## 5 Experimental Results
Figure 5 shows similarity ratio values after attacks such as rotation, JPEG25, Gaussian noise and salt and pepper. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c}  & **DCT (dB)** & **DFT (dB)** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **FSF Based** \\ **Block-DWT (dB)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ Lena & 40.87 & 41.74 & 44.41 \\ Cameraman & 42.02 & 42.16 & 42.19 \\ Baboon & 42.29 & 41.27 & 442.89 \\ Boat & 36.94 & 40.01 & 42.86 \\ Barbara & 40.15 & 37.91 & 43.19 \\ Peppers & 39.83 & 41.57 & 44.27 \\  & & & \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR) values for DCT, DFT and FSF-based Block-DWT algorithms. Results are demonstrated in four bands: low frequencies in the LL band and high frequencies in HL, LH and HH bands. In rotation attacks, the SR value is 0.869 in the HH band which is the highest value for Lena. FSF block watermarking algorithm results show that extraction from high frequencies (HH band) is more robust and secure than extraction from low frequencies (LL, HL and LH bands). One of the reasons for this is that high frequencies usually reside on the edge or corner of the object in the image, which is the most suitable place to hide secret information [50]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline  & **Embedding (s)** & **Extraction (s)** \\ \hline DCT & 3.17 & 2.24 \\ DFT & 4.91 & 3.59 \\ DWT & 1.83 & 0.97 \\
2 \(\times\) 2 Block-DWT & 2.01 & 1.14 \\
4 \(\times\) 4 Block-DWT & 2.53 & 1.19 \\
8 \(\times\) 8 Block-DWT & 2.67 & 1.31 \\ FSF based Block-DWT & 2.69 & 1.31 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: CPU times in embedding and extraction. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **[PERSON]** & **[PERSON]** & **Boat** & **[PERSON]** & **Peppers** & **Method** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Rotation} & 31.60 & 29.67 & 38.89 & 31.53 & 31.79 & 38.97 & A \\  & 31.91 & 29.12 & 37.51 & 30.74 & 34.97 & 37.12 & B \\  & 34.76 & 30.61 & 38.88 & 32.54 & 35.61 & 37.22 & C \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Cropping} & 31.63 & 29.67 & 38.89 & 31.53 & 31.79 & 38.97 & A \\  & 30.85 & 28.45 & 34.25 & 30.19 & 30.82 & 36.52 & B \\  & 34.57 & 29.81 & 35.19 & 32.27 & 30.17 & 38.72 & C \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Histogram Equalization} & 28.25 & 32.49 & 29.28 & 28.11 & 29.67 & 31.53 & A \\  & 29.49 & 33.25 & 30.08 & 28.53 & 29.12 & 32.97 & B \\  & 32.16 & 33.96 & 34.59 & 29.94 & 30.09 & 35.18 & C \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Contrast Adjustment} & 31.79 & 28.25 & 32.49 & 29.28 & 28.11 & 29.67 & A \\  & 34.29 & 29.07 & 30.41 & 25.83 & 28.61 & 30.05 & B \\  & 34.35 & 29.53 & 34.62 & 28.84 & 30.07 & 31.59 & C \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{JPEG 25} & 38.89 & 31.53 & 31.79 & 28.25 & 32.49 & 29.28 & A \\  & 35.67 & 32.88 & 32.71 & 24.86 & 33.18 & 30.07 & B \\  & 38.27 & 33.62 & 32.77 & 31.21 & 33.46 & 32.53 & C \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Gaussian Noise} & 28.11 & 29.36 & 30.85 & 31.29 & 23.63 & 29.54 & A \\  & 30.05 & 29.16 & 32.59 & 32.07 & 27.52 & 28.42 & B \\  & 31.67 & 32.04 & 32.84 & 32.11 & 29.67 & 30.09 & C \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Resizing} & 32.56 & 34.52 & 33.12 & 30.96 & 34.59 & 37.06 & A \\  & 34.18 & 35.07 & 31.61 & 32.58 & 33.81 & 36.75 & B \\  & 34.77 & 37.91 & 36.07 & 34.73 & 36.18 & 39.61 & C \\ \hline Salt and & 31.27 & 30.82 & 34.19 & 32.96 & 34.52 & 34.04 & A \\ Pepper & 33.02 & 32.01 & 34.92 & 34.01 & 35.91 & 37.03 & B \\ Noise & 35.12 & 33.43 & 35.23 & 36.51 & 36.72 & 38.61 & C \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR) values after common attacks (A: DWT, B: Block DWT, C: FSF Block DWT).