## 4 Comparative Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Host** & **Frames** & **C** & **Scale \(k\)** & **Capacity (bpp)** & **PSNR (dB)** & **SSIM** & **CCQE (\%)** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Monitoring} & \multirow{8}{*}{0.95} & 25 & 23.16 & 28.15 & 0.8214 & 75.82 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & 50 & 23.16 & 28.57 & 0.8446 & 76.5 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & 75 & 23.16 & 28.57 & 0.8456 & 76.52 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & 100 & 23.16 & 28.53 & 0.8446 & 76.49 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & 25 & 20 & 33.12 & 0.9332 & 73.27 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & 50 & 20 & 35.33 & 0.9655 & 74.63 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & 75 & 20 & 35.66 & 0.9702 & 74.83 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & 100 & 20 & 35.7 & 0.9712 & 74.87 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & 25 & 17.65 & 34.67 & 0.9492 & 69.17 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & 50 & 17.65 & 38.47 & 0.9813 & 70.92 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & 75 & 17.65 & 39.39 & 0.9865 & 71.28 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & 100 & 17.65 & 39.63 & 0.9879 & 71.38 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Results of the proposed Octree technique when using the **Monitoring slow-motion segment** as the host video segment with a \(32\times 32\times 32\) minimum cube size. The detailed results presented in the tables highlight the performance of the proposed Octree-hiding technique across various video segments and motion types. By comparing bit-per-pixel (bpp) values and their corresponding peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) measurements, we gain insights into the trade-offs between data embedding capacity and video quality. In the \"Monitoring\" slow-motion segment (Table 4), it is observed that as the capacity (bpp) decreases from 23.16 to 17.65, the PSNR improves significantly. For instance, with \(C=0.75\) and \(k=100\), the PSNR reaches 39.63 dB compared to 28.15 dB at the highest capacity of 23.16 bpp. This trend indicates that lower embedding capacities allow for higher video quality in terms of PSNR. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Host** & **Frames** & \(C\) & **Scale \(k\)** & **Capacity (bpp)** & **PSNR (dB)** & **SSIM** & **CCQE (\%)** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Monitoring} & \multirow{8}{*}{5–69} & \multirow{8}{*}{0.95} & 25 & 23.16 & 24.33 & 0.7956 & 74.21 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & 50 & 23.16 & 24.03 & 0.7838 & 73.84 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & 75 & 23.16 & 23.88 & 0.7767 & 73.63 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & 100 & 23.16 & 23.8 & 0.7726 & 73.5 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & 25 & 20 & 29.18 & 0.9234 & 72.04 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & 50 & 20 & 28.84 & 0.9232 & 71.95 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & 75 & 20 & 28.6 & 0.9201 & 71.81 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & 100 & 20 & 28.45 & 0.9179 & 71.72 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & 25 & 17.65 & 31.76 & 0.9538 & 68.56 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & 50 & 17.65 & 31.53 & 0.9574 & 68.59 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & 75 & 17.65 & 31.23 & 0.9556 & 68.47 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & 100 & 17.65 & 31.05 & 0.9542 & 68.39 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Detailed results of the proposed Octree-hiding technique using **Monitoring fast-motion segment** as the host video segment with a 32 \(\times\) 32 \(\times\) 32 minimum cube size. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Host** & **Frames** & \(C\) & **Scale \(k\)** & **Capacity (bpp)** & **PSNR (dB)** & **SSIM** & **CCQE (\%)** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Monitoring} & \multirow{8}{*}{1–64} & \multirow{8}{*}{0.95} & 25 & 23.16 & 26.33 & 0.7934 & 74.66 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & 50 & 23.16 & 25.95 & 0.7707 & 74 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & 75 & 23.16 & 25.76 & 0.7584 & 73.64 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & 100 & 23.16 &  
In contrast, the \"Monitoring\" medium-motion segment (Table 5) shows a similar pattern where lower capacities yield better PSNR. When \(C=0.75\) and \(k=100\), the PSNR is 32.28 dB at a capacity of 17.65 bpp. This reinforces the notion that reducing the embedding rate enhances video quality, albeit the improvement is less pronounced than in slow-motion segments. The \"Monitoring\" fast-motion segment (Table 6) further demonstrates this trade-off. Here, the highest PSNR achieved is 31.05 dB at a capacity of 17.65 bpp and \(C=0.75\), compared to 24.33 dB at 23.16 bpp.