Table 6 Comparison of NCC with other schemes under different attacks.
From: An adaptive robust watermarking scheme based on chaotic mapping
Type of attack | Proposed | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No attack | 1 | 1 | 0.9992 | 1 | 0.9967 | 0.9976 |
Salt and pepper noise (m = 0, v = 0.01) | 0.9951 | 0.9780 | 0.9583 | – | 0.8693 | – |
Gaussian noise (m = 0, v = 0.01) | 0.9779 | 0.9072 | 0.9294 | – | 0.7996 | 0.8339 |
Speckle noise (m = 0, v = 0.01) | 0.9981 | 0.9046 | 0.9625 | 0.9194 | 0.9276 | – |
Sharpening | 0.9711 | – | 0.9385 | 0.9596 | – | 0.8560 |
Gaussian filter (3\(\times \)3) | 0.9961 | – | – | 1 | – | 0.8186 |
Mean filter (3\(\times \)3) | 0.9946 | 0.9420 | 0.9796 | – | 0.9269 | 0.8271 |
Rotation (10\(^\circ \)) | 0.9763 | – | – | 0.9569 | – | – |
Cropping (20%) | 0.9859 | 0.9997 | – | 0.9438 | – | – |
JPEG (QF=90) | 0.9999 | 0.9921 | – | 0.9979 | 0.9948 | 0.94779 |
