33 views

Uploaded by ijcsis

The histogram of Discrete Cosine Transform coefficients contains information on the compression parameters for JPEGs and previously JPEG compressed bitmaps. In this paper we extend the work in [1] to identify previously compressed bitmaps and estimate the quantization table that was used for compression, from the peaks of the histogram of DCT coefficients. This can help in establishing bitmap compression history which is particularly useful in applications like image authentication, JPEG artifact removal, and JPEG recompression with less distortion. Furthermore, the estimated table calculates distortion measures to classify the bitmap as genuine or forged. The method shows good average estimation accuracy of around 92.88% against MLE and autocorrelation methods. In addition, because bitmaps do not experience data loss, detecting inconsistencies becomes easier. Detection performance resulted in an average false negative rate of 3.81% and 2.26% for two distortion measures, respectively.

- A Tessellation Activity for Grade 6 Mathematics
- Streamed Coefficients Approach for Quantization Table Estimation in JPEG Images
- File Compression and Decompression
- EQ2310 Collection of Problems
- LZ SQUEEZER: A Compression Technique based on LZ77 and LZ78
- JPEG Transform coding
- 08
- A GUIDELINE FOR THE USE OF IMAGE COMPRESSION IN DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING
- Adequate Traceability Tractability for Expertise Exploitation
- Master Thesis
- What's In an Image
- Documents and Photo Tips Black Eagles & Other Small Packages
- Tracker How To
- International Journal of Computational Engineering Research(IJCER)
- III-12 (1)
- Fc 2610751081
- Demo Vid Cmpr Encrypt
- Intentional Ideas Concerning Traceability Tractability
- Pawan
- Digital Image File Types Explained

You are on page 1of 6

Faculty of Computer and Information Sciences

Ain Shams University

Cairo, Egypt

{s.hamdy, hmessiry, mroushdy, esskhalifa}@cis.asu.edu.eg

Abstract—The histogram of Discrete Cosine Transform threat in the public domain. Hence, ensuring that media

coefficients contains information on the compression parameters content is credible and has not been altered is becoming an

for JPEGs and previously JPEG compressed bitmaps. In this important issue governmental security and commercial

paper we extend the work in [1] to identify previously applications. As a result, research is being conducted for

compressed bitmaps and estimate the quantization table that was

developing authentication methods and tamper detection

used for compression, from the peaks of the histogram of DCT

coefficients. This can help in establishing bitmap compression techniques. Usually JPEG compression introduces blocking

history which is particularly useful in applications like image artifacts and hence one of the standard passive approaches is

authentication, JPEG artifact removal, and JPEG recompression to use inconsistencies in these blocking fingerprints as a

with less distortion. Furthermore, the estimated table calculates reliable indicator of possible tampering [14]. These can also be

distortion measures to classify the bitmap as genuine or forged. used to determine what method of forgery was used.

The method shows good average estimation accuracy of around In this paper we are interested in the authenticity of the

92.88% against MLE and autocorrelation methods. In addition, image. We extend the work in [1] to bitmaps and use the

because bitmaps do not experience data loss, detecting proposed method for identifying previously compressed

inconsistencies becomes easier. Detection performance resulted in

bitmaps and estimating the quantization table that was used.

an average false negative rate of 3.81% and 2.26% for two

distortion measures, respectively. The estimated table is then used to determine if the mage was

forged or not by calculating distortion measures.

In section 2 we study the histogram of DCT AC

Keywords: Digital image forensics; forgery detection; compression coefficients of bitmaps and show how it differs for previously

history; Quantization tables. JPEG compressed bitmaps. We then validate that without

modeling rounding errors or calculating prior probabilities,

I. INTRODUCTION quantization steps of previously compressed bitmaps can still

Although JPEG images are the most widely used image be determined straightforward from the peaks of the

approximated histograms of DCT coefficients. Results are

format, sometimes images are saved in an uncompressed raster

discussed in section 3. Section 4 is for conclusions.

form (bmp, tiff), and in most situations, no knowledge of

previous processing is available. Some applications are II. HISTOGRAM OF DCT COEFFICIENTS IN BITMAPS

required to receive images as bitmaps with instructions for

rendering at a particular size and without further information. We studied in [1] the histogram of quantized DCT

The image may have been processed and perhaps compressed coefficients and showed how it can be used to estimate

with contain severe compression artifacts. Hence, it is useful quantization steps. Here, we study uncompressed images and

to determine the bitmap history; whether the image has ever validate that the approximated histogram of DCT coefficients

been compressed using the JPEG standard and to know what can be used to determine compression history. Bitmap image

quantization tables were used. Most of the artifact removal means no data loss and hence all what is required to build an

algorithms [2-9] require the knowledge of the quantization informative histogram is expected to be present in the

table to estimate the amount of distortion caused by coefficients histograms.

quantization and avoid over-blurring. In other applications, The first step is to decide if the test image was previously

knowing the quantization table can help in avoiding further compressed because if the image was an original

distortion when recompressing the image. Some methods try uncompressed there is no compression data to extract. When

to identify bitmap compression history using Maximum the image is decided to have a compression history, the next

Likelihood Estimation (MLE) [10-11] or by modeling the step is to estimate that history. For grayscale image,

distribution of quantized DCT coefficients, like the use of compression history mainly means its quantization table which

Benford’s law [12], or modeling acquisition devices [13]. will be the focus of this paper. For color image, this is

Furthermore, due to the nature of digital media and the extended to estimating color plane compression parameters

advanced digital image processing techniques, digital images that includes subsampling and associated interpolation.

may be altered and redistributed very easily forming a rising

141 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/

ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,

Vol. 8 No. 8, 2010

(a) (b)

(a) Lena image (b) Uncompressed

(c) (d)

Fig. 2. (a) |X*(3,3)| where Hmax occurs at Q(3,3)=6. (b) |X*(3,4)| where Hmax

(c) JPEG compressed Q(3,3)=6 (d) Previously compressed bmp occurs at Q(3,4) = 10 (c) |X*(5,4)| where Hmax occurs at Q(5,4)=22. (d)

|X*(7,5)| where Hmax occurs at Q(7,5) = 41.

Fig. 1. Histograms of X*(3,3).

Fig. 1(b) shows the approximated histogram H* of DCT estimate as many of the low frequencies and then search

coefficient at position (3,3) of the luminance channel of an through lookup tables for a matching standard table.

uncompressed Lena image and the histogram of the image Estimating the quantization table of a bitmap can help

after being JPEG compressed with quality factor 80. It is clear determine part of its compression history. If all (or most of) of

that the latter contains periodic patterns that are not present in the low frequency steps were estimated to be ones, we can

the uncompressed version. It was observed that the coefficient conclude that the image did not go through previous

is very likely to have been quantized with a step of this compression. High frequencies may bias because they have

periodic [15]. Now if that JPEG was stored in a bitmap very low contribution and do not provide a good estimate.

uncompressed form, we expect the DCT coefficients to have Moreover, this method works well also for uncompressed or

the same behavior because nothing is lost during this format lossless compressed tiff images. Fig. 3(d) shows the 96.7%

change. This is evident in Fig. 1(d) which shows an identical correctly estimated Q table using the above method of a tiff

histogram to the one in Fig. 1(c). Hence, similar to the image taken from UCID [16]. The X’s mark the

argument in [1], if we closely observe the histogram of H*(i,j) “undetermined” coefficients.

outside the main lobe, we notice that the maximum peak Now for verifying the authenticity of the image, we use the

occurs at a value that is equal to the quantization step used to same distortion measures we used in [1]. The average

quantize Xq(i,j). This observation applies to most low distortion measure is calculated as a function of the

frequency AC coefficients. Fig. 2(a) and (b) show |H|, the remainders of DCT coefficients with respect to the original Q

absolute histograms of DCT coefficients for Lena of Fig. 1(a) matrix:

at frequencies (3,3) and (3,4), respectively. As for high 8 8

frequencies, the maximum occurred at a value matching Q(i,j) B1 modD(i, j), Q(i, j) (2)

when |X*(i,j)|>B, (Fig. 2 (c) and (d)), where B is as follows: i 1 j 1

*

Γ X (i,j) X q (i,j) B(i,j) where D(i,j) and Q(i,j) are the DCT coefficient and the

corresponding quantization table entry at position (i,j),

( 2u 1 )iπ ( 2v 1 )jπ (1) respectively. An image block having a large average distortion

0.5 c(u) c(v) cos

16

.cos

16 value indicates that it is very different from what it should be

u,v and is likely to belong to a forged image. Averaged over the

where Xq(i,j) is the quantized coefficient, and X*(i,j) is the entire image, this measure can be used for making a decision

approximated quantized coefficient, Γ is the round off error, about authenticity of the image.

In addition, the JPEG 8×8 “blocking effect” is somehow

and c( ) 1 2 for 0

still present in the uncompressed version and hence blocking

1 otherwise artifact measure, BAM [14], can be used to give an estimate of

See [1, 11]. the distortion of the image. It is computed from the Q table as:

Sometimes we do not have enough information to 8 8

D(i, j )

determine Q(i,j) for high frequencies (i,j). This happens when B2 (n) D(i, j) Q(i, j) round Q(i, j) (3)

the histogram outside the main lobe decays rapidly to zero i 1 j 1

showing no periodic structure. This reflects the small or zero where B(n) is the estimated blocking artifact for the nth block.

value of the coefficient. At such cases, it can be useful to

142 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/

ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,

Vol. 8 No. 8, 2010

5 4 3 2 1 1 1 1

4 1 1 1 1 10 10 10

1 1 1 1 1 10 10 10

1 1 1 1 1 10 10 10

1 1 1 1 14 12 12 12

1 1 1 1 12 13 11 11

1 1 1 1 13 11 12 11

1 1 1 1 13 12 12 12

(a) Test image (b) Estimated Q for uncompressed version (most low frequencies are ones).

3 4 4 6 10 16 20 24 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 5 6 8 10 23 24 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 5 6 10 16 23 28 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 7 9 12 20 35 32 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 9 15 22 27 44 41 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 14 22 26 32 42 45 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 26 31 35 41 48 47 X 0 0 0 0 0 1 X

29 37 38 39 45 40 X X 0 0 0 0 0 X X

(c) Estimated Q for previously compressed version with QF = 80. (d) Difference between (c) and original table for QF=80.

Fig. 3. Estimating Q table for original and previously compressed tif image.

III. EXPERIMENTAL RESUTLS AND DISCUSSION compression tends to lessen available data to make a better

estimate. Average estimation time for all 64 entries of images

A. Estimation Accuracy of size 640×480 for different QFs was 52.7 seconds.

Our testing image set consisted of 550 images collected Estimating Q using MLE methods [10-11] is based on

from different sources (more than five camera models), in searching for all possible Q(i,j) for each DCT coefficient over

addition to some from the public domain Uncompressed Color the whole image which can be computationally exhaustive for

Image Database (UCID), which provides a benchmark for large size files. Another method [12] proposed a logarithmic

image processing analysis [16]. Each of these images was law and argued that the distribution of the first digit of DCT

compressed with different quality factors, [60, 70, 80, and 90]. coefficients follows that generalized Benford’s law. The

Again, each of these was uncompressed and resaved as method is based on re-compressing the test image with several

bitmap. This yielded 550×4 = 2,200 untouched images. For quality factors and fitting the distribution of DCT coefficients

each quality factor group, an image’s histogram of DCT of each version to the proposed law. The QF of the version

coefficients at one certain frequency was generated and used having the least fitting artifact is chosen and its corresponding

to determine the corresponding quantization step at that Q table is the desired one. Of course the above methods can

frequency according to section 2. This was repeated for all the only estimate standard compression tables. Although it may be

64 histograms of DCT coefficients. The resulting quantization accurate, it is time consuming. Plus it fails when the re-

table was compared to the quality factor’s known table and the compression quantization step is an integer multiple of the

percentage of correctly estimated coefficients was recorded. original compression step size. Another method [17] tends to

Also, the estimated table was used in equations (2) and (3) to calculate the autocorrelation function of the histogram of DCT

determine the image’s average distortion and blocking artifact coefficients. The displacement corresponding to the peak

measures, respectively. These values were recorded and used closest to the peak at zero is the value of Q(i,j) given that the

later to set a threshold value for distinguishing forgeries from peak is higher than the mean value of the autocorrelation

untouched images. function. The method eventually uses a hybrid approach; the

Table 1 shows the accuracy of estimating all 64 entries low frequency coefficients are determined directly from the

using the proposed method for each quality factor averaged autocorrelation function, while the higher-frequency ones are

over the whole set. It exhibits a similar behavior to JPEG estimated by matching the estimated part to standard JPEG

images; as quality factor increases, estimation accuracy tables scaled by a factor of s, which is determined from the

increases steadily with an expected drop for quality factors known coefficients.

higher than 90 as the periodic structure becomes less Table 2 shows the estimation accuracy while Table 3

prominent and the bumps are no longer separate enough . shows estimation time, for the different mentioned methods

Overall, we can see that the estimation accuracy is higher than against ours. Note that accuracy was calculated for directly

estimating only the first nine AC coefficients without

TABLE I. PERCENTAGE OF CORRECTLY ESTIMATED COEFFICIENTS matching. This is due to the methods failing to estimate high

FOR SEVERLA QFS

frequency coefficients as most of them are quantized to zero.

QF 60 70 80 90 On the other hand, the listed time is for estimating the nine

BMP 82.07% 84.80% 87.44% 89.44% coefficients and then retrieving the whole matching table from

JPEG[1] 72.03% 76.99% 82.36% 88.26% JPEG standard lookup tables. Maximum peak is faster than

143 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/

ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,

Vol. 8 No. 8, 2010

COEFFICIENTS FOR SEVERAL QFS

QF 50 60 70 80 90 100 Avg.

Method Acc.

MLE 75.31 83.10 90.31 96.34 93.83 59.5 83.06

Benford 99.08 87.59 80.82 93.81 59.47 31.53 75.38

Auto. 48.94 50.37 63.71 81.43 65.37 57.50 61.22

Max.Peak 97.93 97.07 99.01 97.67 89.57 76.04 92.88

COEFFICIENTS FOR SEVERAL QFS

Method

Fig. 4. Distortion measures for untouched and tampered images.

MLE 38.73 37.33 37.44 37.36 37.32 34.14

Benford 59.95 58.67 58.70 58.72 58.38 80.04 shows, values from forged images tend to cluster higher than

Auto 9.23 11.11 11.10 11.12 11.24 8.96 those from untampered images. We tested the distortion

Max.Peak 11.27 11.29 11.30 11.30 11.30 11.56 measure for untouched images against several threshold values

and calculated the corresponding false positive rate FPR (the

statistical modeling and nearly as fast as that autocorrelation

number of untouched images declared as tampered), An ideal

method. However, average accuracy of our method is far

case would be a threshold giving zero false positive. However,

higher. MLE is reliable with 83% accuracy but with more than

we had to take into account the false negatives (the number of

double the time. Benford’s law based method has an accuracy

tampered images declared as untampered) that may occur

of 75 % but is the worst in time because recompressing the

when testing for forgeries. Hence, we require a threshold value

image and calculating distributions for each compressed

keeping both FPR and the FNR low. For average distortion

version may become time consuming for larger images.

measure, we selected a value that gave FPR of 10.8% and a

Images used in the experiments were of size 640×480.

lower FNR as possible for the different types of forgeries for

B. Forfery Detection average distortion. The horizontal line marks this threshold τ =

From the untouched previously compressed bitmap image 50. Similarly, we selected the BAM’s threshold to be τ = 40,

set, we selected 500 images for each quality factor, each of with a corresponding FPR of 5.6%. Table 4 shows the false

which was subjected to four common forgeries; cropping, negative rate (FNR) for the different forgeries at different

rotation, composition, and brightness changes. Cropping quality factors for bitmaps and JPEGs. As expected, as QF

forgeries were done by deleting some columns and rows from increases, a better estimate of the quantization matrix of the

the original image. An image was rotated by 270 o for rotation original untampered image is obtained, and as a result the

forgeries Copy-paste forgeries were done by randomly error percentage decreases. Notice how the values drop than

copying a block of pixels from an arbitrary image and placing those for JPEG file. Notice also that detection of cropping is

it in the original image. Random values were added to every possible when the cropping process breaks the natural JPEG

pixel of the image to simulate brightness change. The resulting grid, that it, the removed rows or columns do not fall in line

fake images were then stored in their uncompressed form for a with the 8×8 blocking. Similarly, when the pasted part fails to

total of (500×4) × 4 = 8,000 images. Next, the quantization fit perfectly into the original JPEG compressed image, the

table for each of these images was estimated as above and distortion metric exceeds the detection threshold, and a

used to calculate the image’s average distortion, (2), and the possible composite is declared. Fig. 5 shows examples of

blocking artifact, (3), measures, respectively. composites. The resulting distortion measures for each

Fig. 4(a) and (b) show values of the average distortion composite are shown in left panel. The dark parts denote low

measure and blocking artifact measure, respectively. The distortion whereas brighter parts indicate high distortion

scattered dots represent 500 untouched images (averaged for values. Notice the highest values correspond to the alien part

all quality factors for each image) while the cross marks and hence mark the forged area.

represent 500 images from the forged dataset. As the figure

TABLE IV. FORGERY DETECTION ERROR RATES FOR BITMAPS AND JPEGS

Average JPEG 12.6% 9.2% 7.55% 8.6% 6.45%

BMP 10.8% 3.9% 4.45% 2.0% 4.9%

JPEG 6.8% 3.3% 5.95% 3.15% 5.0%

BAM

BMP 5.6% 1.05% 3.05% 1.25% 3.7%

144 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/

ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,

Vol. 8 No. 8, 2010

IV. CONCLUSIONS Technol., vol. 5, pp. 74–82, Apr. 1995.

[7] Yang Y., N Galatsanos. P., Katsaggelos A. K., “Regularized

The method discussed in this paper is based on using the reconstruction to reduce blocking artifacts of block discrete cosine

approximated histogram of DCT coefficients of bitmaps for transform compressed images,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video

extracting the image’s compression history; its quantization Technol., vol. 3, pp. 421–432, Dec. 1993.

table. Also the extracted table is used to expose image [8] Luo J., Chen C.W., Parker K. J., Huang T. S., “Artifact reduction in low

bit rate dct-based image compression,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol.

forgeries. The method proved to have practically high 5, pp. 1363–1368, 1996.

estimation accuracy when tested on a large set of image from [9] Chou J., Crouse M., Ramchandran K., “A simple algorithm for removing

different sources compared to other statistical approaches. blocking artifacts in block-transform coded images,” IEEE Signal

Moreover, estimation times proved to be faster than statistical Process. Lett., vol. 5, pp. 33–35, 1998.

methods while maintaining very good accuracy for lower [10] Fan Z., de Queiroz R. L., “Maximum likelihood estimation of jpeg

quantization table in the identification of bitmap compression history”,

frequencies. Experimental results also showed that in Proc. Int. Conf. Image Process. ’00, 10-13 Sept. 2000, 1: 948–951.

performance for bitmaps surpasses that of JPEGs because of [11] Fan Z., de Queiroz R. L., “Identification of bitmap compression history:

their lossy nature but on the other hand, it takes more time to jpeg detection and quantizer estimation”, in IEEE Trans. Image

process a bitmap. Process., 12(2): 230–235, February 2003.

[12] Fu D., Shi Y.Q., Su W., “A generalized benford's law for jpeg

coefficients and its applications in image forensics”, in Proc. SPIE

REFERENCES Secur., Steganography, and Watermarking of Multimed. Contents IX,

[1] Hamdy S., El-Messiry H., Roushdy M. I., Kahlifa M. E., “Forgery vol. 6505, pp. 1L1-1L11, 2007.

detection in JPEG compressed images”, JAR-Unpublished, 2010. [13] Swaminathan A., Wu M., Ray Liu K. J., “Digital image forensics via

[2] Rosenholtz R., Zakhor A., “Iterative procedures for reduction of intrinsic fingerprints”, IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur., 3(1): 101-117,

blocking effects in transform image coding,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. March 2008.

Video Technol., vol. 2, pp. 91–94, Mar. 1992. [14] Ye S., Sun Q., Chang E.-C., “Detection digital image forgeries by

[3] Fan Z., Eschbach R., “JEPG decompression with reduced artifacts,” measuring inconsistencies in blocking artifacts”, in Proc. IEEE Int.

Proc. IS&T/SPIE Symp. Electronic Imaging: Image and Video Conf. Multimed. and Expo., July, 2007, pp. 12-15.

Compression, San Jose, CA, Feb. 1994. [15] J. Fridrich, M. Goljan, and R. Du, "Steganalysis based on JPEG

[4] Fan Z., and F. Li, “Reducing artifacts in JPEG decompression by compatibility", SPIE Multimedia Systems and Applications, vol. 4518,

segmentation and smoothing,” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Image Processing, Denver, CO, pp. 275-280, Aug. 2001.

vol. II, 1996, pp. 17–20. [16] Schaefer G., Stich M., “UCID – An Uncompressed Color Image

[5] Tan K. T., Ghanbari M., “Blockiness detection for MPEG-2-coded Database”, School of Computing and Mathematics, Technical. Report,

video,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 7, pp. 213–215, Aug. 2000. Nottingham Trent University, U.K., 2003.

[6] Minami S., Zakhor A., “An optimization approach for removing [17] Petkov A., Cottier S., “Image quality estimation for jpeg-compressed

blocking effects in transform coding,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video images without the original image”, EE398 Projects - Image and Video

Compression, Stanford University, March 2008.

145 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/

ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,

Vol. 8 No. 8, 2010

Fig. 5. Distortion measures for some composite bitmap images. The left panel represents the average distortion measure while the right panel represents the

blocking artifact measure.

146 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/

ISSN 1947-5500

- A Tessellation Activity for Grade 6 MathematicsUploaded byLyssa Ngel Moding
- Streamed Coefficients Approach for Quantization Table Estimation in JPEG ImagesUploaded byijcsis
- File Compression and DecompressionUploaded byPrakash Bhatiya
- EQ2310 Collection of ProblemsUploaded byESAM980
- LZ SQUEEZER: A Compression Technique based on LZ77 and LZ78Uploaded bythesij
- JPEG Transform codingUploaded bysprynavid
- 08Uploaded by11松老 雲閑
- A GUIDELINE FOR THE USE OF IMAGE COMPRESSION IN DIAGNOSTIC IMAGINGUploaded bymhfateen
- Adequate Traceability Tractability for Expertise ExploitationUploaded bysfofoby
- Master ThesisUploaded byLeoPhạm
- What's In an ImageUploaded by4imprint
- Documents and Photo Tips Black Eagles & Other Small PackagesUploaded byFGGOIANIA
- Tracker How ToUploaded bydekmep
- International Journal of Computational Engineering Research(IJCER)Uploaded byInternational Journal of computational Engineering research (IJCER)
- III-12 (1)Uploaded bybastian89_ripa
- Fc 2610751081Uploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- Demo Vid Cmpr EncryptUploaded byhammadhussain
- Intentional Ideas Concerning Traceability TractabilityUploaded bysfofoby
- PawanUploaded byVipul Sharma
- Digital Image File Types ExplainedUploaded byanchaltyagi
- Indian Institute of Remote SensingUploaded byHitesh Parmar
- CCBEATEME10BitMPEG-4AVCcompressionforBroadcastcontributionUploaded bycfadin
- TRANSACCION DE IMAGENUploaded byMatthew Dorsey
- activity 4 tableUploaded byapi-293668450
- Project 1st PresentationUploaded byChandan Hasagal
- [IJCST-V5I1P3]:H.N.Meenakshi, P.NagabushanUploaded byEighthSenseGroup
- Vta-dip Lp Ece-b & c (2015-16 Sem-II)Uploaded byravibabukancharla
- MMS Lectures Bermudez.Uploaded byMj Bermudez
- dsa 1Uploaded bySubhadeep Jana
- Ctaacs12 Submission 19Uploaded byYassine Ben Ahmed

- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS August 2018 Full VolumeUploaded byijcsis
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS May 2019 Full VolumeUploaded byijcsis
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS March 2018 Full VolumeUploaded byijcsis
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS September 2018 Full VolumeUploaded byijcsis
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS March 2015Uploaded byijcsis
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS October 2015Uploaded byijcsis
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS June 2018 Full VolumeUploaded byijcsis
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS May 2018 Full VolumeUploaded byijcsis
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS January 2016Uploaded byijcsis
- Fraudulent Electronic Transaction Detection Using Dynamic KDA ModelUploaded byijcsis
- International Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS April 2018Uploaded byijcsis
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS February 2018 Full VolumeUploaded byijcsis
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS July 2015Uploaded byijcsis
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS December 2017 Full VolumeUploaded byijcsis
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS December 2017 Part IIUploaded byijcsis
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS December 2017 Part IUploaded byijcsis
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS April 2015Uploaded byijcsis
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS November 2015Uploaded byijcsis
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS January 2018 Full VolumeUploaded byijcsis
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS March 2016 Part IIUploaded byijcsis
- International Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS September 2015Uploaded byijcsis
- Journal_of_Computer_Science_IJCSIS_June_2015.pdfUploaded bywyne
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS March 2016 Part IUploaded byijcsis
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS April 2016 Part IIUploaded byijcsis
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS August 2015Uploaded byijcsis
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS Special Issue February 2016Uploaded byijcsis
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS April 2016 Part IUploaded byijcsis
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS December 2015Uploaded byijcsis
- Embedded Mobile Agent (EMA) for Distributed Information RetrievalUploaded byijcsis

- Bokeh Effect in 3ds MaxUploaded byMac Claude Valliant
- Hitachi L42S504Uploaded bySonnyandDawn Berry
- Rubric PinholeUploaded byjcecil
- Dogwood 2018Uploaded byMichael Zhang
- XC-003Uploaded bymihail
- Phantom Flex ManualUploaded byyfme
- 8 tips every beginning portrait photographer should know b h exploraUploaded byapi-360223732
- manual_4_1Uploaded byJuan Pérez
- Amateur Photographer 5 March 2016Uploaded bynguyensalmon
- Personal IdentificationUploaded byKenneth Ian Catigbe
- T2-Pemeriksaan Radiologis Kelainan Sistem MuskuloskeletalUploaded byDesy Suryani Pais
- JPEGUploaded bybumerr
- Radiographic FILMUploaded byg1381821
- EF Lens Work Book IIIUploaded byBora Ereşici
- starblitz 3300 dtsUploaded byChristian Walldorf
- Multimedia Application TechnologyUploaded bywasif
- Underground Mapping ExampleUploaded byAlonso Valeriano
- Landscape Photography Short GuideUploaded byFlorenta Zamfir
- Photo 1 Midterm ReviewUploaded bycaro sturges
- SIFT-Based Object Recognition Using IRUploaded bygirithik14
- Leapfrog Geo File TypesUploaded byELARDK
- photography portfolio aaaaaUploaded byapi-245078996
- Master your Nikon D-SLR camera 2015.pdfUploaded byFaiza Hassan
- DIP-UNIT-1Uploaded byguptavikas_1051
- Studio Lighting GuideUploaded byravibasarihalli
- dell w2306 owner"s ManualUploaded byGonzalesG
- Hikvision Turbohd Ds 2ce16d0t IrUploaded byshwetank_v
- The Gnomon Workshop - Rendering in Passes _ LayersUploaded byRaffaella Valdivieso
- English manual for Nikon SB50dx FlashUploaded byanlomol4671
- Tan and Triggs Illumination normalizationUploaded bypi194043