## 4 Results
A smaller MSE value means there is less distortion in the processed video, resulting in a higher PSNR value. Therefore, a higher PSNR value means that the video has less distortion and better visual quality. An advanced alternative to calculate the correlation of the perceived video quality introduced during the development of the HEVC coding standard is given below:  
\[PSNR_{611}=\left(6 PSNR_{y}+PSNR_{u}+PSNR_{v}\right)/8 \tag{13}\]  
where \(PSNR_{y}\) represents the luminance, whereas \(PSNR_{u}\) and \(PSNR_{v}\) refer to blue and red chrominance, respectively. \(PSNR_{611}\) provides a combined score for luminance and chrominance assessment and relates better to subjective video quality as compared to classical PSNR [24; 25]. When there is less distortion or noise, the PSNR\({}_{611}\) value will be higher, indicating that the quality of the processed video is nearly close to that of the original video. The results were evaluated at three different QP values (12, 34, and 48) to observe the effect of the FEC method through conventional PSNR and advanced PSNR\({}_{611}\) evaluation metrics on the video sequences. The comparative results with and without the proposed FEC are presented in Figures 6-9. The results were compared for video sequences that were encoded without the proposed scheme, crypto-encoded, and decoded without incorporating FEC to analyze the efficiency of the presented scheme. Figures 6a-9a show the original video frame, Figures 6b-9b show the XOR encrypted frame, Figures 6c-e-9c-e show the encrypted video frames affected due to errors that occurred during transmission before decryption, Figures 6f-h-9f-h show the crypto-encoded encrypted frames, Figures 6i-k-9i-k show the video frames decrypted without FEC, and Figures 6l-n-9l-n show the recovered video frames decoded by the H.264/AVC decoder. It was observed that the PNSR values in all Y, U, and V components increased in the recovered videos after being decoded using our technique as compared to the PSNR values of the decoded videos affected by the noisy channel. Similarly, the PSNR\({}_{611}\) values of the erroneous and recovered decoded video frames also exhibited a significant increase in the overall perceptual quality of the video. The PSNR and PSNR\({}_{611}\) values at different QP values of erroneous, crypto-encoded, decoded without the FEC method, and recovered using FEC test video sequences are summarized in Tables 2-5. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**MOBILE Sequence (300 Encoded Frames)**} & \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} & & 6.8953 & 12.5929 & 13.5121 & 84.346 \\  & 12 & 7.4265 & 12.3083 & 12.9860 & 8.7317 \\ \multirow{3}{*}{Erroneous encrypted} & 34 & 7.1810 & 12.8498 & 13.0363 & 8.6216 \\  & 48 & 7.2603 & 12.4300 & 13.4313 & 8.6779 \\ \multirow{3}{*}{Crypto-encoded} & 12 & 7.1660 & 12.3031 & 13.3674 & 8.5834 \\  & 34 & 7.0807 & 12.1838 & 13.1670 & 8.4794 \\ \multirow{3}{*}{Erroneous encoded} & 48 & 7.1066 & 12.6136 & 13.5531 & 8.6008 \\  & 12 & 15.2537 & 22.9716 & 21.0694 & 16.9454 \\ \multirow{3}{*}{Erroneous decoded} & 34 & 15.8538 & 23.2130 & 21.0794 & 17.4269 \\  & 48 & 13.4094 & 17.4188 & 18.0050 & 14.4851 \\ \multirow{3}{*}{Decoded with FEC} & 12 & 16.7156 & 25.4193 & 25.8394 & 18.9441 \\  & 34 & 18.0556 & 24.4310 & 23.0945 & 19.4824 \\ \multirow{3}{*}{Decoded with FEC} & 48 & 13.9166 & 17.5792 & 18.1795 & 14.9073 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: PSNR values for MOBILE video sequence at QP 12, 34, and 48.