ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
On combining temporal scaling and quality scaling for streaming MPEG
Full text PdfPdf (184 KB)
Source International Workshop on Network and Operating System Support for Digital Audio and Video archive
Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Network and operating systems support for digital audio and video table of contents
Newport, Rhode Island
SESSION: Media adaptation table of contents
Article No. 7  
Year of Publication: 2006
ISBN:1-59593-285-2
Authors
Huahui Wu  Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA
Mark Claypool  Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA
Robert Kinicki  Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA
Sponsor
SIGMULTIMEDIA: ACM Special Interest Group on Multimedia
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 4,   Downloads (12 Months): 27,   Citation Count: 2
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1378191.1378200
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Temporal Scaling and Quality Scaling are both widely-used techniques to reduce the bitrate of streaming video. However, combinations and comparisons of Temporal and Quality Scaling have not been systematically studied. This research extends previous work to provide a model for combining Temporal and Quality Scaling, and uses an optimization algorithm to provide a systematic analysis of their combination over a range of network conditions and video content. Analytic experiments show: 1) Quality Scaling typically performs better than Temporal Scaling, with performance differences correlated with the motion characteristics of the video. In fact, when the network capacity is moderate and the loss rate is low, Quality Scaling performs nearly as well as the optimal combination of Quality and Temporal Scaling; 2) when the network capacity is low and the packet loss rate is high, Quality Scaling alone is ineffective, but a combination of Quality and Temporal Scaling can provide reasonable video quality; 3) adjusting the amount of Forward Error Correction (FEC) provides significantly better performance than video streaming without FEC or video streaming with a fixed amount of FEC.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
N. Feamster and H. Balakrishnan. Packet Loss Recovery for Streaming Video. In Proceedings of Packet Video Workshop (PV), Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Apr. 2002.
 
2
 
3
P. Frossard and O. Verscheure. Joint Source/FEC Rate Selection for Quality-Optimal MPEG-2 Video Delivery. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 10(12):1815--1825, Dec. 2001.
 
4
F. Hartanto and H. R. Sirisena. Hybrid Error Control Mechanism for Video Transmission in the Wireless IP Networks. In Proceedings of IEEE LANMAN, Nov. 1999.
 
5
S. Jaiswal, G. Iannaccone, C. Diot, J. Kurose, and D. Towsley. Inferring TCP Connection Characteristics Through Passive Measurements. In Proceedings of IEEE Infocom, Hong Kong, China, Apr. 2004.
6
7
8
9
 
10
M. Pinson and S. Wolf. A New Standardized Method for Objectively Measuring Video Quality. IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, 50(3):312--322, Sept. 2004.
 
11
I. S. Reed and G. Solomon. Polynomial Codes Over Certain Finite Fields. Journal of the Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), 8(2):300--304, June 1960.
 
12
X. Su and B. W. Wah. Multi-Description Video Streaming with Optimized Reconstruction-Based DCT and Neural-Network Compensations. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 3(1):123--131, Mar. 2001.
13
14
 
15
H. Wu, M. Claypool, and R. Kinicki. ARMOR - A System for Adjusting Repair and Media Scaling for Video Streaming. In Submission of ACM Multimedia, 2006.

Collaborative Colleagues:
Huahui Wu: colleagues
Mark Claypool: colleagues
Robert Kinicki: colleagues