Frequent layer switching for perceived quality improvements of coarse-grained scalable video

Ni, Pengpeng; Eichhorn, Alexander; Griwodz, Carsten; Halvorsen, Pål

doi:10.1007/s00530-010-0186-9

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, none of these objective metrics have considered the temporal variation of different impairments. Some subjective tests evaluate the visual quality of scalable video; for instance, the effect of quality degradation in the temporal and spatial dimensions is explored in [10,12,13]. The closest related work [20], points out that the frequency and amplitude of layer changes influence the perceived quality and should therefore be kept as small as possible.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Corresponding to six frequency levels, six periods in terms of the L1 frame rate are selected, which include 6, 10, 30, 60, 90 and 180 frames for both noise and blur flicker stimuli. Since short durations for changes in frame rate are known to lead to low acceptance scores [13], the periods for motion flicker stimuli are limited to 30, 60, 90 and 180 frames. …”

Section: Content Selection and Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Flicker effects in adaptive video streaming to handheld devices

Eichhorn

et al. 2011

Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimedia

Self Cite

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Streaming video over the Internet requires mechanisms that limit the streams' bandwidth consumption within its fair share. TCP streaming guarantees this and provides lossless streaming as a side-effect. Adaptation by packet drop does not occur in the network, and excessive startup latency and stalling must be prevented by adapting the bandwidth consumption of the video itself. However, when the adaptation is performed during an ongoing session, it may influence the perceived quality of the entire video and result in improved or reduced visual quality of experience. We have investigated visual artifacts that are caused by adaptive layer switching -we call them flicker effects -and present our results for handheld devices in this paper.We considered three types of flicker, namely noise, blur and motion flicker. The perceptual impact of flicker is explored through subjective assessments. We vary both the intensity of quality changes (amplitude) and the number of quality changes per second (frequency). Users' ability to detect and their acceptance of variations in the amplitudes and frequencies of the quality changes are explored across four content types. Our results indicate that multiple factors influence the acceptance of different quality variations. Amplitude plays the dominant role in delivering satisfactory video quality, while frequency can also be adjusted to relieve the annoyance of flicker artifacts.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Content Selection and Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flicker effects in adaptive video streaming to handheld devices

Eichhorn

et al. 2011

Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimedia

Self Cite

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Quality fluctuations can be annoying for human test subjects [14], especially when the length of switching period is less than 1.5 s [15]. Changes in quality levels that are slower than every 3 s are acceptable.…”

Section: Adaptive Streaming Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Client intelligence for adaptive streaming solutions

Jarnikov

Özçelebi

2011

Signal Processing: Image Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, none of these objective metrics have considered the temporal variation of different impairments. Some subjective tests evaluate the visual quality of scalable video; for instance, the effect of quality degradation in the temporal and spatial dimensions is explored in [4,5]. The closest related work [6], points out that the frequency and amplitude of layer changes influence the perceived quality and should therefore be kept as small as possible.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial flicker effect in video scaling

Eichhorn

et al. 2011

2011 Third International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scalable video streaming may result in flicker effectsvisual artifacts in video presentation due to adaptive layer switching. In our work, we have identified three types of flicker, noise, blur and motion flicker. Here, we investigate the blur and noise flicker, which are both related to the spatial domain. The perceptual impact of blur and noise flicker is explored through subjective assessments, focusing on acceptance of variations in the amplitudes and frequencies of the quality changes, across four content types. Our results indicate that the perception and acceptance of different layer variations are jointly influenced by multiple factors. When video scaling is required, frequency can be adjusted to relieve the annoyance of flicker artifacts, while amplitude still plays the dominant role in delivering satisfactory video quality. In addition, contents with complex details are more affected by blur flicker than other contents. This difference is not observed for noise flicker.

show abstract

Frequent layer switching for perceived quality improvements of coarse-grained scalable video

Cited by 7 publications

References 13 publications

Flicker effects in adaptive video streaming to handheld devices

Flicker effects in adaptive video streaming to handheld devices

Client intelligence for adaptive streaming solutions

Spatial flicker effect in video scaling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About