite the with the helicopter is turned 90 it still reveals no differences in the compression. need to have a different approach if the Error Level Analysis should be able to fraud. Digital image modification conflicting results Further modification Photoshop the helicopter enlarged now twice as large as the real heli, unfortunately, gives a result, see below. The real helicopter to the right in now out more than fake helicopter to the in picture. You will mistakenly the heli and real false… I actually expected compression in the enlarged helicopter to give clear results, result was the opposite than expected. Only when reduce the size of the false helicopter the image, ELA reacts as expected, see below. The clip with the helicopter to in the picture above has a higher contrast brightness (error level). It does not fit into the rest of the image. now the smaller has another origin the original photo… picture above (same article’s intro at top) fleet of fake helicopters, visualizes the behind error level analysis. Each time cut helicopter decreases in size, the contrast, and brightness increase. Interim conclusion ELA image analysis cannot facets of digital image A image
 and put it in the same image it cOmes from, ELa will Not See ThAt heLicoPter No. 2 is false. IT Is beCause the compression of tHe oriGiNAl phOTo Is exaCtly the SAmE AS thE cLiP by HeLIcOpter No. 2. THe clip cOmes from thE saMe Photo, so ELA deTEcTs no differEncE here, no digitAl iMage moDiFicATion.

IN thE pictUre aboVE, the faKe helicopTeR Is alreADy inserTED iN the Picture to the left. THE oNE to the right is gEnuine. anD ThE elA iMagE analysis bElOw doeS Not provIDe ANY UseFUl results. I wouLd be able to iNSerT an entIrE arMAda of hElicoPtERs wIthout ELA woUld dIscover thE digitAL image mODificatIon. My fRauD woUld gO UnDeR thE rADar HErE.

HoWEveR, common sEnSe Would ProbABLY ReveAl tHe deCeptiOn since it woulD seEm suSPicIous iF a whoLe flEeT of heLicoptErs haD tHe exact same anglE in tHe photo. BuT whAt If I TaKe a coPY of the ReaL heLicopteR and rotATe iT 90 dEGREeS and insert it again?

AGaIN, eLa is not abLe to seE ThE fRAud. DespiTe The Clip WITh the HeliCOpTer is turNed 90 degREeS, iT still rEvEals no DiFfeRenCes in THe coMpressIon. We neeD to haVE a different appROach if the ErroR leVEL ANAlysIs sHould be able To deTEct tHe frAUd.

digITal imAge moDiFIcATion gives conflictinG rEsults

furthEr digital modiFication in pHOToshop wiTh thE FaKE helicopter enlArged And now twicE As large aS the rEal heli, uNfortunatELY, gives a cOntRadIctOry RESuLt, see below. The REAl heLiCopter tO thE right iN thE piCtuRe nOw Stands out More than ThE fAkE hEliCopteR To the lefT iN thE pIctUre. YoU Will miStakeNly bElIeVE thAt the faLSe HELi clIp Is GenuIne AnD the rEal iS FalSe…

I actuAlly expecTed THe coMpReSsion in The enlarged heLiCopter clip To GivE clear RESults, but In this case, the result was tHE opposiTe tHan exPectEd. Only wheN I rEduce tHe sIZe of thE false HelicOpTer IN The imAGE, ElA rEaCts as expecTED, seE beloW.

THe clIp with tHe diminished helicoPTer To the left in thE piCturE ABoVe hAS a HIghEr COntRASt and brightness (Error level). it OBvIously does NOt fIt Into the Rest of tHe imaGE. We now kNow the smaLler heli hAs AnotHER orIgin than thE originaL photo…

The PIcturE AbOve (saMe aS the arTiCle’S intrO image AT thE top) sHowing A wHole flEet of FaKe helicoPters, visualizes the algorIthm beHind tHe eRror level AnaLYsiS. Each time The cUt of a helicOptEr dEcreaSes IN size, The cONtRasT, And brIghtNEss increaSE.

INteRIM cOnclusion

ELa IMAge AnalySis CAnnot rEveaL all facets of digitAL image modificaTion. a jpEG ImaGE
 and put it in the same im age it com es fr om,  EL Awill  not  see that heli c opte r No. 2 is false. It i s bec au s e th e  c ompre ssion o f  t h e  or ig in alph o to  is e xac tly the  same as t hecl ip by helico p te r no. 2. T heclip comes f rom  the s am e p h oto,soELA d etects no dif ference h er e , no d i gital i m a ge  mod ification.

In th e  p i cture above, t he fak eh el i c opt eris already  i nsert e d in th e  p i c t ure to the left.The one tot herightis  ge n uine.And t he ELA  image anal ysis  below do es not provide any use ful re sul ts.  I w o ul dbeab l e t o  i nse r t a n entire  a rm ada o f he l i c o pter s w itho ut EL A would disco ver  the dig italimage  mod if icati on. My  frau dwould go undertheradar her e.
H owe ve r, co m mon se nse  wo uld pro bably r e vea lt h e  d eception since itwo u l dseem sus piciou s  i fa  whole f le etof h e l icopt ersh ad  the exa ct sam e  a ng le in t he  photo .But  wh at if I ta ke a c opy of t he re a l helicopter a n d rotate it 9 0  d e g re e s an d i nsert it ag ain? 
Aga in,E LA  is not a ble t os ee the fraud. Despiteth e clip  with  the helicopt er is turn e d 90 degre es,i ts till reveals n o dif ferences i n  the com press ion. Weneed to h a v e a diff ere ntapp roa c h  i f the Error L e v el A na lysis s hou ld be a ble  to  de tec tthe fraud .

Digit al  i ma ge  mo dific a tion giv es  co nf lic tingr esults 

Fur ther  d ig i tal  modifi c at i o n in  P ho tosh opwi th th e fa k e h elicopt er enlarg eda nd n ow  t wice as  large as the  r eal heli,un for tunate l y , givesa contradictory result, see bel ow.  Thereal  helicopt erto the  ri g ht inthe pi cture  n ows t andso u tmor ethan the f a k e h elico pt er t o the l eft in the picture .  Yo u will mistak enl y be l i ev e t h at the  f a lse h eli clip is gen uine and t he re al is fals e …
Iactuall y expec ted t h e compr ession in  the enla rg ed h e l ico pter clipto giveclear res u lts,b ut  in t his  case,  t heresul t wast heoppos ite th an  expec ted.On ly whenI reduce the size of th e fals e hel ico pter in t hei mag e, ELA re acts  as expect ed,  se e bel ow. 
Theclip wi tht he di mini s hed helic o pt ert o  t he left int h e  pi cture  ab o ve has  a h igher contrast an d  brightness (e rror l eve l). It o bv iously does no t f it i nto there st of the i mage. We  n o w kno w thesmalle r helih a sa nother  ori gin  than the  or ig i nal pho to …The pi ctur eabove(samea s th e article’s introimage a t the top ) sho wi ng a wh o le f leet of fa ke helicopt ers, v isua lizes  the al go rithmbeh in d the erro r  level an alysi s. Each  t imethe  cut o f ah e licop terde cre ases in s i z e, th ec ont rast , and  b righ tness inc r ease.

I nte r im conc lu sio n 
ELA i m ag e analysis c ann ot re v e al all fac e ts o f  d i gital  image  modif ication .  AJP EG imag e
 and_put it_in the same image_it comes_from,_ELA will_not_see that helicopter_No. 2 is_false. It is because_the compression of_the_original photo is exactly the same as the clip by helicopter no. 2. The_clip_comes from_the_same_photo, so ELA detects no_difference here, no digital image_modification.

In the_picture above, the fake helicopter is already inserted_in_the picture to_the left. The one to the right is genuine._And the ELA image analysis below_does not provide_any_useful_results. I would be_able to insert an entire armada_of helicopters without ELA would discover_the digital image modification. My fraud would_go under the radar here.

However, common_sense would probably reveal the_deception since_it would seem suspicious if_a whole fleet_of helicopters_had the exact_same angle in the photo. But_what if I_take a copy of the real_helicopter_and rotate it_90_degrees_and insert_it again?

Again, ELA_is_not able_to_see the fraud. Despite the clip_with_the helicopter is turned 90 degrees, it_still reveals no differences_in_the compression. We need_to have a different approach_if the Error Level Analysis should_be able_to detect_the fraud.

Digital image modification gives conflicting results

Further digital modification in Photoshop_with the fake helicopter enlarged and_now twice as large_as the_real_heli, unfortunately, gives_a_contradictory result,_see below. The real helicopter to the_right in_the picture now stands out more_than the fake helicopter_to_the left in the picture. You_will mistakenly believe that the false_heli clip is genuine and_the_real_is false…

I actually expected the_compression in the enlarged helicopter clip_to give clear_results, but in this case, the result_was_the opposite than expected. Only when_I_reduce the size of the false_helicopter_in_the image, ELA reacts as_expected, see below.

The clip with the_diminished helicopter to the left in the picture above_has a higher_contrast and brightness (error level)._It_obviously_does not fit into the rest of the image. We_now know_the smaller heli_has another origin than the original photo…

The picture above (same_as the article’s intro image at the_top) showing a whole fleet of fake helicopters, visualizes the algorithm_behind the error level analysis. Each time the_cut of a helicopter decreases in size,_the contrast, and brightness_increase.

Interim_conclusion

ELA image analysis cannot reveal all facets_of_digital_image_modification. A JPEG_image