## 4 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**FOUR PEOPLE**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**PSNR**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**PSNR\({}_{611}\)**} \\ \cline{3-4}
**Sequence** & & & **Y** & **U** & **V** & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Selectively Encrypted} & & 5.4580 & 21.0508 & 25.4978 & 9.9121 \\  & 12 & 5.9046 & 21.1821 & 24.7575 & 10.1709 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Erroneous encrypted} & 34 & 6.0077 & 21.0520 & 24.8736 & 10.2465 \\  & 48 & 6.1065 & 21.4245 & 25.5034 & 10.4459 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Crypto-encoded} & 12 & 5.8462 & 21.2459 & 25.5886 & 10.2390 \\  & 34 & 5.8005 & 20.9894 & 25.4370 & 10.1537 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Erroneous decoded} & 48 & 5.6469 & 21.1603 & 25.9035 & 10.1182 \\  & 12 & 17.2712 & 34.5400 & 33.2581 & 21.4282 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Erroneous decoded} & 34 & 15.8858 & 33.6038 & 33.4139 & 20.2916 \\  & 48 & 15.6434 & 30.2399 & 32.0758 & 19.5221 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Decoded with FEC} & 12 & 18.8894 & 34.7405 & 37.7054 & 23.2228 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Decoded with FEC} & 34 & 17.6168 & 35.3420 & 36.5710 & 22.2018 \\  & 48 & 16.1693 & 31.5220 & 32.3041 & 20.1053 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: PSNR results for FOUR PEOPLE video sequence at QP 12, 34, and 48. Figure 6: Comparative evaluation of the proposed FEC framework on test sequence MOBILE at QP 12, 34, and 48 in CIF resolution with and without applying the proposed FEC framework. Figure 7: Comparative evaluation of the proposed FEC framework on test sequence FOOTBALL at QP 12, 34 and 48 in CIF resolution with and without applying the proposed FEC framework. Figure 8: Comparative effect of the proposed FEC on the perceptual quality of test sequence VIDYO1 in HD resolution at QP 12, 34, and 48. (**a,b**) show the original and XOR encrypted video frames, respectively; (**c–e**) show the erroneous video frames before decryption; (**f–h**) show the crypto-encoded video frames; (**i–k**) show the video frames decoded without using FEC; and (**l–n**) show the video frames after error correction using the proposed FEC technique. Figure 12 illustrates the aggregated heatmaps of these four video sequences at QP 34, where error correction was best observed. Figure 12a shows that the average similarity of the recovered MOBILE video to the original video was around 88-92%. Figure 12b shows that the reconstruction quality of the FOOTBALL video exhibited significant fluctuations due to the high motion and texture complexity inherent in its content. Despite high motion and complex texture, our approach yielded an estimated average similarity of 80-88%,  
Figure 9: Comparative effect of the proposed FEC on the perceptual quality of test sequence FOUR PEOPLE in HD resolution at QP 12, 34, and 48. **(a,b)** show the original and XOR encrypted video frames, respectively; (**c–e**) show the erroneous video frames before decryption; (**f–h**) show the crypto-encoded video frames; (**i–k**) show the video frames decoded without using FEC; and (**l–n**) show the video frames after error correction using the proposed FEC technique. indicating a reasonable level of error recovery. Figure 12c exhibits high reconstruction quality with the consistently yellow heatmap, which indicated high similarity and less distortions, suggesting effective recovery due to lower motion. Its estimated similarity was around 88-95%. Figure 12d presents the heatmap of the FOUR PEOPLE video. The uniform yellow tone with minimal dark areas indicated consistently high PSNR values and an estimated similarity of 87-92%. It suggested better error recovery and reconstruction quality, likely due to limited motion and simple scene complexity. These heatmaps demonstrate the effectiveness of our FEC approach for four videos with varying levels of motion and texture complexity, achieving an average similarity of 90-95%. Figure 10: Comparison of Y, U, and V components of PSNR value on MOBILE CIF video sequence. Figure 11: Comparison of PSNR\({}_{611}\) for MOBILE, FOOTBALL, VIDYO1, and FOUR PEOPLE video sequences at different QP values (12, 34, and 48).