Perceptual Quality Maximization for Video Calls with Packet Losses by Optimizing FEC, Frame Rate and Quantization

HomePage.Fec4rt History

Hide minor edits - Show changes to markup

April 04, 2017, at 11:25 PM EST by 184.152.50.28 -
Added line 21:
  • Technical report with all results
March 20, 2017, at 02:54 PM EST by 184.152.50.28 -
Changed lines 3-7 from:

We consider video calls over networks with bursty packet losses and varying bitrate, where loss resiliency is provided through frame-level forward error correction (FEC) due to tight delay constraints. For this problem, both encoding frame rate (eFR) and decoded frame rate (dFR) are crucial; a high eFR at low bitrates leads to a larger quantization stepsize (QS), smaller frames and thus suboptimal FEC, while a low eFR at high bitrates diminishes the perceptual quality. At the receiver, damaged frames and others predicted from them are typically discarded, reducing dFR. To mitigate frame losses, hierarchical-P coding (hPP) may be used at the cost of lower coding efficiency than IPP..I coding (IPP), which results in irregular frame freezes in case of loss. In this paper, we study the received video call quality maximization for both hPP and IPP by jointly optimizing eFR, QS and the FEC redundancy rates, under the sending bitrate constraint. We use a perceptual quality model, Q-STAR, which depends on average dFR and QS, along with a rate model, R-STAR, which depends on eFR and QS. We cast the problem as a combinatorial optimization problem, and after replacing QS with the video bitrate, employ exhaustive search and hill climbing methods to solve for the eFR and the video bitrate. We also use a greedy FEC packet distribution algorithm to determine the FEC redundancy rate for each frame. Evaluating the results for both hPP and IPP, we show, for iid losses,

to:

We consider video calls over networks with bursty packet losses and varying bitrate, where loss resiliency is provided through frame-level forward error correction (FEC) due to tight delay constraints. For this problem, both encoding frame rate (eFR) and decoded frame rate (dFR) are crucial; a high eFR at low bitrates leads to a larger quantization stepsize (QS), smaller frames and thus suboptimal FEC, while a low eFR at high bitrates diminishes the perceptual quality. At the receiver, damaged frames and others predicted from them are typically discarded, reducing dFR. To mitigate frame losses, hierarchical-P coding (hPP) may be used at the cost of lower coding efficiency than IPP..I coding (IPP), which results in irregular frame freezes in case of loss.

In this paper, we study the received video call quality maximization for both hPP and IPP by jointly optimizing eFR, QS and the FEC redundancy rates, under the sending bitrate constraint. We use a perceptual quality model, Q-STAR, which depends on average dFR and QS, along with a rate model, R-STAR, which depends on eFR and QS. We cast the problem as a combinatorial optimization problem, and after replacing QS with the video bitrate, employ exhaustive search and hill climbing methods to solve for the eFR and the video bitrate. We also use a greedy FEC packet distribution algorithm to determine the FEC redundancy rate for each frame.

Evaluating the results for both hPP and IPP, we show, for iid losses,

Changed line 14 from:
  • the FEC redundancies are much higher, and keep rising with the mean burst length, reaching up to 80\%,
to:
  • compared to iid losses, FEC redundancies are much higher, and keep rising with the mean burst length, reaching up to 80\% when bursts are on average 50-packet-long,
March 20, 2017, at 02:49 PM EST by 184.152.50.28 -
Added lines 14-16:

Resources

  • Evaluation scripts (MATLAB) and data
March 20, 2017, at 02:35 PM EST by 184.152.50.28 -
Changed lines 1-13 from:
to:
November 03, 2016, at 12:00 PM EST by 172.16.9.7 -
Changed lines 1-3 from:
to:
November 03, 2016, at 12:00 PM EST by 172.16.9.7 -
Changed lines 1-3 from:
to:
February 12, 2016, at 05:23 PM EST by 172.16.11.216 -
Changed line 1 from:
to:
February 12, 2016, at 05:23 PM EST by 172.16.11.216 -
Added line 1:
Page last modified on April 04, 2017, at 11:25 PM EST