research-article

QoE Modelling for VP9 and H.265 Videos on Mobile Devices

Authors:

Dian Tjondronegoro,

Antonio LiottaAuthors Info & Claims

MM '15: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM international conference on Multimedia

Pages 501 - 510

https://doi.org/10.1145/2733373.2806256

Published: 13 October 2015 Publication History

Abstract

Current mobile devices and streaming video services support high definition (HD) video, increasing expectation for more contents. HD video streaming generally requires large bandwidth, exerting pressures on existing networks. New generation of video compression codecs, such as VP9 and H.265/HEVC, are expected to be more effective for reducing bandwidth. Existing studies to measure the impact of its compression on users" perceived quality have not been focused on mobile devices. Here we propose new Quality of Experience (QoE) models that consider both subjective and objective assessments of mobile video quality. We introduce novel predictors, such as the correlations between video resolution and size of coding unit, and achieve a high goodness-of-fit to the collected subjective assessment data (adjusted R-square >83%). The performance analysis shows that H.265 can potentially achieve 44% to 59% bit rate saving compared to H.264/AVC, slightly better than VP9 at 33% to 53%, depending on video content and resolution.

References

[1]

Cisco. Global mobile data traffic forecast update, 2014--2019. Cisco white paper 2015. Available from: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/white_paper_c11--520862.html.

[2]

Ooyala, Q1 2013 Video Index -TV is no longer a single screen in your living room. 2013.

[3]

Sullivan, G.J., et al., 2012. Overview of the high efficiency video coding (HEVC) standard. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol., 22, 12, 1649--1668.

Digital Library

[4]

Brunnström, K., et al., 2013. Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of Quality of Experience. Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of Quality of Experience Output from the fifth Qualinet meeti.

[5]

Menkovski, V., Exarchakos, G. and Liotta, A. 2011. The value of relative quality in video delivery. Journal of Mobile Multimedia, 7 (3): p. 151--162.

Digital Library

[6]

Menkovski, V. and Liotta, A. 2013. Intelligent control for adaptive video streaming. In Proceedings of Int. Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE 2013), IEEE. 2013.

[7]

Agboma, F. and Liotta, A. 2006. User centric assessment of mobile contents delivery, In Proceedings of the 4th Int. Conf. Advances in Mobile Computing and Multimedia (Yogyakarta, Indonesia). IEEE, 121--130.

[8]

Song, W., Tjondronegoro, D. and Himawan, I. 2014. Acceptability-based QoE Management for User-centric Mobile Video Delivery: A Field Study Evaluation, In Proceedings of the ACM MM, ACM. 267--276.

Digital Library

[9]

Sullivan, G.J., Topiwala, P.N. and Luthra, A. 2004. The H. 264/AVC advanced video coding standard: Overview and introduction to the fidelity range extensions. In the SPIE 49th Annual Meeting Optical Science and Technology.

[10]

Ohm, J.-R., et al., 2012. Comparison of the Coding Efficiency of Video Coding Standards -Including High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC). IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol. 22, 12, 1669--1684.

Digital Library

[11]

Bankoski, J., et al. 2013. Towards a next generation open-source video codec. In IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging. SPIE

[12]

Řeřábek, M. and Ebrahimi, T. 2014. Comparison of compression efficiency between HEVC/H. 265 and VP9 based on subjective assessments, In Proceedings of SPIE Optical Engineering + Applications, SPIE, San Diego, California, USA.

[13]

Grois, D., et al., 2013. Performance Comparison of H. 265/MPEG-HEVC, VP9, and H. 264/MPEG-AVC Encoders, In Proceedings of the 30th PSC (Dec 8--11 2013). IEEE.

[14]

Zeng, K., et al.,2013. From H.264 to HEVC: Coding gain predicted by objective video quality assessment models, In Proceedings of The 7th VPQM (Scottsdale, Arizona).

[15]

Sung-Ho, B., et al. 2013. Assessments of Subjective Video Quality on HEVC-Encoded 4K-UHD Video for Beyond-HDTV Broadcasting Services. IEEE Trans. Broadcast. 59, 2, 209--222.

[16]

Garcia, R. and Kalva, H. 2014. Subjective evaluation of HEVC and AVC/H.264 in mobile environments., IEEE Trans. Consumer Electronics. 60, 1, 116--123.

[17]

Nightingale, J., et al. 2013. Modeling QoE for streamed H. 265/HEVC content under adverse network conditions, In Proceedings of the 5th Int. Conf. on Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks (Beijing, China). IET. 249--253.

[18]

Anegekuh, L., Sun, L. and Ifeachor, E. 2013. Encoding and video content based HEVC video quality prediction. Multimedia Tools and Applications. 74:1795. Springer.

Digital Library

[19]

Huynh-Thu, Q. and Ghanbari, M. 2008. Scope of validity of PSNR in image/video quality assessment. Electronics letters, 44, 13, 800--801.

[20]

Song, W. and Tjondronegoro, D. 2014. Acceptability-based QoE Models for Mobile Video. IEEE Trans. Multimedia.16, 3, 738--750.

Digital Library

[21]

Hore, A. and Ziou, D. 2010. Image Quality Metrics: PSNR vs. SSIM. In Proceedings of ICPR 2010.

Digital Library

[22]

ITU-T. 2008. P. 910 Subjective Video Quality Assessment Methods For Multimedia Applications.

[23]

ITU-R. 2012. Rec. BT. 500--13: Methodology For The Subjective Assessment Of The Quality Of Television Pictures.

[24]

Pins on, M. and Wolf, S. 2003. Comparing subjective video quality testing methodologies, In Proceedings of SPIE Video Communications and Image Processing Conference, SPIE. 573--582.

[25]

Nightingale, J., et al. 2014. Deriving video content type from HEVC bitstream semantics. In Proceedings of SPIE Photonics Europe.

[26]

ITU-T. 2007. Opinion model for video-telephony applications in Quality of service and performance -- Generic and user-related aspects.

[27]

Takahashi, A., Hands, D. and Barriac, V. 2008. Standardization activities in the ITU for a QoE assessment of IPTV. IEEE Communications Magazine. 46, 2, 78--84.

Digital Library

[28]

Péchard, S., Pépion, R. and P. Le Callet. 2008. Suitable methodology in subjective video quality assessment: a resolution dependent paradigm. In Proceedings of the 3rd IMQA.

[29]

Bellard, F. and Niedermayer, M. 2012. FFmpeg.

[30]

Song, W., Tjondronegoro, D. and Docherty, M. 2010. Exploration And Optimization Of User Experience In Viewing Videos On A Mobile Phone. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Know. Eng. 20, 8, 1045--1075.

[31]

Hands, D. and Brunnstrom, K. 2007. Multimedia Group Test Plan Draft Version 1.19, Video Quality Experts Group.

[32]

Protalinski, E. 2013. Google adds its free and open-source VP9 video codec to latest Chrome build.

[33]

Hanhart, P. VQMT: Video Quality Measurement Tool. 2013 Available from: http://mmspg.epfl.ch/vqmt.

[34]

Bjontegaard, G. 2008. Improvements of the BD-PSNR model. ITU-T SG16 Q.6.

[35]

Hanhart, P. and Ebrahimi, T. 2014. Calculation of average coding efficiency based on subjective quality scores. J Vis Commun Image Represent. 25, 3, 555--564.

Digital Library

Cited By

Nawaz OFiedler MKhatibi S(2024)QoE-Based Performance Comparison of AVC, HEVC, and VP9 on Mobile Devices with Additional Influencing FactorsElectronics10.3390/electronics1302032913:2(329)Online publication date: 12-Jan-2024
https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13020329
Fan CHung THsu C(2022)Modeling the User Experience of Watching 360° Videos with Head-Mounted DisplaysACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications10.1145/346382518:1(1-23)Online publication date: 27-Jan-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3463825
Pal DVanijja V(2017)A No-Reference Modular Video Quality Prediction Model for H.265/HEVC and VP9 Codecs on a Mobile DeviceAdvances in Multimedia10.1155/2017/83175902017Online publication date: 1-Jan-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1155/2017/8317590

Index Terms

QoE Modelling for VP9 and H.265 Videos on Mobile Devices
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)
2. Information systems

Recommendations

Efficient CABAC Bit Estimation for H.265/HEVC Rate-Distortion Optimization

The entropy coding of context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding CABAC has been utilized in the H.265/HEVC for higher coding efficiency. But the related complexity also causes a bottleneck for its low-delay applications, owing to the employment of inter-...
Low Complexity H.265/HEVC Coding Unit Size Decision for a Videoconferencing System

AbstractWith the development of Internet and video capture techniques, videoconferencing becomes still more popular. However, with the increased size of the video resolution, the volume of the raw videoconferencing video data increases dramatically. The ...
Perceptually-lossless image coding based on foveated-JND and H.265/HEVC

Removing perceptual redundancy plays an important role in image compression. In this paper we develop a foveated just-noticeable-difference (FJND) model to quantify the perceptual redundancy in the image and integrate it in the H.265/HEVC intra encoding ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

MM '15: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM international conference on Multimedia

October 2015

1402 pages

ISBN:9781450334594

DOI:10.1145/2733373

General Chairs:
Xiaofang Zhou
The University of Queensland, Australia
,
Alan F. Smeaton
Dublin City University, Ireland
,
Qi Tian
The University of Texas at San Antonio, USA
,
Program Chairs:
Dick C.A. Bulterman
FXPAL, USA
,
Heng Tao Shen
The University of Queensland, Australia
,
Ketan Mayer-Patel
The University of North Carolina, USA
,
Shuicheng Yan
National University of Singapore, Singapore

Copyright © 2015 ACM.

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

SIGMM: ACM Special Interest Group on Multimedia

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 13 October 2015

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

MM '15

Sponsor:

SIGMM

MM '15: ACM Multimedia Conference

October 26 - 30, 2015

Brisbane, Australia

Acceptance Rates

MM '15 Paper Acceptance Rate 56 of 252 submissions, 22%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 2,145 of 8,556 submissions, 25%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

3
Total Citations
View Citations
349
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)4
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 27 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Nawaz OFiedler MKhatibi S(2024)QoE-Based Performance Comparison of AVC, HEVC, and VP9 on Mobile Devices with Additional Influencing FactorsElectronics10.3390/electronics1302032913:2(329)Online publication date: 12-Jan-2024
https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13020329
Fan CHung THsu C(2022)Modeling the User Experience of Watching 360° Videos with Head-Mounted DisplaysACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications10.1145/346382518:1(1-23)Online publication date: 27-Jan-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3463825
Pal DVanijja V(2017)A No-Reference Modular Video Quality Prediction Model for H.265/HEVC and VP9 Codecs on a Mobile DeviceAdvances in Multimedia10.1155/2017/83175902017Online publication date: 1-Jan-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1155/2017/8317590

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten