# A Robust and Secure Watermarking Approach Based on Hermite Transform and SVD-DCT
## 5 Experiments and Results
### Comparison with other Methods

Table 6: Comparison between different types of watermarking systems [1, 5, 6, 9, 13, 17, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35] with our algorithm using the _Lena_ image. The best result for each parameter is indicated by the values highlighted in bold in each column. original image in text format. Therefore, we can conclude that our proposal is competitive concerning other state-of-the-art works, giving similar performance evaluations, but with the advantage of a higher loading capacity. To have more statistical significance, we included a comparison with [1; 5; 9; 13; 33; 34; 35] using other images (_Barbara_, _Baboon_, _Peppers_, and _Pirate_). In Table 7, we present the obtained results for each method after inserting the watermark. It is important to see that the methods did not use all the indicated images and the metrics, but we included them because it is important to compare our technique and demonstrate its effectiveness. Once again, we demonstrated that our proposal is competitive compared to other techniques using different images (Table 7), with optimal results for the metrics used. To determine the effectiveness (robustness) of the proposed method, it was necessary to have a valid comparison, so we chose the proposals [1; 13; 17; 29; 31; 32; 34; 35], which reported their results with the same attacks and the same parameters. In addition, we took into account the metrics employed by each one. Table 8 presents the results obtained after applying the Gaussian filter to the watermarked image. Table 9 shows the metrics' values after applying the median filter. The comparison of the JPEG compression is presented in Table 10. Finally, Table 11 shows the results after applying the scale attack, and Table 12 the results for the rotation attack. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Method**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Baboon**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Barbara**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Peppers**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Pirate**} \\ \cline{2-13}  & **PSNR (dB)** & **SSIM** & **NCC** & **PSNR (dB)** & **SSIM** & **NCC** & **PSNR (dB)** & **SSIM** & **NCC** & **PSNR (dB)** & **SSIM** & **NCC** \\ \hline Proposal & \(\gg\)**60** & **1** & **1** & \(\gg\)**60** & **1** & **1** & \(\gg\)**60** & **1** & **1** & \(\gg\)**60** & **1** & **1** \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [1] & 39.4837 & 0.9967 & - & - & - & - & 39.4820 & 0.9943 & - & 39.4827 & 0.9958 & - \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [5] & 42.2263 & **1** & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 41.6275 & **1** & - \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [33] & 45.4523 & - & - & 46.6571 & - & - & - & - & - & 46.5118 & - & - \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [17] & 37.1400 & 0.9795 & - & - & - & - & 42.2500 & 0.9747 & - & 39.3800 & 0.9572 & - \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [35] & 48.1314 & **1** & **1** & - & - & - & 48.1309 & **1** & **1** & - & - & - \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [34] & 45.4523 & - & - & 46.6571 & - & - & - & - & - & 46.5118 & - & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Comparison between different types of watermarking systems [1; 5; 9; 13; 17; 33; 34; 35] with our algorithm using the _Barbara_, _Peppers_, and _Pirate_ images. The best results for each proposal are indicated by the values highlighted in bold in each column.