## 4 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**FOOTBALL Sequence**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**QP**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**PSNR**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**PSNR\({}_{611}\)**} \\ \cline{3-4} \cline{6-6}  & & **Y** & **U** & **V** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Selectively Encrypted} & & 8.6731 & 13.2727 & 21.6415 & 10.8691 \\  & 12 & 8.9489 & 13.1808 & 21.8988 & 11.0967 \\ \multirow{3}{*}{Erroneous encrypted} & 34 & 9.1727 & 13.3928 & 21.8384 & 11.2835 \\  & 48 & 9.0079 & 14.0011 & 21.7918 & 11.2301 \\ \multirow{3}{*}{Crypto-encoded} & 12 & 8.8705 & 13.2917 & 21.7341 & 11.0311 \\  & 34 & 8.9766 & 13.2443 & 21.6809 & 11.0981 \\ \multirow{3}{*}{Erroneous encoded} & 48 & 8.9004 & 13.7884 & 21.5507 & 11.0927 \\  & 12 & 18.0576 & 28.0026 & 33.3415 & 21.2113 \\ \multirow{3}{*}{Erroneous decoded} & 34 & 18.7813 & 28.2622 & 34.2367 & 21.8984 \\ \multirow{3}{*}{Decoded with FEC} & 48 & 15.4578 & 24.2213 & 32.0710 & 18.6299 \\  & 12 & 19.1280 & 28.6815 & 34.5732 & 22.2529 \\ \multirow{3}{*}{Decoded with FEC} & 34 & 20.3536 & 29.9943 & 35.0606 & 23.3971 \\  & 48 & 15.8493 & 24.7632 & 31.7200 & 18.9474 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: PSNR results for FOOTBALL video sequence at QP 12, 34, and 48. It was observed from the results that the visual quality at QP 12 was better in terms of chrominance factors, whereas a clear increase in Y-PSNR (luminance component) was observed at QP 34. However, at QP 48 there was a minor increase in visual quality. This is because QP is inversely proportional to video quality. Thus, by increasing the QP, the video quality decreased. The overall increase in visual quality was best noticed at QP 34, as the human visual system is more sensitive to luminance as compared to chrominance. Figure 10a-d illustrate the graphs of different PSNR values at QP 12, 34, and 48 of both the CIF and HD test video sequences. Figure 11 summarizes the effect of PSNR\({}_{611}\) on the erroneous and recovered videos of our four test sequences. PSNR\({}_{611}\) evaluates the combined effect of brightness and color components on the perceptual visual quality of the video. The results showed that the combined luma and chroma effect was best noticed at QP 34 for videos with lower resolution and better observed at QP 12 on videos with higher resolution. For the crypto-encoded video frames, the best results were observed at QP 34 irrespective of varying video resolution, as the algorithm's encryption performance was better at smaller PSNR values. It is clearly observed from the graphs that the proposed FEC algorithm performed best at QP 34. A significant increase in Y-PSNR resulted in enhanced objective visual quality. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**VIDYO1 Sequence**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**QP**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**PSNR**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**PSNR\({}_{611}\)**} \\ \cline{4-5}
**(300 Encoded Frames)** & & **Y** & **U** & **V** & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Selectively Encrypted} & & 5.5501 & 22.0752 & 26.7047 & 10.2601 \\  & 12 & 5.8465 & 22.2183 & 26.7082 & 10.5007 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Erroneous encrypted} & 34 & 5.9092 & 22.5080 & 27.0491 & 10.6266 \\  & 48 & 5.9062 & 22.4481 & 26.9202 & 10.6007 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Crypto-encoded} & 12 & 5.8363 & 22.0415 & 26.7087 & 10.4710 \\  & 34 & 5.7507 & 22.2094 & 26.9203 & 10.4543 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Erroneous} & 48 & 5.7008 & 22.3731 & 26.8432 & 10.4277 \\  & 12 & 21.5816 & 37.6253 & 38.9612 & 25.7596 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Erroneous decoded} & 34 & 18.1969 & 33.5504 & 33.9977 & 22.0912 \\  & 48 & 17.3286 & 34.9941 & 33.4677 & 21.5542 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Decoded with FEC} & 12 & 22.8362 & 39.4581 & 39.9339 & 27.0512 \\  & 34 & 18.2792 & 34.6328 & 33.9010 & 22.2762 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Decoded with FEC} & 48 & 17.0078 & 35.2746 & 33.7222 & 21.3805 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: PSNR results for VIDYO1 video sequence at QP 12, 34, and 48.