## 4 Results and Discussion
### Performance Evaluation
#### 4.2.4 \"Hall\" Video Sequence  
Table 8 presents the experimental results of the \"Hall\" video sequence. It can be seen that both DIVCOM and PDIVCOM achieved a higher average PSNR compared to DIS. When we analyze on a frame-by-frame basis, it is found that for most of the frames a slight PSNR gain is achieved by PDIVCOM, but for some frames the PSNR is reduced. Overall, the average PSNR gain of PDIVCOM over DIS is between 0.005 dB to 0.026 dB. PDIVCOM also achieved an improvement in average coding efficiency by between 0.32 kbps to 4.129 kbps over DIS. Similarly, DIVCOM also shows a variance in the PSNR gain over DIS on a frame-to-frame basis, but the overall average PSNR gain is 0.026 dB. The improvement in coding efficiency of DIVCOM over DIS is in the range of 1.17 kbps to 6.354 kbps. Both DIVCOM and PDIVCOM surpass DIS in terms of coding efficiency, with DIVCOM performing relatively better than PDIVCOM. Table 9 presents the results for the Wyner-Ziv (WZ) coder part for decoding WZF. For the \"Hall\" video sequence, DIVCOM achieved an average PSNR gain of up to 0.053 dB over DIS for the reconstructed WZF, while PDIVCOM achieved an average PSNR gain in the range of 0.0102 dB to 0.0545 dB. The average channel decoding rate results indicate that DIVCOM achieved an average channel coding efficiency of between 46 bits and 929 bits while the coding efficiency of PDIVCOM ranges from 171 bits to 604 bits. Although both DIVCOM and PDIVCOM resulted in poorer visual quality for some of the quantization  
Figure 4: Rate-distortion (RD) performance graphical evaluation of “Foreman” test video sequence with frame rate of 15 Hz and GOP 2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Video** \\ **Sequence** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{Q_{m}}\)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Average PSNR**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Coding Rate**} \\  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(dB)**} & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(kbps)**} \\ \cline{3-8}  & & **DIS** & **DIVCOM** & **PDIVCOM** & **DIS** & **DIVCOM** & **PDIVCOM** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Hall} & 1 & 30.1501 & 30.1438 & 30.1489 & 170.1616 & 168.9883 & 169.845 \\ \cline{2-8}  & 2 & 32.87 & 32.8393 & 32.8254 & 243.5151 & 242.0322 & 242.8735 \\ \cline{2-8}  & 3 & 34.5575 & 34.5309 & 34.5463 & 320.8701 & 318.9966 & 319.6396 \\ \cline{2-8}  & 4 & 35.3398 & 35.3654 & 35.3581 & 389.0669 & 386.2036 & 387.0825 \\ \cline{2-8}  & 5 & 36.1409 & 36.1250 & 36.1458 & 445.9565 & 441.4385 & 442.5024 \\ \cline{2-8}  & 6 & 36.9788 & 36.9446 & 37.0051 & 533.2949 & 526.9409 & 529.1656 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Visual quality and rate performance evaluation of different codecs for “Hall” video sequence for frame rate 15 Hz. points due to degradation in some of the frames during reconstruction, they achieved higher coding efficiency than DIS. Figure 4 shows the RD performance for the \"Hall\" test sequence. This visual representation shows that both DIVCOM and PDIVCOM outperform DIS in coding efficiency. Further analysis shows that DIVCOM outperforms DIS in coding efficiency by a range of 1.17 kbps to 1.87 kbps for lower quantization points and up to 6.354 kbps at higher quantization points. The graph also indicates that PDIVCOM achieves better coding efficiency compared to DIS. For lower and middle quantization points, the coding efficiency of 0.317 kbps to 1.231 kbps is recorded for this test sequence, while for higher quantization points, the coding efficiency increases to 4.13 kbps. In terms of PSNR gain, the performance of DIVCOM and PDIVCOM were mixed. DIVCOM outperforms DIS by up to 0.026 dB but can also suffer a PSNR loss of up to 0.03 dB. Similarly, PDIVCOM outperforms DIS by up to 0.0139 dB but can also suffer a PSNR loss of up to 0.06 dB. The WZF reconstruction process plays a key role in PSNR performance gain. The loss in the performance of the DIVCOM and PDIVCOM for the \"Hall\" and \"Foreman\" video sequences is mainly due to the degradation during the reconstruction process.