[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/3123266.3123418acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Quality-of-Experience of Adaptive Video Streaming: Exploring the Space of Adaptations

Published: 23 October 2017 Publication History

Abstract

With the remarkable growth of adaptive streaming media applications, especially the wide usage of dynamic adaptive streaming schemes over HTTP (DASH), it becomes ever more important to understand the perceptual quality-of-experience (QoE) of end users, who may be constantly experiencing adaptations (switchings) of video bitrate, spatial resolution, and frame-rate from one time segment to another in a scale of a few seconds. This is a sophisticated and challenging problem, for which existing visual studies provide very limited guidance. Here we build a new adaptive streaming video database and carry out a series of subjective experiments to understand human QoE behaviors in this multi-dimensional adaptation space. Our study leads to several useful findings. First, our path-analytic results show that quality deviation introduced by quality adaptation is asymmetric with respect to the adaptation direction (positive or negative), and is further influenced by the intensity of quality change (intensity), dimension of adaptation (type), intrinsic video quality (level), content, and the interactions between them. Second, we find that for the same intensity of quality adaptation, a positive adaptation occurred in the low-quality range has more impact on QoE, suggesting an interesting Weber's law effect; while such phenomenon is reversed for a negative adaptation. Third, existing objective video quality assessment models are very limited in predicting time-varying video quality.

References

[1]
DASH Industry Forum. 2013. For Promotion of MPEG-DASH. (2013). Retrieved March 30, 2017 from http://dashif.org.
[2]
G.T. Fechner. 2012. Elements of psychophysics. Vol. Vol. 2. Breitkopf und Härtel.
[3]
P. Fröhlich, S. Egger, R. Schatz, M. Mühlegger, K. Masuch, and B. Gardlo. 2012. QoE in 10 seconds: Are short video clip lengths sufficient for Quality of Experience assessment?. In Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Quality of Multimedia Experience. 242--247.
[4]
M.N. Garcia, F. De Simone, S. Tavakoli, N. Staelens, S. Egger, K. Brunnstrom, and A. Raake. 2014. Quality of Experience and HTTP adaptive streaming: A review of subjective studies Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Quality of Multimedia Experience. 141--146.
[5]
M. Grafl and C. Timmerer. 2013. Representation switch smoothing for adaptive HTTP streaming IEEE Int. Workshop on Perceptual Qualtiy of Systems. 178--183.
[6]
D.S. Hands and S.E. Avons. 2001. Recency and duration neglect in subjective assessment of television picture quality. Applied Cognitive Psychology Vol. 15, 6 (Nov. 2001), 639--657.
[7]
B. Lewcio, B. Belmudez, A. Mehmood, M. W"altermann, and S. Möller. 2011. Video quality in next generation mobile networks-perception of time-varying transmission. In IEEE Int. Workshop Technical Committee on Comm. Quality and Reliability. 1--6.
[8]
Y. Liu, S. Dey, F. Ulupinar, M. Luby, and Y. Mao. 2015. Deriving and validating user experience model for dash video streaming. IEEE Trans. Broadcasting Vol. 61, 4 (Dec. 2015), 651--665.
[9]
Y. Liu, Y. Shen, Y. Mao, J. Liu, Q. Lin, and D. Yang. 2013. A study on Quality of Experience for adaptive streaming service Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Comm. Workshop. 682--686.
[10]
R.K.P. Mok, E.W.W. Chan, and R.K.C. Chang. 2011. Measuring the Quality of Experience of HTTP video streaming. Proc. IFIP/IEEE Int. Sym. Integrated Network Management. 485--492.
[11]
A.K. Moorthy, L.K. Choi, A.C. Bovik, and G. De Veciana. 2012. Video quality assessment on mobile devices: Subjective, behavioral and objective studies. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, Vol. 6, 6 (Oct. 2012), 652--671.
[12]
P. Ni, R. Eg, A. Eichhorn, C. Griwodz, and P. Halvorsen. 2011. Flicker effects in adaptive video streaming to handheld devices Proc. ACM Int. Conf. Multimedia. 463--472.
[13]
Y. Ou, Y. Xue, and Y. Wang. 2014. Q-STAR: A perceptual video quality model considering impact of spatial, temporal, and amplitude resolutions. IEEE Trans. Image Processing Vol. 23, 6 (June. 2014), 2473--2486.
[14]
M.H. Pinson and S. Wolf. 2004. A new standardized method for objectively measuring video quality. IEEE Trans. Broadcasting Vol. 50, 3 (Sept. 2004), 312--322.
[15]
A. Rehman and Z. Wang. 2013. Perceptual experience of time-varying video quality Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Quality of Multimedia Experience. 218--223.
[16]
A. Rehman, K. Zeng, and Z. Wang. 2015. Display device-adapted video Quality-of-Experience assessment Proc. SPIE. 939406.1-939406.11.
[17]
D.C. Robinson, Y. Jutras, and V. Craciun. 2012. Subjective video quality assessment of HTTP adaptive streaming technologies. Bell Labs Technical Journal Vol. 16, 4 (Mar. 2012), 5--23.
[18]
M. Seufert, S. Egger, M. Slanina, T. Zinner, T. Hobfeld, and P. Tran-Gia. 2014. A survey on Quality of Experience of HTTP adaptive streaming. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials Vol. 17, 1 (Sept. 2014), 469--492.
[19]
T. Stockhammer. 2011. Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP: Standards and design principles Proc. ACM Conf. on Multimedia Systems. 133--144.
[20]
J. Talens-Noguera, W. Zhang, and H. Liu. 2015. Studying human behavioural responses to time-varying distortions for video quality assessment. In Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Image Proc. 651--655.
[21]
S. Tavakoli, K. Brunnström, K. Wang, B. Andrén, M. Shahid, and N. Garcia. 2014. Subjective quality assessment of an adaptive video streaming model IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging. 9016.1--9016.13.
[22]
International Telecommuniations Union. 1993. ITU-R BT.500--12 Recommendation: Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures.
[23]
International Telecommuniations Union. 1999. ITU-R BT.910 Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications.
[24]
B.J. Villa, K. De Moor, P.E. Heegaard, and A. Instefjord. 2013. Investigating Quality of Experience in the context of adaptive video streaming: Findings from an experimental user study. In Akademika forlag Stavanger. 122--133.
[25]
Z. Wang and A.C. Bovik. 2006. Modern image quality assessment. Synthesis Lectures on Image, Video, and Multimedia Processing, Vol. 2, 1 (Dec. 2006), 1--156.
[26]
Z. Wang, A.C. Bovik, H.R. Sheikh, and E.P. Simoncelli. 2004. Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans. Image Processing Vol. 13, 4 (Apr. 2004), 600--612.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)A Real-World Satellite Video Subjective QOE Database2024 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP)10.1109/ICIP51287.2024.10648012(83-88)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2024
  • (2024)Defense Against Adversarial Attacks on No-Reference Image Quality Models with Gradient Norm Regularization2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)10.1109/CVPR52733.2024.02414(25554-25563)Online publication date: 16-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Perceptual video quality assessment: a surveyScience China Information Sciences10.1007/s11432-024-4133-367:11Online publication date: 17-Oct-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
MM '17: Proceedings of the 25th ACM international conference on Multimedia
October 2017
2028 pages
ISBN:9781450349062
DOI:10.1145/3123266
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 23 October 2017

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. adaptive video streaming
  2. layer switching
  3. quality-of-experience (qoe) of end users
  4. subjective video quality

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

MM '17
Sponsor:
MM '17: ACM Multimedia Conference
October 23 - 27, 2017
California, Mountain View, USA

Acceptance Rates

MM '17 Paper Acceptance Rate 189 of 684 submissions, 28%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 2,145 of 8,556 submissions, 25%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)20
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
Reflects downloads up to 22 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)A Real-World Satellite Video Subjective QOE Database2024 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP)10.1109/ICIP51287.2024.10648012(83-88)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2024
  • (2024)Defense Against Adversarial Attacks on No-Reference Image Quality Models with Gradient Norm Regularization2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)10.1109/CVPR52733.2024.02414(25554-25563)Online publication date: 16-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Perceptual video quality assessment: a surveyScience China Information Sciences10.1007/s11432-024-4133-367:11Online publication date: 17-Oct-2024
  • (2023)A Bayesian Quality-of-Experience Model for Adaptive Streaming VideosACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications10.1145/349143218:3s(1-24)Online publication date: 11-Feb-2023
  • (2023)PNATS-UHD-1-Long: An Open Video Quality Dataset for Long Sequences for HTTP-based Adaptive Streaming QoE Assessment2023 15th International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX)10.1109/QoMEX58391.2023.10178493(252-257)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2023
  • (2023)DCVQE: A Hierarchical Transformer for Video Quality AssessmentComputer Vision – ACCV 202210.1007/978-3-031-26316-3_24(398-416)Online publication date: 2-Mar-2023
  • (2022)QoE Models for Adaptive Streaming: A Comprehensive EvaluationFuture Internet10.3390/fi1405015114:5(151)Online publication date: 13-May-2022
  • (2022)From Whole Video to Frames: Weakly-Supervised Domain Adaptive Continuous-Time QoE EvaluationIEEE Transactions on Image Processing10.1109/TIP.2022.319071131(4937-4951)Online publication date: 2022
  • (2022)Contrastive Self-Supervised Pre-Training for Video Quality AssessmentIEEE Transactions on Image Processing10.1109/TIP.2021.313053631(458-471)Online publication date: 2022
  • (2022)A brief survey on adaptive video streaming quality assessmentJournal of Visual Communication and Image Representation10.1016/j.jvcir.2022.10352686:COnline publication date: 1-Jul-2022
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media