2009 16th International Conference on Digital Signal Processing 2009
DOI: 10.1109/icdsp.2009.5201046
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Error protection of scalable soures: A comparative analysis of Forward Error Correction and Multiple Description Coding

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Since descriptions will be sent through independent channels and any combination of received descriptions is decodable, network congestion or packet loss for some of the transmission channels will not interrupt the decoding process but only leads to a temporary degradation of decoding quality. Comparisons between FEC and MDC techniques [3], [4] indicated that one technique will outperform another under different transmission and packet loss rates.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Since descriptions will be sent through independent channels and any combination of received descriptions is decodable, network congestion or packet loss for some of the transmission channels will not interrupt the decoding process but only leads to a temporary degradation of decoding quality. Comparisons between FEC and MDC techniques [3], [4] indicated that one technique will outperform another under different transmission and packet loss rates.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…However, the generalization of such results to real-world data is not trivial, as MDC performance bounds are known not to be strict [15]. In [16], [17], a joint application of source channel coding and scalable MDC is proposed. From the reported results, worked out using Gaussian data, one can infer that methods using channel coding generally outperform MDC in matched transmission conditions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%