1 / 32

Video Quality Research @ IBCN

Video Quality Research @ IBCN. Video Quality Research @ IBCN. Real-time Video Quality Monitoring/Testing Monitor Probe Virtual Wall Video Quality Metrics Full Length Movie Quality Assessment Visual Quality Impairment Detector VQEG involvement Video Streaming xStreamer.

brian
Download Presentation

Video Quality Research @ IBCN

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Video Quality Research @ IBCN

  2. Video Quality Research @ IBCN • Real-time Video Quality Monitoring/Testing • Monitor Probe • Virtual Wall • Video Quality Metrics • Full Length Movie Quality Assessment • Visual Quality Impairment Detector • VQEG involvement • Video Streaming • xStreamer

  3. Real-time Video Quality Monitoring/Testing • Monitor probe • Real-time monitoring of H.264/AVC streams at several demarcation points • Gather both network statistics and video statistics • Packet loss, delay, jitter • Macroblock & motion vector information • N. Vercammen, N. Staelens, B. Vermeulen and P. Demeester, “Distributed Video Quality Monitoring”, to appear in Proceedings of 2nd IEEE International Workshop on Internet and Distributed Computing Systems (IDCS'09), December 10-12, Korea

  4. Monitor probe

  5. Real-time Video Quality Monitoring/Testing • Virtual Wall & Video testbed • Video testbed • Automate video quality tests • Virtual wall • Enables creation of multiple video testbeds • N. Vercammen, N. Staelens, B. Vermeulen and P. Demeester, “Extensive video quality evaluation: A scalable video testing platform”, Proceedings of 1st IEEE International Workshop on Internet and Distributed Computing Systems

  6. Scalable Video Testing Platform

  7. Video Quality Metrics • Full Length Movie Quality Assessment • Existing video quality assessment methodologies: • Evaluate short video sequences (~ 15s) • Users are actively evaluating visual quality • Overall test duration limited to 30 minutes • Watching television • At home, living room, with family (social viewing) • Longer content: movies, television programs • Lean backward TV viewing experience • => how is quality perceived while watching full length movies, when users are not focused on quality evaluation

  8. Full Length Movie Quality Assessment • Error Visibility • Frame freeze in movie <-> frame freeze in short sequences: 42% <-> 91% • Blockiness in movie and short sequences: both 98% • Error Annoyance • Standard test: freezes rated higher quality than blockiness • Movie: frame freezes are more annoying • Conclusion • Focus is important • Flow experience

  9. Full Length Movie Quality Assessment • N. Staelens, B. Vermeulen, S. Moens, J.-F. Macq, P. Lambert, R. Van de Walle and P. Demeester, “Assessing the influence of packet loss and frame freezes on the perceptual quality of full length movies”, Proceedings of Fourth International Workshop on Video Processing and Quality Metrics for Consumer Electronics (VPQM-09) • N. Staelens, S. Moens, W. Van den Broeck, I. Mariën, B. Vermeulen, P. Lambert, R. Van de Walle and P. Demeester, “Assessing the perceptual influence of H.264/SVC signal-to-noise ratio and temporal scalability on full length movies”, Proceedings of First International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX 2009)

  10. Video Quality Metrics • Visual Quality Impairment Detector • Current research focus • Real-time visual impairment detection • Network level => detect losses • Video level => determine severity and visibility • Target No-Reference metric or Reduced-Reference • Will be implemented in the monitor probe

  11. VQEG involvement • Ghent University – IBBT involved in VQEG • Meeting hosted, September 22 – 26, 2008 • Contributes to • MM testplan (already finalized) • ITU-T J.246 & ITU-T J.247 • Hybrid testplan: • co-editors • HDTV testplan • Independent Lab Group (ILG) • Joint Effort Group (JEG) • Toolchain for creating impaired sequences • H.264/AVC parser, based on JM reference software

  12. xStreamerModular Multimedia Streaming

  13. xStreamer • In-house developed modular multimedia streamer • Alexis Rombaut (alexis.rombaut@intec.ugent.be) • Written in C++ • Uses libraries: • libavformat/libavcodec (parsing/encoding/decoding) • live555 (RTSP) • jrtplib (RTP) • Released under General Public License (GPL) • Freely available at http://xstreamer.atlantis.ugent.be/ 13

  14. ModularMultimedia Streaming Inspired by Click Modular Router & DirectShow Offers different components Performs basic functions Readers, packetizers, multiplexers, schedulers, transmitters, receivers, writers, classifiers, analyzers Streamer is directed graph of components 14

  15. ModularMultimedia Streaming Supports audio and video • Using RTP packetization: • MPEG-1/2/4 Video & Audio • Using MPEG-2 Transport Streams: • MPEG-1/2/4 Video & Audio • H.264 AVC/SVC 15

  16. ModularMultimedia Streaming Multitude of supportedprotocols RTP/UDP RTSP/RTP/UDP UDP TCP 16

  17. What can xStreamer do? Advanced streaming server • Own MPEG-2 TS multiplexer • SVC streaming • Differentiated streaming using classifiers Proxy/client • Proxy: convert differentiated stream into a single stream • Client: save captured stream to file Video tool • No ‘real’ streaming involved • Simulate packet loss • Collect tracefiles during streaming 17

  18. Create xStreamer configuration Configuration saved in XML-based file • Describes directed graph of components and connections between components Graphical User Interface • Visualize directed graph • Drag components and draw connections • Configure components 18

  19. Example: Differentiated SVC streaming Read raw H.264 video stream Avoidburstsbysmoothing packets over time Packetize frames into packets as defined in RFC3984 Classify NAL units dependingon SVC layer Stream different layers over different connections 19

  20. Example: Proxy/Client Proxy Client 20

  21. xStreamer as video tool Offline simulator • No ‘real’ streaming • Simulate packet loss using Classifier component • Random, Gilbert-Elliott • Write resulting packet stream back to file Tracefile generation • Packetizer: video trace • Transmitter: sender trace • Receiver: receiver trace • Classifier: sender & receiver trace 21

  22. Publication • ‘xStreamer: Modular Multimedia Streamer’ accepted for publication on ACM Multimedia 2009 - Open Source Software Competition, Beijing, ChinaOctober 19-24, 2009

  23. Distributed transcoding with xStreamer

  24. Current: Architecture Transcoder 1 Server Transcoder … Proxy Output File Input File Transcoder N

  25. Current: Server Send each new GOP to the next transcoder = RR (round robin) distribution RTP transmitter 1 ffmpeg- reader Differentiator RTP transmitter … RTP transmitter N note: the schemes omit some components for clarity

  26. Current: Transcoder RTP receiver xstreamer unpacketizer transcoder xstreamer packetizer RTP transmitter

  27. Current: Proxy RTP receiver 1 RTP receiver … multiplexer ffmpeg- writer RTP receiver N

  28. First experimental results • The following slides show the results from the first experiments on the virtual wall. • Experiment parameters: • All sequences are 90 minutes long, encoded with H.264 at 25 frames per second. • Future work will experiment with different bit rates for each resolution.

  29. Scalability • The figure shows the how much faster than real-time (factor) we can transcode in function of the number of nodes. • For example, using 20 nodes the system can transcode from 1080p to QCIF 100 times faster than real-time, transcoding 90 minutes of video in less than 1 minute. • Some curves flatten because the server cannot stream more than 1 Gbps to feed the transcoding notes, future work will alleviate this by using several network interfaces.

  30. Codec comparison • Provides the same information as the previous figure but organized in function of the source resolution. • As target resolutions become larger the influence of the source resolution decreases (encoding, determined by target resolution, consumes more resources than decoding, determined by source resolution). • For example transcoding 1080p to 4CIFis not much slower than transcoding 720p to 4CIF (blue bars).

  31. Transcoding duration • The figure shows the considerable processing power by transcoding 90 minutes of video in mere 10 seconds for the smallest resolutions. • For the highest resolutions, the system can transcode 90 minutes of video from 1080p to 720p in less than 4 minutes. • The times to transcode 1080p to QCIF and 1080p to CIF are same because the server could not feed the former adequately.

  32. Conclusion • The first experiments show promising results by transcoding between 25 and 500 faster than real-time depending on the resolutions using 32 nodes. • Some combinations did not fully scale up to 32 nodes because the server bit rate would exceed 1 Gbps. However, future work, using multiple interfaces or multiple servers will avoid this. • Future experiments will increase the number of nodes up to 100.

More Related