1 / 17

Royalty Cost Based Optimization for Video Compression

Royalty Cost Based Optimization for Video Compression. Emrah Akyol, Onur G. Guleryuz, and M. Reha Civanlar DoCoMo USA Labs, Palo Alto, CA USA. Outline. Setup and motivation Problem definition Our solution with some interesting simulation results. Conclusion.

bridie
Download Presentation

Royalty Cost Based Optimization for Video Compression

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. Royalty Cost Based Optimization for Video Compression Emrah Akyol, Onur G. Guleryuz, and M. Reha Civanlar DoCoMo USA Labs, Palo Alto, CA USA

  2. Outline • Setup and motivation • Problem definition • Our solution with some interesting simulation results. • Conclusion

  3. Setup-1: Diverse set of terminals in media delivery Required quality/ effective bandwidth Example terminals decoding the media content licensing cost 1 Encoding 1 Cell phones content licensing cost 2 PDAs Encoding 2 Media … … … content licensing cost K Encoding K HDTVs Increasing media quality/effective bandwidth

  4. Setup-2: Diverse set of tools Tool j = video motion compensation Integer-pixel accuracy motion compensation 1/2-pixel accuracy motion compensation 1/4-pixel accuracy motion compensation 1/8-pixel accuracy motion compensation Increasing quality Compression tools, error correction tools, transport tools, … Media data Tool 1 Tool 3 Tools have different royalty/licensing costs. Tool 2 Tool 4 … Tool T Decoded Media (Media Consumer)

  5. Thought Experiment • Many media delivery technologies available. • One can transport media through a variety of networks, using a vast range of tools that correspond to vast ranges in efficiency in end to end delivery. • Rather than restricting to rigid toolsets, standard profiles, etc., can one be flexible and allow all tools to contribute? Why? • Standardization process mostly allows a coarse set of options. It mostly caters to the average good. Many good tools and technologies get cut out because they are not general enough. Selection almost always involves compromises. • Standardization royalties may force simple tools and sophisticated tools equal share of the revenue. Impetus for alternative avenues for tool deployment. • There is movement in this direction (software decoders, MPEG RVC, …). • MPEG RVC (reconfigurable video coding): • put many video compression tools (potentially overlapping functionality) in one big library, • language syntax to specify which tools are needed in decoding a given video stream.

  6. Media delivery cost surface Media Quality Royalty Cost Effective Bandwidth (content licensing + tool licensing) • Royalty cost of delivering media at a particular quality and bandwidth. • Example surface defined by achievable [quality, bandwidth, royalty cost] triplets. • All triplets below the surface are achievable.

  7. Cuts from the surface Media Quality Royalty Cost Effective Bandwidth B Media Quality Royalty Cost C Effective Bandwidth Media Quality “h.264/AVC” Royalty Cost Q “MPEG-1” Effective Bandwidth

  8. Complicated Royalty Costs • My content costs $5 for cell phone terminals, $15 for HDTV terminals. • My compression tool is free of charge. • My compression tool costs $0.001 per use. • My tool costs $0.10 per movie, $0.15 for sports, .... • My tool costs $0.10 except when combined with all free tools, in which case it too becomes free. • My tool is free for not-for-profit use. • …

  9. System Level: Media Server I will mostly talk about compression related tools

  10. Time instant : System Level: Media Delivery : quality : bandwidth : tool list … Time instant : certificate Time instant : Encoded media and associated certificate Time instant : Media Server Registry User Certificate can be used to verify with information from the user site (for each media segment or periodically) to ensure the legitimacy of the media.

  11. Rate - Distortion - Royalty Cost Optimization Setup • No reason to pay for the latest/greatest tools • if plenty of bandwidth • if simple/easy content • if cheaper tools are available • … Problem Definition: For each of the M segments, find the set of tools to use such that distortion is minimized under total rate and total royalty cost constraints, i.e., s.t. , This is a simplification. Optimization can get elaborate.

  12. Optimization Example Using Compression Tools • Case 1: “Flat Rate”, similar to today’s licensing. • Case 2: “Fair Rate”, each tool gets paid based on its contribution Table I: Assigned cost of using each tool for two different cases Table II: Rate and distortion changes with different tools. The utilized tools are subpixel accurate ME, loop filter, advanced entropy coding, and multiple reference frames respectively. The rate reduction is shown as percentage with respect to the baseline along with PSNR gain at QP=25.

  13. “Flat Rate” Quality • concatenation of 10 clips • Significant reduction in royalty costs with small loss in efficiency • Inefficient tools get cut out (lobbying for tools is useless). • Adaptive ~ constant • Constant toolset: Optimized tools for the entire duration of the content. • Adaptive toolset: Optimized tools for each GOP (toolset can change every GOP = media segment)

  14. “Fair Rate” Quality • Adaptive better than constant. • Significant reductions are difficult.

  15. Tool Usage • Adaptive allows more tools to contribute (tools that are good in niche situations get used). “Flat Rate” “Fair Rate”

  16. Conclusion • A system that allows practical deployment of royalty cost optimized media delivery. • Very interesting optimization problem with sophisticated royalty costs. • Content adaptive. • Increases efficiency. Allows non-standard tools to contribute. • Much reduced royalties when plenty of bandwidth/resources. • Flat rate: significant reductions in royalty cost possible. • Fair rate: significant reductions difficult. • Adaptive optimization allows each tool to contribute when its niche comes. • Can allow other resources relevant to media delivery into optimization (power consumption, memory usage, etc.) • Going forward: • Optimization issues. • More tools. • Dependencies among tools. • Addition of communication/networking related tools. • Fair rate • Allow segment based licensing

  17. Going forward: How should tools be priced? • Combines game theory and economic concepts with rate-distortion • How much are customers willing to pay to get quality Q at bandwidth B? (Utilization curves). • Optimal costs based on utilization curves and game theory. • What does today’s licensing look like? • Games D,R not achievable free region Distortion Free T1: cost1(R) T2: cost2(R) T1 + T2: cost3(R) R Rate

More Related