skip to main content
research-article

Quality of Experience of adaptive video streaming

Published: 01 November 2015 Publication History

Abstract

The usage of HTTP adaptive streaming (HAS) has become widely spread in multimedia services. Because it allows the service providers to improve the network resource utilization and user's Quality of Experience (QoE). Using this technology, the video playback interruption is reduced since the network and server status in addition to capability of user device, all are taken into account by HAS client to adapt the quality to the current condition. Adaptation can be done using different strategies. In order to provide optimal QoE, the perceptual impact of adaptation strategies from point of view of the user should be studied. However, the time-varying video quality due to the adaptation which usually takes place in a long interval introduces a new type of impairment making the subjective evaluation of adaptive streaming system challenging. The contribution of this paper is two-fold: first, it investigates the testing methodology to evaluate HAS QoE by comparing the subjective experimental outcomes obtained from ACR standardized method and a semi-continuous method developed to evaluate the long sequences. In addition, influence of using audiovisual stimuli to evaluate the video-related impairment is inquired. Second, impact of some of the adaptation technical factors including the quality switching amplitude and chunk size in combination with high range of commercial content type is investigated. The results of this study provide a good insight toward achieving appropriate testing method to evaluate HAS QoE, in addition to designing switching strategies with optimal visual quality. HighlightsThe semi-continuous method used in this study can be an appropriate approach for evaluation of the adaptation events which can last up to some minutes.On the comparison between the testing methodologies (ACR and the semi-continuous method) and influence of audio presence on subjective evaluation of test videos no statistically significant effect was found.The QoE of constant low quality was voted statistically significantly lower compared to the up-switching.No main effect from ANOVA was observed for any of the adaptation related study factors, i.e. in contrary to many of previous studies, using short chunk or abrupt quality switching do not necessarily degrade the QoE.The video content characteristics had an influence on the absolute MOS results.

References

[1]
T. Arsan, Review of bandwidth estimation tools and application to bandwidth adaptive video streaming, in: Proceedings of 9th International Conference on High-Capacity Optical Networks and Emerging/Enabling Technologies (HONET 2012), Istanbul, Turkey, 2012, pp. 152-156.
[2]
M. Zink, J. Schmitt, R. Steinmetz, Layer-encoded video in scalable adaptive streaming, IEEE Trans. Multimed., 7 (2005) 75-84.
[3]
P. Ni, R. Eg, A. Eichhorn, C. Griwodz, P. Halvorsen, Flicker effects in adaptive video streaming to handheld devices, in: Proceeding of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, MM'11, Scottsdale, AZ, USA, 2011, pp. 463-472.
[4]
A.K. Moorthy, L. Choi, A.C. Bovik, G. de Veciana, Video quality assessment on mobile devices, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process., 6 (2012) 652-671.
[5]
R. Mok, X. Luo, E. Chan, R. Chang, QDASH: A QoE-aware DASH system, in: Proceedings of the 3rd Multimedia Systems Conference, 2012, pp. 11-22.
[6]
L. Yitong, S. Yun, M. Yinian, L. Jing, L. Qi, Y. Dacheng, A study on Quality of Experience for adaptive streaming service, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC), 2013, pp. 682-686.
[7]
M. Zink, O. Künzel, J. Schmitt, R. Steinmetz, Subjective impression of variations in layer encoded videos, in: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Quality of Service, 2003, pp. 137-154.
[8]
D.C. Robinson, Y. Jutras, V. Craciun, Subjective video quality assessment of HTTP adaptive streaming technologies, Bell Labs Tech. J., 16 (2012) 5-23.
[9]
ITU-R, Methodology for the Subjective Assessment of the Quality of Television Pictures, ITU-R Recommendation BT. 500, January 2012.
[10]
ITU-T, Subjective Video Quality Assessment Methods for Multimedia Applications, ITU-T Recommendation P.910, April 2008.
[11]
N. Staelens, S. Moens, W. van den Broeck, I. Marien, B. Vermeulen, P. Lambert, R. van de Walle, P. Demeester, Assessing quality of experience of IPTV and video on demand services in real-life environments, IEEE Trans. Broadcast., 56 (2010) 458-466.
[12]
C. Chen, L. Choi, G. de Veciana, C. Caramanis, R. Heath, A. Bovik, Modeling the time varying subjective quality of HTTP video streams with rate adaptations, IEEE Trans. Image Process., 23 (2014) 2206-2221.
[13]
S. Tavakoli, J. Gutierrez, N. Garcia, Subjective quality study of adaptive streaming of monoscopic and stereoscopic video, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., 32 (2014) 684-692.
[14]
J. Gutierrez, P. Perez, F. Jaureguizar, J. Cabrera, N. Garcia, Subjective assessment of the impact of transmission errors in 3DTV compared to HDTV, in: Proceedings of the 3DTV Conference: The True Vision - Capture, Transmission and Display of 3D Video (3DTV-CON), 2011, pp. 1-4.
[15]
M. Pinson, M. Sullivan, A. Catellier, A new method for immersive Audiovisual subjective testing, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Video Processing and Quality Metrics for Consumer Electronics (VPQM), 2014.
[16]
M.-N. Garcia, F. De Simone, S. Tavakoli, N. Staelens, S. Egger, K. Brunnström, A. Raake, Quality of Experience and HTTP adaptive streaming: a review of subjective studies, in: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), 2014, pp. 141-146.
[17]
L. Janowski, P. Romaniak, QoE as a function of frame rate and resolution changes, in: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Future Multimedia Networking, FMN'10, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2010, pp. 34-45.
[18]
P. Kortum, M. Sullivan, The effect of content desirability on subjective video quality ratings, Hum. Factors: J. Hum. Factors Ergonom. Soc., 52 (2010) 105-118.
[19]
VQEG, Report on the Validation of Video Quality Models for High Definition Video Content, Video Quality Expert Group, Available: {http://www.vqeg.org}, June 2010.
[20]
T. Hosfeld, S. Biedermann, R. Schatz, A. Platzer, S. Egger, M. Fiedler, The memory effect and its implications on Web QoE modeling, in: Proceedings of the 23rd International Teletraffic Congress (ITC), 2011, pp. 103-110.
[21]
S. Tavakoli, M. Shahid, K. Brunnström, N. Garcia, Effect of content characteristics on quality of experience of adaptive streaming, in: Proceedings of 6th International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), 2014, pp. 63-64.
[22]
G. Ghinea, J.P. Thomas, QoS impact on user perception and understanding of multimedia video clips, in: Proceedings of 6th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, Multimedia '98, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1998, pp. 49-54, http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/290747.290754.

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)Subjective Evaluation of Visual Quality and Simulator Sickness of Short 360$^\circ$ Videos: ITU-T Rec. P.919IEEE Transactions on Multimedia10.1109/TMM.2021.309371724(3087-3100)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2022
  • (2020)Audiovisual quality of live music streaming over mobile networks using MPEG-DASHMultimedia Tools and Applications10.1007/s11042-020-09047-679:33-34(24595-24619)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2020
  • (2019)Bayesian-Based Industrial Internet Service Abnormal Detection AlgorithmProceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Information Technologies and Electrical Engineering10.1145/3386415.3386957(1-4)Online publication date: 6-Dec-2019
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Image Communication
Image Communication  Volume 39, Issue PB
November 2015
150 pages

Publisher

Elsevier Science Inc.

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 November 2015

Author Tags

  1. Adaptive video streaming
  2. Quality of Experience
  3. Subjective evaluation
  4. Time-varying video quality

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 15 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)Subjective Evaluation of Visual Quality and Simulator Sickness of Short 360$^\circ$ Videos: ITU-T Rec. P.919IEEE Transactions on Multimedia10.1109/TMM.2021.309371724(3087-3100)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2022
  • (2020)Audiovisual quality of live music streaming over mobile networks using MPEG-DASHMultimedia Tools and Applications10.1007/s11042-020-09047-679:33-34(24595-24619)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2020
  • (2019)Bayesian-Based Industrial Internet Service Abnormal Detection AlgorithmProceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Information Technologies and Electrical Engineering10.1145/3386415.3386957(1-4)Online publication date: 6-Dec-2019
  • (2018)Modelling user quality of experience from objective and subjective data sets using fuzzy logicMultimedia Systems10.1007/s00530-018-0590-024:6(645-667)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2018
  • (2017)CheesePiProceedings of the 2017 Applied Networking Research Workshop10.1145/3106328.3106337(7-12)Online publication date: 15-Jul-2017
  • (2017)On subjective quality assessment of adaptive video streaming via crowdsourcing and laboratory based experimentsMultimedia Tools and Applications10.1007/s11042-016-3948-376:15(16727-16748)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2017

View Options

View options

Get Access

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media