**8. Simulation results**

This section presents the results to compare between the schemes of LSB method, Dugad's method, Miyazaki's method, and the proposed method. Several images are watermarked using the four watermarking methods and subjected to attacks. In order to measure the degradation suffered by host images after watermark insertion, the PSNR is used.

#### **Figure 4.**

*(a) The thresholds t1, t2 vs. PSNR (t1=115, t2=200, PSNR=46) (b) Vs. cr for Mandrill. if image. (t1=115, t2=200, cr = 0.4 in case of resizing) (c) The thresholds t1, t2 vs. PSNR.(t1=90, t2=200, PSNR=42) (d) Vs. cr for hat. jpg image (t1=90, t2=200, cr = 0.6 in case of resizing).*

*Blind Wavelet-Based Image Watermarking DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88131*

**Figure 5.**

*7.1.2 Watermark detection*

*Cyberspace*

transform (HL1).

**8. Simulation results**

**Figure 4.**

**106**

mark insertion, the PSNR is used.

the selected DWT coefficients with Eq. (9):

1. The possibly corrupted watermarked image is transformed into the wavelet domain using the same wavelet transform as in the embedding process.

3. All the wavelet coefficients of magnitude greater than or equal to t1 and less than or equal to t2 are selected. The watermark bits are extracted from each of

If < ð Þ t1 þ t2 *=*2*,*then the recovered watermark bit is 0*:*

This section presents the results to compare between the schemes of LSB method, Dugad's method, Miyazaki's method, and the proposed method. Several images are watermarked using the four watermarking methods and subjected to attacks. In order to measure the degradation suffered by host images after water-

*(a) The thresholds t1, t2 vs. PSNR (t1=115, t2=200, PSNR=46) (b) Vs. cr for Mandrill. if image. (t1=115, t2=200, cr = 0.4 in case of resizing) (c) The thresholds t1, t2 vs. PSNR.(t1=90, t2=200, PSNR=42) (d) Vs. cr for*

*hat. jpg image (t1=90, t2=200, cr = 0.6 in case of resizing).*

If ≥ð Þ t1 þ t2 *=*2*,*then the recovered watermark bit is 1*:* (9)

2. The extraction is performed on the coefficients in the first level wavelet

*(a) Original image. (b) Mandrill image marked using watermarking scheme of Dugad in the absence of attacks. (c) Hat image marked using watermarking scheme of Miyazaki in the absence of attacks. (d) Mandrill image marked using LSB. (e) Mandrill image marked using the proposed watermarking method in the absence of attacks.*

For all the tests in this chapter, MATLAB is used. All tests are performed upon the 8-bit grayscale 256 256 Mandrill, Hat, and Lena images. To simulate the watermarking schemes on the Mandrill image, we set t1 = 115, t2 = 200, and k = 0.1. The suitable thresholds are obtained from the curves in **Figure 4b**. The watermarked images are then attacked with JPEG compression with different compression ratios to make the quality of the images at levels 5 (Q5), 10 (Q10), and 15 (Q15) at the JPEG standard. Other attacks such as the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) and cropping attacks are also considered. The same schemes are also applied to the Hat image with similar attacks. The thresholds used for this case are t1 = 90 and t2 = 200. We find from the figures that the suitable thresholds are coming from the curves in **Figure 4d**. To investigate the watermarking methods, we calculate the threshold (t) by using fmax= 528.4 and k = 0.1 so the threshold t = 0.1\* fmax=52.84, we will use t1 = 90, t2 = 200 that give the tradeoff between PSNR and correlation as shown in **Figure 4**. The attacks were used to test the new algorithm, we choose the thresholds according to that gives the trade off between the high PSNR and the high Correlation ,in the case of mandrill we find that t1 = 115, t2 = 200, X1 = 20 and X2 = 10. **Figure 5** shows this Watermarked image and the effect of attacking this watermarked image with various attacks. The watermarked images are then attacked with JPEG at levels Q5, Q10, and Q15, AWGN, and cropping.

It can be seen that the watermarking algorithm of Dugad is surviving all the attacks. The high compression ratio using JPEG with quality 5 is one of the attacks applied to the watermarked image and resizing from 256 to 128 is the other attack, it is found that the watermark was not always detected. Results are shown in **Tables 1–3**.

Similar experiments and attacks are carried out for the algorithm in Miyazaki method with t1 = 115 and t2 = 200; we find that the results are better than that of Dugad method because it is a semi-blind method. Results are shown in **Tables 1** and **3**.


#### **Table 1.**

*Comparing the proposed method with the other three methods of Dugad, Miyazaki, and LSB (Mandrill image).*


#### **Table 2.**

*Comparing NC value for the proposed method with the methods of Dugad, Miyazaki, and LSB.*


The same attacks were used to test the new algorithm; The thresholds are chosen carefully to achieve tradeoff between the high PSNR and the high Correlation. In the case of Mandrill, we found that t1 = 115, t2 = 200, X1 = 20, and X2 = 10. **Figure 6** shows this watermarked image and the effect of attacking this watermarked image with various attacks. **Table 3** presents the quantitative results for these various attacks. However, the "cropping" attack poses a problem in that only 38 out of a possible 102 watermark bits were used by the detector, thus decreasing the reliability of the scheme. The scheme is not robust to JPEG quality 5 attack (just like the Dugad method). Thus, while surviving the same attacks as the Dugad scheme, the new scheme does not degrade the watermarked image to the same extent. From **Table 1**, PSNR value is 42.48 dB. The PSNR recorded for the Miyazaki scheme is equal to 44.65dB, the recorded PSNR for LSB is (49.9dB) and PSNR recorded for

*Attacked image with (a) JPEG quality 5, (b) JPEG quality 10, (c) JPEG quality 15, (d) Gaussian noise (variance = 0.0058), (e) impulse noise (normalized density of 0.015), (f) cropping, and (g) half sizing*

Similar experiments and attacks are carried out for the algorithm in Miyazaki method, Dugad method, LSB method, and the proposed method on Hat image and

**Table 4** presents the PSNR and NC for the proposed method and the other two

methods using Hat image. It is seen that our method does not degrade the watermarked image to the same extent as the other two methods. **Table 5** represents the NC for the attacked watermarked images in our proposed method and the

the new scheme is (46.60dB).

*(followed by resizing back to the original size).*

*Blind Wavelet-Based Image Watermarking DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88131*

**Figure 6.**

other existing methods.

**109**

Lena image, and the results are shown in **Figures 7**–**10**.

**Table 3.**

*Results for the proposed scheme (Mandrill image) (with t1 = 115, t2 = 200, X1 = 20, and X2 = 10).*

*Blind Wavelet-Based Image Watermarking DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88131*

#### **Figure 6.**

**Scheme PSNR NC** LSB blind 49.9 1 Dugad's blind 42.48 0.57 Miyazaki's non-blind 44.65 1 Proposed scheme blind 46.60 1

*Comparing the proposed method with the other three methods of Dugad, Miyazaki, and LSB (Mandrill*

**Types of attacks NC WM length in WM length out** No attacks 1 102 102 JPEG Q5 0.14 102 53 JPEG Q10 0.48 102 77 JPEG Q15 0.85 102 79 Gaussian (0.006) 0.54 102 54 Salt and pepper (0.15) 0.79 102 79 Cropping 0.48 102 38 Half sizing 0.39 102 48

*Comparing NC value for the proposed method with the methods of Dugad, Miyazaki, and LSB.*

JPEG Q5 0.0111 0.57 0.75 0.14 JPEG Q10 0.01 0.24 1 0.48 JPEG Q50 0.0193 0.22 1 0.85 Gaussian 0.006 0.0052 0.52 1 0.57 Gaussian 0.01 0.011 0.19 0.93 0.4 Gaussian 0.1 0.0134 0.01 0.49 0.06

Cropping 0.0054 0.58 0.95 0.39 Half sizing 0.4245 0.17 0.77 0.49 Subsample 0.7 0.5608 0.25 0.49 0.223 Subsample 0.4 0.3098 0.16 0.71 0.2

*Results for the proposed scheme (Mandrill image) (with t1 = 115, t2 = 200, X1 = 20, and X2 = 10).*

0.0030 0.53 0.87 0.45

0.0017 0.037 0.55 0.36

0.0027 0.001 0.01 0.29

**Non-Blind scheme of Miyazaki**

**Blind proposed method**

**Blind scheme of Dugad**

*Using t1 = 115, t2 = 200, and k = 0.1.*

**Table 1.**

*Cyberspace*

*image).*

**Table 2.**

**NC**

**Type of attacks Blind**

Salt and pepper 0.015

Salt and pepper

Salt and pepper

0.15

0.5

**Table 3.**

**108**

**LSB**

*Attacked image with (a) JPEG quality 5, (b) JPEG quality 10, (c) JPEG quality 15, (d) Gaussian noise (variance = 0.0058), (e) impulse noise (normalized density of 0.015), (f) cropping, and (g) half sizing (followed by resizing back to the original size).*

The same attacks were used to test the new algorithm; The thresholds are chosen carefully to achieve tradeoff between the high PSNR and the high Correlation. In the case of Mandrill, we found that t1 = 115, t2 = 200, X1 = 20, and X2 = 10. **Figure 6** shows this watermarked image and the effect of attacking this watermarked image with various attacks. **Table 3** presents the quantitative results for these various attacks.

However, the "cropping" attack poses a problem in that only 38 out of a possible 102 watermark bits were used by the detector, thus decreasing the reliability of the scheme. The scheme is not robust to JPEG quality 5 attack (just like the Dugad method). Thus, while surviving the same attacks as the Dugad scheme, the new scheme does not degrade the watermarked image to the same extent. From **Table 1**, PSNR value is 42.48 dB. The PSNR recorded for the Miyazaki scheme is equal to 44.65dB, the recorded PSNR for LSB is (49.9dB) and PSNR recorded for the new scheme is (46.60dB).

Similar experiments and attacks are carried out for the algorithm in Miyazaki method, Dugad method, LSB method, and the proposed method on Hat image and Lena image, and the results are shown in **Figures 7**–**10**.

**Table 4** presents the PSNR and NC for the proposed method and the other two methods using Hat image. It is seen that our method does not degrade the watermarked image to the same extent as the other two methods. **Table 5** represents the NC for the attacked watermarked images in our proposed method and the other existing methods.

#### **Figure 7.**

*(a) Original image. (b) Hat image marked using watermarking scheme of Dugad in the absence of attacks. (c) Hat image marked using watermarking scheme of Miyazaki in the absence of attacks. (d) Hat image marked using LSB scheme. (e) Hat image marked using the proposed watermarking method in the absence of attacks.*

**Figure 9.**

*Blind Wavelet-Based Image Watermarking DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88131*

**Figure 10.**

**111**

*(followed by resizing back to the original size).*

*(a) Original image. (b) Lena image marked using watermarking scheme of Dugad in the absence of attacks. (c) Lena image marked using watermarking scheme of Miyazaki in the absence of attacks. (d) Lena image marked using LSB scheme. (e) Lena image marked using the proposed watermarking method in the absence of attacks.*

*Attacked image with (a) JPEG quality 5, (b) JPEG quality 10, (c) JPEG quality 15, (d) Gaussian noise (variance = 0.0058), (e) impulse noise (normalized density of 0.015), (f) cropping, and (g) half sizing*

#### **Figure 8.**

*Attacked image with (a) JPEG quality 5, (b) JPEG quality 10, (c) JPEG quality 15, (d) Gaussian noise (variance = 0.0058), (e) impulse noise (normalized density of 0.015), (f) cropping, and (g) half sizing (followed by resizing back to the original size).*

#### **Figure 9.**

**Figure 7.**

*Cyberspace*

**Figure 8.**

**110**

*(followed by resizing back to the original size).*

*(a) Original image. (b) Hat image marked using watermarking scheme of Dugad in the absence of attacks. (c) Hat image marked using watermarking scheme of Miyazaki in the absence of attacks. (d) Hat image marked using LSB scheme. (e) Hat image marked using the proposed watermarking method in the absence of attacks.*

*Attacked image with (a) JPEG quality 5, (b) JPEG quality 10, (c) JPEG quality 15, (d) Gaussian noise (variance = 0.0058), (e) impulse noise (normalized density of 0.015), (f) cropping, and (g) half sizing*

*(a) Original image. (b) Lena image marked using watermarking scheme of Dugad in the absence of attacks. (c) Lena image marked using watermarking scheme of Miyazaki in the absence of attacks. (d) Lena image marked using LSB scheme. (e) Lena image marked using the proposed watermarking method in the absence of attacks.*

#### **Figure 10.**

*Attacked image with (a) JPEG quality 5, (b) JPEG quality 10, (c) JPEG quality 15, (d) Gaussian noise (variance = 0.0058), (e) impulse noise (normalized density of 0.015), (f) cropping, and (g) half sizing (followed by resizing back to the original size).*


**Scheme PSNR NC** LSB scheme blind 50.86 1 Dugad scheme blind 37.42 0.36 Miyazaki scheme non-blind 39.27 1 Proposed scheme blind 45.29 1

*Comparing the proposed method with the other two methods of Dugad, Miyazaki, and LSB (Lena image).*

**Non-blind scheme of Miyazaki**

**NC WM length in WM length out**

**Blind proposed method**

**Blind scheme of Dugad**

JPEG Q5 0.0083 0.15 0.5 0.14 JPEG Q10 0.0024 0.19 0.88 0.39 JPEG Q50 0.0014 0.24 0.98 0.83 Gaussian 0.006 0.0038 0.24 0.9 0.32 Gaussian 0.01 0.0013 0.16 0.76 0.25 Gaussian 0.1 4.5235e-004 0.007 0.28 0.04

Cropping 0.0054 0.18 0.96 0.62 Half sizing 0.42 0.18 0.76 0.49 Subsample 0.7 0.56 0.25 0.83 0.67 Subsample 0.4 0.31 0.18 0.7 0.36

*Comparing NC value for the proposed method with the methods of Dugad, Miyazaki, and LSB scheme using*

No attacks 1 129 129 JPEG Q5 0.14 129 57 JPEG Q10 0.39 129 74 JPEG Q15 0.83 129 102 Gaussian 0.006 0.32 129 66 Salt and pepper 0.015 0.6 129 41 Cropping 0.62 129 85

*Results for the proposed scheme (Lena image) (with t1 = 120, t2 = 200, X1 = 20 and X2 = 10).*

0.0016 0.18 0.96 0.6

8.2995e-004 0.03 0.35 0.53

5.2785e-004 0.005 0.059 0.47

*Using t1 = 120, t2 = 200, and k = 0.1.*

*Blind Wavelet-Based Image Watermarking DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88131*

**Type of attacks Blind LSB**

**scheme**

**Table 7.**

**NC**

Salt and pepper 0.015

Salt and pepper

Salt and pepper

0.15

0.5

**Table 8.**

**Table 9.**

**113**

*Lena image.*

#### **Table 4.**

*Comparing the proposed method with the other two techs of Dugad, Miyazaki, and LSB (hat image).*


#### **Table 5.**

*Comparing NC value for the proposed method with the methods of Dugad, Miyazaki, and LSB using hat image.*


#### **Table 6.**

*Results for the proposed scheme (hat image) with t1 = 90, t2 = 200, X1 = 20 and X2 = 10.*

#### *Blind Wavelet-Based Image Watermarking DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88131*


#### **Table 7.**

**Scheme PSNR NC** LSB scheme blind 51 1 Dugad scheme blind 40.09 0.45 Miyazaki scheme non-blind 44.62 1 Proposed scheme blind 45.36 1

*Comparing the proposed method with the other two techs of Dugad, Miyazaki, and LSB (hat image).*

**Non-blind scheme of Miyazaki**

**Blind proposed method**

**Blind scheme in Dugad**

JPEG Q5 0.0015 0.27 0.44 0.28 JPEG Q10 0.0038 0.38 0.66 0.46 JPEG Q50 0.0015 0.45 1 0.88 Gaussian 0.006 0.0019 0.28 1 0.67 Gaussian 0.01 0.001 0.189 0.99 0.57 Gaussian 0.1 8.1606e-007 0.01 0.46 0.05

Cropping 1.5895e-005 0.20 0.32 0.39 Half sizing 0.0012 0.25 0.96 0.49 Subsample 0.7 9.3287e-004 0.31 0.97 0.76 Subsample 0.4 9.2566e-005 0.26 0.85 0.47

*Comparing NC value for the proposed method with the methods of Dugad, Miyazaki, and LSB using hat*

No attacks 1 367 367 JPEG Q5 0.14 367 203 JPEG Q10 0.48 367 271 JPEG Q15 0.85 367 319 Gaussian (0.006) 0.54 367 250 Salt and pepper (0.015) 0.79 367 293 Cropping 0.48 367 78 Half sizing 0.39 367 222

*Results for the proposed scheme (hat image) with t1 = 90, t2 = 200, X1 = 20 and X2 = 10.*

7.5838e-004 0.42 0.79 0.45

0.0053 0.024 0.54 0.12

0.0012 0.003 0.14 0.03

**NC WM length in WM length out**

*Using t1 = 90, t2 = 200, and k = 0.1.*

**Type of attacks Blind LSB**

**scheme**

**Table 4.**

*Cyberspace*

**NC**

Salt and pepper 0.015

Salt and pepper

Salt and pepper

0.15

0.5

**Table 5.**

**Table 6.**

**112**

*image.*

*Comparing the proposed method with the other two methods of Dugad, Miyazaki, and LSB (Lena image).*


#### **Table 8.**

*Comparing NC value for the proposed method with the methods of Dugad, Miyazaki, and LSB scheme using Lena image.*


**Table 9.**

*Results for the proposed scheme (Lena image) (with t1 = 120, t2 = 200, X1 = 20 and X2 = 10).*

#### *Cyberspace*

However in **Table 6**, the "cropping" attack poses a problem in that only 78 out of a possible 367 watermark bits were used by the detector, thus decreasing the reliability of the scheme. The scheme is not robust to JPEG quality 5 attacks. Thus, while surviving the same attacks as the Dugad scheme, the new scheme does not degrade the watermarked image to the same extent. From **Table 4**, PSNR value is 45.36 dB.

**Table 7** presents the PSNR and NC for the proposed method and the other two methods using Lena image. It is seen that our method does not degrade the watermarked image to the same extent as the other two methods. **Table 8** represents the NC for the attacked watermarked images in our proposed method and the other existing methods.

However in **Table 9**, the "salt-and-pepper noise" attack poses a problem in that

1 1

0.75 0.85

0.55 0.53

0.14 0.16

0.42 0.5

**Proposed HEAD watermarking method for Hat image, t1 = 236 and t2 = 333**

We simulate the watermarking schemes on Lena and Hat images. Results are shown in **Figures 11** and **12**, respectively. The numerical evaluation metrics for all schemes in the absence and presence of attacks are tabulated in **Table 10**. From the table we notice that the proposed watermarking scheme achieves the lowest distortion in the watermarked image in the absence of attacks, and we find that the proposed method using wavelet gives the image with fidelity better than the other existing methods and the table gives the correlation under the presence of attacks; we notice also that a percentage of around 50% of the input watermark bits can be

We find that we can detect watermark at the presence of blurring, Gaussian noise, cropping, and resizing attack; in the case of rotation attack, detection of

With this proposed method, blindness, detectability, robustness against attacks, and high watermarked image quality is maintained. Although the robustness of this new scheme is not quite as strong as that presented by Miyazaki method, this can be attributed to its blind nature compared to the semi-blind nature of the Miyazaki method. In LSB method, the attacks like addition of noise with any value or compression of the image using JPEG destroy the embedded watermark, and we cannot detect or extract the watermark at all, although the watermark was recovered

Also the watermark may be removed without any effect done on the

watermarked image. A blind DWT-based image watermarking schemes depend on

only 41 out of a possible 129 watermark bits were used by the detector, thus

Cropping 1 1 Rotation 0.3 0.076 Blurring 0.6 0.43

decreasing the reliability of the scheme.

*Correlation values for our scheme of Lena and hat images.*

watermark is difficult.

perfectly in the ideal case.

**115**

**9. Conclusions**

**8.1 Simulation results of HEAD quantization method**

**Proposed HEAD watermarking method for Lena image, t1 = 182 and t2 = 268**

*Blind Wavelet-Based Image Watermarking DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88131*

No attacks

Gaussian 0.006

Gaussian 0.01

Gaussian 0.1

Resizing 0.5

**Table 10.**

extracted in the proposed scheme with most of the attacks.

#### **Figure 11.**

*Watermarked image using HEAD method with DWT with and without attacks for Lena image. (a) Watermarked image PSNR = 51.7 dB without attacks. (b) Attacked image with Gaussian noise with variance = 0.006. (c) Cropped image. (d) Rotated image with 3°. (e) Resized image from 256 to 128–256. (f) Blurred image with 3 3 LPF.*

#### **Figure 12.**

*Watermarked image using the HEAD-based DWT method with and without attacks for hat image. (a) Watermarked image PSNR = 49.4 dB without attacks. (b) Attacked image with Gaussian noise with variance = 0.006. (c) Cropped image. (d) Rotated image with 3°. (e) Resized image from 256 to 128–256. (f) Blurred image with 3 3 LPF.*

*Blind Wavelet-Based Image Watermarking DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88131*


#### **Table 10.**

However in **Table 6**, the "cropping" attack poses a problem in that only 78 out of a possible 367 watermark bits were used by the detector, thus decreasing the reliability of the scheme. The scheme is not robust to JPEG quality 5 attacks. Thus, while surviving the same attacks as the Dugad scheme, the new scheme does not degrade the watermarked image to the same extent. From **Table 4**, PSNR value is 45.36 dB. **Table 7** presents the PSNR and NC for the proposed method and the other two

methods using Lena image. It is seen that our method does not degrade the watermarked image to the same extent as the other two methods. **Table 8** represents the NC for the attacked watermarked images in our proposed method and the

*Watermarked image using HEAD method with DWT with and without attacks for Lena image. (a) Watermarked image PSNR = 51.7 dB without attacks. (b) Attacked image with Gaussian noise with variance = 0.006. (c) Cropped image. (d) Rotated image with 3°. (e) Resized image from 256 to 128–256.*

*Watermarked image using the HEAD-based DWT method with and without attacks for hat image. (a) Watermarked image PSNR = 49.4 dB without attacks. (b) Attacked image with Gaussian noise with variance = 0.006. (c) Cropped image. (d) Rotated image with 3°. (e) Resized image from 256 to 128–256.*

other existing methods.

*Cyberspace*

**Figure 11.**

**Figure 12.**

**114**

*(f) Blurred image with 3 3 LPF.*

*(f) Blurred image with 3 3 LPF.*

*Correlation values for our scheme of Lena and hat images.*

However in **Table 9**, the "salt-and-pepper noise" attack poses a problem in that only 41 out of a possible 129 watermark bits were used by the detector, thus decreasing the reliability of the scheme.

#### **8.1 Simulation results of HEAD quantization method**

We simulate the watermarking schemes on Lena and Hat images. Results are shown in **Figures 11** and **12**, respectively. The numerical evaluation metrics for all schemes in the absence and presence of attacks are tabulated in **Table 10**. From the table we notice that the proposed watermarking scheme achieves the lowest distortion in the watermarked image in the absence of attacks, and we find that the proposed method using wavelet gives the image with fidelity better than the other existing methods and the table gives the correlation under the presence of attacks; we notice also that a percentage of around 50% of the input watermark bits can be extracted in the proposed scheme with most of the attacks.

We find that we can detect watermark at the presence of blurring, Gaussian noise, cropping, and resizing attack; in the case of rotation attack, detection of watermark is difficult.

### **9. Conclusions**

With this proposed method, blindness, detectability, robustness against attacks, and high watermarked image quality is maintained. Although the robustness of this new scheme is not quite as strong as that presented by Miyazaki method, this can be attributed to its blind nature compared to the semi-blind nature of the Miyazaki method. In LSB method, the attacks like addition of noise with any value or compression of the image using JPEG destroy the embedded watermark, and we cannot detect or extract the watermark at all, although the watermark was recovered perfectly in the ideal case.

Also the watermark may be removed without any effect done on the watermarked image. A blind DWT-based image watermarking schemes depend on the HEAD quantization of coefficients to embed meaningful information in the image. Experimental results have shown the superiority of the proposed schemes from the host image quality point of view, robustness, and the blindness point of view.

**References**

1997. pp. 548-551

pp. 133-144

241-245

357-372

**117**

[1] Zhu W, Xiong Z, Zhang Y. Multiresolution watermarking for images and video. IEEE Transactions on

Circuits and Systems for Video Technology. 1999;**9**(4):545-550

[2] Xia XG, Boncelet CG, Arce GR. A multiresolution watermark for digital images. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP 1997); Vol. 1; October

*Blind Wavelet-Based Image Watermarking DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88131*

Western Australia: School of

of Technology. ICT\_2005

Information Systems, Curtin University

[9] Miyazaki A, Yamamoto A, Katsura T. A digital watermarking technique based on the wavelet transform and its robustness on image compression and transformation. IEICE Transactions. Special Section on Cryptography and Information Security. 1999;**82**(1):2-10

[10] Zolghadrasli A, Rezazadeh S. Evaluation of spread spectrum watermarking schemes in the wavelet domain using HVS characteristics. The International Journal of Information Science and Technology. 2007;**5**(2):

[11] El-said SA, Hussein KFA, Fouad MM. Adaptive lossy image compression technique. In: Electrical and Computer Systems Engineering Conference

123-139

(ECSE'10); 2010

[3] Dugad K, Ratakonda R, Ahuja N. A

new wavelet-based scheme for watermarking images. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP 1998); Vol. 2; Chicago, IL; October 4–7, 1998. pp. 419-423

[4] Tao P, Eskicioglu AM. A robust multiple watermarking scheme in the DWT domain. In: Optics East 2004 Symposium, Internet Multimedia Management Systems V Conference; Philadelphia, PA; October 25–28, 2004.

[5] Cox IJ, Miller ML, Bloom JA. Watermarking applications and their properties. In: Proceedings of the IEEE

Information Technology: Coding and

[6] Tsai MJ, Yu KY, Chen YZ. Joint wavelet and spatial transformation for digital watermarking. IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics. 2000;**46**(1):

[7] Barni M, Bartolini F, Cappellini V, Piva A. A DCT-domain system for robust image watermarking. Signal Processing. Special Issue on Copyright Protection and Control. 1998;**66**(3):

[8] Potdar VM, Chang E. A Quantization Based Robust Image Watermarking Algorithm in Wavelet Domain. Perth,

International Conference on

Computing; 2000. pp. 6-10
