[Fototim]

Even if you're willing to believe that they've made this database (and software that works with it) and successfully keep it completely secret, in order for what WendyB to be saying to be true, you also have to believe that she is one of the few who have been let into the secret, and has decided to let it slip, presumably blowing all future security clearance to discredit some pictures of a camera which leaked two weeks early.

Uh-huh, sure.

I can't recall WendyB claiming that she was the one who identified the camera as a K100D. All she said was that it was a K100D, followed up by some information about some super duper fingerprint identifying software.

This said. I find this identifing specific cameras theory very unlikly.

One reason is that I'm pretty sure it is illegal in my homecountry.

Tim

[Duck Dodgers]

This fingerprint software story is interesting. but is such software publicly available, if so we can just get it and see. if not (more likely) then why does wendyB have it.

Haven't you wondered just what the "B" stands for? I have a theory:

"Name's Bond. Wendy Bond. Licensed to tease."

[mattdm]

I can't recall WendyB claiming that she was the one who identified the camera as a K100D. All she said was that it was a K100D, followed up by some information about some super duper fingerprint identifying software.

Right, she didn't say she did it. She said Image Fingerprints do not reflect the beta, they reflect a Fingerprint stamp of a k100D without any attribution for the source of that information.

As I said before, the charitable theory is that she really is under NDA and asked someone at Pentax about the images and then was fed the (not any less bogus) line above, which she then repeated to us.

If one believes that, one can then conclude that either the images really are from a K100D and Pentax doesn't want to say how they know (which seems odd), or that they really are from the "K20D" but Pentax doesn't want us to think so and is willing to put forth whatever statement they think will help (which doesn't seem likely but big corporations can be weird).

[ricardobeat]

Right, she didn't say she did it. She said Image Fingerprints do not reflect the beta, they reflect a Fingerprint stamp of a k100D without any attribution for the source of that information.

As I said before, the charitable theory is that she really is under NDA and asked someone at Pentax about the images and then was fed the (not any less bogus) line above, which she then repeated to us.

If one believes that, one can then conclude that either the images really are from a K100D and Pentax doesn't want to say how they know (which seems odd), or that they really are from the "K20D" but Pentax doesn't want us to think so and is willing to put forth whatever statement they think will help (which doesn't seem likely but big corporations can be weird).

Why does it sound odd that a person under nda would not be able to provide further information regarding rumours about the very camera she can't open her mouth to talk about? (assuming that you believe that).

If you don't believe that she's under NDA to start with, there isn't even the need to discredit her other statements. Just move on! You can't force your opinions onto everyone else. Are you mad that she is not telling you everything? :]

[WendyB]

Could you please explain how the US government got all the CCD/CMOS sensor fabrication plants to modify the circuits on every sensor to contain a "fingerprint"? Now I know that some people think that the US government has a lot of influence - but every digital camera?

In the weeks after 9/11/2001 I sure do not remember having every single digital camera sent back to the factory to get "fingerprinted". Nor do I know of a point where ALL digital sensors get “sampled” for fingerprints. Please remember that the US government has a real hard time keeping things secret. I also do not think that Canon, Sony, Samsung, Kodak etc. would be obliged to follow the some arbitrary commandment from Washington DC. The governments of those countries - other than Kodak - where the above companies are located, would respond with a single digit in the general direction of DC.

Just think of the design issues that would have to be surmounted. EXIF data would have to be stored in an international format and your sales would have to be tracked. All this while the camera manufacturers can not decide on a common RAW file format? Who owns the patent, where is the patent information - how would this be kept secret - when the design and fab areas are not in the US?

Urban myth - pure and simple.

Besides, I doubt if they know about my camera(s). I bought them, but never sent anything in to Pentax (USA or not) giving them my serial number or name. Now, bring on the black helicopters, mutilated cows and ---- if we have Flying Saucers just why do we still use airplanes, aircraft carriers and the space shuttle?

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

Duh, Patent office, It really is quite a bit more sophisticated than you my lead yourself to beleive.

I apologize for this flame in advance.

[Kaimarx]

I dont see the point in havng such technology, people can just go to a internet cafe, set up an ebay account and purchase second hand digital cameras from overseas or locally...totally untraceable especially if they set up a PO box for delivery in another name. All those resources just to be trumped by a few little workarounds. I can see its usage if its real for such things as NDA and yet to be announced technology, but anti-terrorism? I think the aluminium cookware has finally caught up with the old boys club. Sheesh.

[PDL]

Duh, Patent office, It really is quite a bit more sophisticated than you my lead yourself to beleive.

I apologize for this flame in advance.

Not a flame at me to be sure - you have flamed yourself. Here are two sites taking about a technique developed in ----- 2006 ----- (wasn't 9/11 in 2001?) that is was going to be patented. So where is the patent? It is in the works and the technique was developed 5 years after we were attacked. It seems that a method of use has not gone beyond the research stage.
Digital Camera Fingerprints | TeamDroid
Digital camera 'fingerprinting' developed

But I have loved the one here:
Digital cameras leave 'fingerprints' on their snaps - forensic-science - 24 April 2006 - New Scientist Tech
And I quote:
"Markus Kuhn, a computer security researcher at the University of Cambridge, UK, says the technique is "extremely interesting" and will appeal to digital forensics experts within law enforcement.

But Kuhn notes that sophisticated digital cameras could be more problematic to trace. Kuhn's own research shows that some types of camera are calibrated in the factory to reduce sensor noise: "Good cameras store data on how the sensitivity of individual pixels varies and software compensates each image accordingly."

So the technique works --- only if you have turned off noise reduction or have a manufacturer too dumb to figure out how to maximize their output. And it would work on the so called K20 images --- if you suspect that the K20 is NOT a sophisticated digital camera (see highlighted text above).

This whole set of statements is just unbelievable - how/why would a CCD/CMOS fib facility in say --- China or Indonesia (a Muslim country) --(and they really may not like us)-- provide the US government with this information? In the first two articles they mention EXIF information (and I am a big fan of EXIF), but EXIF can be stripped -- clean out of JPEGS -=> nothing to track with there. (Adobe does this by default when "saving for the web" but then again, I always thought Adobe was part of 'the' conspiracy)

Now if these guys have managed to figure out a way to take a 8 bit JPEG image and recreate the 14 bit RAW file (to get the "full fingerprint") I say bring it on - now that would be very cool.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

[Anastigmat]

I would be laughing my ass off at every unvalidated post on every website out there by over zealous Pentaxians who are posting unfounded specs on the whatever the new camera Pentax is going to introduce. Why? Because it is becoming a joke. It is like everyone is trying to build it up so it can do this, and it can do that, just to say it is better than the D3/D300 or the 40D or the whatever else.

There is a part of me that hopes that it is substandard, just so that 'they' can get their laugh and the over zealous Pentaxians go back to just taking photos and stop making this some sort of childish contest.

I'd like to see Pentax get their name back in the top of the pecking order in the camera world just as much as the next guy, but I would prefer that it be done with some symbolism of class as well.

I think the rumor that the new Pentax will have a 14mp APS-C sensor with low noise is laughable. No one makes such a sensor, so people have to start another rumor that Pentax is the designer of the sensor. Why would Pentax go through the expense and risk the uncertainties of going out and designing its own sensor when it can get a good, proven 12mp APS-C sensor quite cheaply from Sony? Besides, a 14mp APS-C sensor cannot possibly be low noise because of the tiny pixels. It does not make any sense at all.

[Kunzite]

Somehow there is a huge technological gap between a 12MP sensor and a similar sized 14MP one. Thanks, I didn't knew that

[and]

I think the rumor that the new Pentax will have a 14mp APS-C sensor with low noise is laughable. No one makes such a sensor, so people have to start another rumor that Pentax is the designer of the sensor. Why would Pentax go through the expense and risk the uncertainties of going out and designing its own sensor when it can get a good, proven 12mp APS-C sensor quite cheaply from Sony? Besides, a 14mp APS-C sensor cannot possibly be low noise because of the tiny pixels. It does not make any sense at all.

Will you be eating your hat in a weeks time?

[lol101]

I think the rumor that the new Pentax will have a 14mp APS-C sensor with low noise is laughable. No one makes such a sensor, so people have to start another rumor that Pentax is the designer of the sensor. Why would Pentax go through the expense and risk the uncertainties of going out and designing its own sensor when it can get a good, proven 12mp APS-C sensor quite cheaply from Sony? Besides, a 14mp APS-C sensor cannot possibly be low noise because of the tiny pixels. It does not make any sense at all.

What about taking this risk to get some independancy from one of your concurent?

What about taking this risk to differentiate yourself from the other in what counts most: image quality?

Besides, compare ISO 1600 of the D300 with ISO 1600 of the D200 (not even talking about the D100) and tell me if fewer pixels always means lower noise...


I don't know what's comming from Pentax but if anything, I think they would make the right and IMHO only possible choice if they decided to design their own sensors.

I don't think that anyone working in a competitive industry would like to depend on a concurent for the design, production and delivery of the most important part of its products...

[mattdm]

Why does it sound odd that a person under nda would not be able to provide further information regarding rumours about the very camera she can't open her mouth to talk about?

That's not what I said. I said if she is under an NDA and one presumes she heard from someone at Pentax that they identified the images as coming from the K100D using sensor fingerprinting, that's odd, because (given the issues previously stated with that method vs. reality) if they really do know that they're K100D images they know in some different way. Why would Pentax tell her a tall tale? Like I said, that would be odd.

[mattdm]

Duh, Patent office, It really is quite a bit more sophisticated than you my lead yourself to beleive.

"Patent office"? That doesn't fit with your earlier statement. If there really were a big database of sensor fingerprints from all cameras (remember back when you said it could be mapped back to the name of the registered owner?), it'd be secret, not patented. Otherwise, as previously noted, there'd be no question about it, because it'd be freakin' huge news.

Not a flame at me to be sure - you have flamed yourself. Here are two sites taking about a technique developed in ----- 2006 ----- (wasn't 9/11 in 2001?) that is was going to be patented. So where is the patent? It is in the works and the technique was developed 5 years after we were attacked. It seems that a method of use has not gone beyond the research stage.
Digital Camera Fingerprints | TeamDroid
Digital camera 'fingerprinting' developed

Note again that the research isn't out of MIT, as high-tech sounding as it may be to reference MIT.

This whole set of statements is just unbelievable - how/why would a CCD/CMOS fib facility in say --- China or Indonesia (a Muslim country) --(and they really may not like us)-- provide the US government with this information? In the first two articles they mention EXIF information (and I am a big fan of EXIF), but EXIF can be stripped -- clean out of JPEGS -=> nothing to track with there. (Adobe does this by default when "saving for the web" but then again, I always thought Adobe was part of 'the' conspiracy)

And we already know that the EXIF data was gone from the images we're talking about.

[DigiFilm]

If I were a Nikon or Canon user...

... I'd be thrilled to death that I could finally get a D200 for a grand or less! It's probable true value!!

Couldn't comment on a Canon. Not interested.

[thibs]

"Patent office"? That doesn't fit with your earlier statement. If there really were a big database of sensor fingerprints from all cameras (remember back when you said it could be mapped back to the name of the registered owner?), it'd be secret, not patented. Otherwise, as previously noted, there'd be no question about it, because it'd be freakin' huge news.

You fail to understand her point, I think. Of course the database won't be found on a patent paper. But the tech involved, yes. She probably meant you can find techs related to fingerprint in the patents office if so you decide to actually really check anything.

If you don't, I do not see why you complain.