Anti-HEVC Recompression Video Watermarking Algorithm Based on the All Phase Biorthogonal Transform and SVD

Figures & data

Figure 1 Video watermarking model

Figure 2 Schematic diagram of video watermark embedding positions

Table 1 Periods of Arnold transform

N	2	4	8	10	16	24	32	40
Period p	3	3	6	30	12	12	24	30
N	50	64	80	100	128	258	400	512
Period p	150	48	60	150	96	102	120	384

Figure 3 Arnold image scrambling: (a) original watermark image, (b) scrambled image, and (c) reconstructed image

Figure 4 The nonzero TU distribution of the first eight I frames in HEVC compressed luminance components of the BasketballDrill

Figure 5 The diagram of the lossless watermark compression

Figure 6 The flowchart of run-length separation algorithm

Figure 7 Run-length separation algorithm

Figure 8 HEVC video watermark embedding diagram

Figure 9 HEVC transform coefficient scanning methods: (a) diagonal scanning, (b) horizontal scanning, and (c) vertical scanning

Figure 10 The binary watermark for embedding

Figure 11 The subjective quality of reconstructed frames: (a) original frame, (b) watermarked frame, (c) difference image between (a) and (b), (d) frame after extracting the watermark, (e) the difference image between (a) and (d), and (f) video frame

Figure 12 PSNR of each watermarked frame in BasketballDrill

Table 2 Experimental results at different resolutions

	PSNR (dB)
Test sequence	Before the embedding	Chang et al. [13]	Proposed
BasketballDrill	38.56	37.55	38.02
ChinaSpeed	36.64	36.12	36.40
BQTerrace	35.51	35.05	35.26
Traffic	36.23	35.87	35.96
PatyScene	35.79	35.02	35.27

Figure 13 Comparison of CU division before and after HEVC recompression: (a) the reconstructed image of the watermarked stream and (b) the reconstructed image after HEVC recompression

Figure 14 Anti-HEVC recompression video watermarking algorithm

Figure 15 Subjective quality comparison of the extracted watermarks before and after optimization for HEVC compressed video watermarking algorithm: (a) before optimization and (b) after optimization

Figure 16 The relationship between the sizes of the watermarked blocks and the reconstructed image quality

Figure 17 The performance of anti-HEVC recompression video watermarking: (a) original video frame, (b) watermarked frame, and (c) difference image

Table 3 Experimental results of the anti-HEVC compression watermarking algorithm under different compression parameters

	BasketballDrill
QP	PSNR (dB)	NC of watermark
22	42.45	0.9521
28	38.57	0.9523
32	36.35	0.9522
36	34.32	0.9523
40	32.44	0.9522
44	30.50	0.9521
48	28.42	0.9521

Figure 18 Anti-HEVC recompression test: (a) watermarked reconstructed frame (QP = 28), (b) the watermark extracted from (a), (c) watermarked reconstructed frame (QP = 44), and (d) the watermark extracted from (c)

Table 4 Experimental results under different noise types and intensities

	BasketballDrill
Noise type	Noise intensity	NC of watermark
Salt and pepper noise	0.1	0.9321
	0.01	0.9424
	0.001	0.9502
	0.0001	0.9662
Gaussian noise	(0, 0.1)	0.9212
	(0, 0.01)	0.9432
	(0, 0.001)	0.9542
	(0, 0.0001)	0.9677

P. C. Chang, K. L. Chung, J. J. Chen, C. H. Lin, and T. J. Lin, “A DCT/DST-based error propagation-free data hiding algorithm for HEVC intra-coded frames,” J. Vis. Commun. Image Represent., Vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 239–53, Feb. 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.jvcir.2013.10.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar