## 4 Experimental Results
### Execution Time (Encoding/Decoding Complexity)  
In this subsection, the encoding and decoding complexity (average compression and reconstruction time) of the proposed JD-TV and other conventional video schemes i.e., DISCOVER [27], and H.264 (intra) [28] with GoP size 3 and block size 16 for various video sequences is presented. Also, the reconstruction complexity of the proposed schemes is compared with other CS-based reconstruction schemes. All the schemes are implemented using MATLAB (R2019a) running on a computer equipped with an Intel(r) CoreTM i7-6700 CPU @ 3.4 GHz and 16 GB RAM. The results presented in Table 9 shows that the average encoding time of the proposed JD-TV, DISCOVER [27], and H.264 (intra) [28] ranges from 6.31 s-7.38 s, 31.05 s-60.08 s, and 62.40 s-125.45 s, respectively. It is also observed that at higher subrates, the proposed JD-TV requires more encoding time than lower subrates. In contrast to conventional video codecs, the proposed JD-TV codec takes lesser time to encode the video frames i.e., for all types of video sequence (low, medium, high) the average encoding time of the proposed JD-TV method is significantly lower than the DISCOVER and H.264 (intra) video codecs. For example the encoding time required by JD-TV to encode the Foreman video sequence is 6.94 s which, is 4-5 times less than DISCOVER (36.40 s) and 9-10 times less than the H.264 (Intra) (78.50 s). A similar trend can be observed for other video sequences. Thus, this validates \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multirow{2}{*}{**PSNR**} & **Bits** & **Bits** & **Bits** & **Bits** & **Bits** \\  & **PSNR** & **BCS-TV-AL3** & **JD-TV** & **Saved** & **Saving (\%)** & **Average (\%)** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Hall Monitor**} & \textasci{-24.03} & 13068 & 1980 & 11088 & 84 & \\ \cline{2-6}  & \textasci{-25.05} & 17424 & 5148 & 12276 & 72 & 75 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \textasci{-25.57} & 20196 & 7128 & 13068 & 68 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Coast Guard**} & \textasci{-23.42} & 12276 & 5940 & 6336 & 52 & \\ \cline{2-6}  & \textasci{-24.02} & 14256 & 9108 & 5148 & 37 & 40 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \textasci{-24.53} & 17424 & 12276 & 5148 & 30 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Mother Daughter**} & \textasci{-29.37} & 9108 & 3960 & 5148 & 58 & \\ \cline{2-6}  & \textasci{-30.20} & 13068 & 7128 & 5940 & 45 & 49 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \textasci{-31.59} & 17424 & 9908 & 7516 & 43 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Calendar**} & \textasci{-18.32} & 9108 & 3168 & 5940 & 66 & \\ \cline{2-6}  & \textasci{-18.78} & 12276 & 5148 & 7128 & 58 & 58 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & \textasci{-19.39} & 14256 & 7128 & 7128 & 50 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Analysis of the proposed JD and BCS-TV-AL3 scheme in terms of bits saved at various reconstruction qualities (PSNR). the fact that the conventional video schemes' encoders are exposed to heavy computation burden and are not suitable for low power real-time applications. We also observed the decoding complexity (average reconstruction time) of the proposed JD-TV, DISCOVER, and H.264 (intra). The results presented in Table 10 shows that the proposed JD-TV requires more reconstruction time as compared to the conventional codecs, i.e., its decoder has a heavy computational complexity when compared with DISCOVER and H.264 (intra). This validates the fact the CS-based codecs are based on a simple encoder and complex decoder, unlike conventional codecs (DISCOVER and H.264 (intra)). Also, it should also be noted that the results shown are a trade-off between encoding/decoding complexity and rate-distortion performance and has a weak comparability aspect. Additionally, the average reconstruction time of the proposed JD-TV and other CS reconstruction schemes i.e., MS-residual [12], k-t FOCUSS [13], and MC-BCS-SPL [17], is also shown in Figure 8. Overall, the proposed JD-TV executes about 2-3 times faster than MC-BCS-SPL and kt-Focuss whereas, the proposed JD-TV outperforms MS-residual.