# Imperceptible-Visible Watermarking to Information Security Tasks in Color Imaging
## 5 Comparison with Similar Algorithms
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Imperceptible Visible Watermarking**} \\ \cline{3-10} \multirow{-2}{*}{**Attack**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Specification**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Proposed**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**[23] IVW**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**[24] IIVW**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**QR Code, \(\mathbf{116\times 116}\)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**QR Code, \(\mathbf{116\times 116}\)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**QR Code, \(\mathbf{116\times 116}\)**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**PSNR**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**PSNR**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**PSNR**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(dB)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**BER**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**NC**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**PSNR**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & \(\mathbf{(dB)}\) & \(\mathbf{(BC)}\) & \(\mathbf{(BC)}\) & \(\mathbf{(BC)}\) & \(\mathbf{(BC)}\) & \(\mathbf{(BC)}\) & \(\mathbf{(BC)}\) & \(\mathbf{(BC)}\) & \(\mathbf{(BC)}\) & \(\mathbf{(BC)}\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Filter} & Average & \(7\times 7\) & 30.0994 & 0.2086 & 0.6546 & 31.1002 & 0.8995 & \(-\)0.7892 & 29.6237 & 0.1994 & 0.4205 \\  & Median & \(5\times 5\) & 31.4374 & 0.0213 & 0.9550 & 31.4369 & 0.9785 & \(-\)0.9548 & 30.4635 & 0.3424 & 0.9288 \\  & Gaussian & \(9\times 9\) & 38.4886 & 0.1642 & 0.7169 & 38.4905 & 0.9971 & \(-\)0.9939 & 38.7412 & 0.1922 & 0.7011 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} Noise contamination \\ \end{tabular} } & Impulsive & \(\begin{array}{c}\textit{density}=0.5\\ \mu=0,\\ \sigma^{2}=0.0004\end{array}\) & \(9.94921\) & 0.1516 & 0.6860 & 9.9675 & 0.8506 & \(-\)0.6917 & 9.5478 & 0.1820 & 0.6104 \\ \cline{2-10}  & & \(\mu=0,\\ \sigma^{2}=0.0004\end{array}\) & \(45.0596\) & 0.2267 & 0.6301 & 45.0465 & 0.8259 & \(-\)0.6299 & 45.3874 & 0.2163 & 0.5110 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Sharpening} & & \(\begin{array}{c}\textit{Radius}=4,\\ \textit{Amount}=1\end{array}\) & \(33.6065\) & 0.2163 & 0.6442 & 33.6062 & 0.8041 & \(-\)0.5815 & 32.9437 & 0.2335 & 0.6157 \\ \cline{2-10}  & & \(\begin{array}{c}\textit{Radius}=4\\ \textit{Amount}=1\end{array}\) & \(29.9460\) & 0.1958 & 0.6721 & 29.9468 & 0.9061 & \(-\)0.8031 & 28.3472 & 0.1742 & 0.6521 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} Bitogram \\ Equalization \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{\([0,\,0.33]\)} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(8.0202\)} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(0\)} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(1\)} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(8.0200\)} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(1\)} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(8.0200\)} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(0.4004\)} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)0.9097} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(8.0742\)} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(0\)} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(1\)} \\ \cline{2-10}  & JPEG000 & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Compression} & JPEG000 & & 36.7214 & 0.4067 & 0.3750 & 36.7312 & 0.6970 & \(-\)0.3472 & 35.9855 & 0.3210 & 0.3350 \\  & JPEG2000 & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Robustness comparison against image processing attacks. Table 10 compares the image quality degradation and watermark imperceptibility of the proposed algorithm against those of [23] and [24]. In this evaluation, we used the 600 images that have been watermarked by the QR code with the maximum embedding strength. As can be seen, the obtained results for [23] are similar to those proposed; however, as explained previously, the embedding strength of [23] corresponds to the empirical value of 2, while the embedding strength of [24] and the proposed algorithm corresponds to \(\Delta=5\).