Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

QDASH: A QoE-aware DASH system

https://doi.org/10.1145/2155555.2155558

Abstract

Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH) enhances the Quality of Experience (QoE) for users by automatically switching quality levels according to network conditions. Various adaptation schemes have been proposed to select the most suitable quality level during video playback. Adaptation schemes are currently based on the measured TCP throughput received by the video player. Although video buffer can mitigate throughput fluctuations, it does not take into account the effect of the transition of quality levels on the QoE. In this paper, we propose a QoE-aware DASH system (or QDASH) to improve the user-perceived quality of video watching. We integrate available bandwidth measurement into the video data probes with a measurement proxy architecture. We have found that our available bandwidth measurement method facilitates the selection of video quality levels. Moreover, we assess the QoE of the quality transitions by carrying out subjective experiments. Our results show that users prefer a gradual quality change between the best and worst quality levels, instead of an abrupt switching. Hence, we propose a QoE-aware quality adaptation algorithm for DASH based on our findings. Finally, we integrate both network measurement and the QoE-aware quality adaptation into a comprehensive DASH system.

References (36)

  1. REFERENCES
  2. Akamai HD Video Demo. http://wwwns.akamai.com/hdnetwork/demo/flash/default.html.
  3. comScore releases May 2010 U.S. online video rankings. http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/6/ comScore_Releases_May_2010_U.S._Online_Video_Rankings.
  4. F4V/FLV Technology Center. http://www.adobe.com/devnet/f4v.html.
  5. Netfilter. http://www.netfilter.org.
  6. Open Source Media Framework (OSMF). http://www.osmf.org.
  7. Strobe Media Playback. http://sourceforge.net/adobe/smp.
  8. Tcpdump/libpcap. http://www.tcpdump.org.
  9. Adobe. HTTP Dynamic Streaming on the Adobe Flash Platform. http://www.adobe.com/products/httpdynamicstreaming.
  10. Adobe. Video technology center, delivery: Progressive download. http://www.adobe.com/devnet/video/progressive.html.
  11. S. Akhshabi, A. Begen, and C. Dovrolis. An experimental evaluation of rate-adaptation algorithms in adaptive streaming over HTTP. In Proc. ACM MMSys, 2011.
  12. Apple. HTTP Live Streaming. http://developer.apple.com/resources/http-streaming.
  13. A. Begen, T. Akgul, and M. Baugher. Watching video over the Web: Part 1: Streaming Protocols. IEEE Internet Comput., 15(2):54 -63, 2011.
  14. R. Braden. RFC1122. Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers, 1989.
  15. E. Chan, A. Chen, X. Luo, R. Mok, W. Li, and R. Chang. TRIO: Measuring asymmetric capacity with three minimum round-trip times. In Proc. ACM CoNext, 2011.
  16. N. Cranley, L. Murphy, and P. Perry. User-perceived quality-aware adaptive delivery of MPEG-4 content. In Proc. ACM NOSSDAV, 2003.
  17. N. Cranley, P. Perry, and L. Murphy. User perception of adapting video quality. Int. Journal of human-computer studies, 64(8):637 -647, 2006.
  18. L. De Cicco and S. Mascolo. An experimental investigation of the Akamai adaptive video streaming. In Proc. USAB, 2010.
  19. L. De Cicco, S. Mascolo, and V. Palmisano. Feedback control for adaptive live video streaming. In Proc. ACM MMSys, 2011.
  20. N. Feamster, D. Bansal, and H. Balakrishnan. On the interactions between layered quality adaptation and congestion control for streaming video. In Proc. Packet Video, 2001.
  21. M. Jain and C. Dovrolis. End-to-end available bandwidth: measurement methodology, dynamics, and relation with TCP throughput. IEEE/ACM Trans. on Networking, 11(4):537 - 549, 2003.
  22. L. Kleinrock. Queueing Systems. Volume 1: Theory. Wiley-Interscience, 1975.
  23. E. Kohler, R. Morris, B. Chen, J. Jannotti, and M. F. Kaashoek. The click modular router. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., 18(3):263-297, 2000.
  24. R. Kuschnig, I. Kofler, and H. Hellwagner. An evaluation of TCP-based rate-control algorithms for adaptive Internet streaming of H.264/SVC. In Proc. ACM MMSys, 2010.
  25. A. Lie and J. Klaue. Evalvid-RA: trace driven simulation of rate adaptive MPEG-4 VBR video. ACM Multimedia Systems Journal, 14:33-50, 2008.
  26. C. Liu, I. Bouazizi, and M. Gabbouj. Rate adaptation for adaptive HTTP streaming. In Proc. ACM MMSys, 2011.
  27. X. Luo, E. Chan, and R. Chang. Design and implementation of TCP data probes for reliable and metric-rich network path monitoring. In Proc. USENIX Annual Tech. Conf. 2009, 2009.
  28. Microsoft. IIS Smooth Streaming technical overview. http://learn.iis.net/page.aspx/626/ smooth-streaming-technical-overview/.
  29. R. Mok, E. Chan, and R. Chang. Measuring the quality of experience of HTTP video streaming. In Proc. IEEE/IFIP IM (pre-conf.), 2011.
  30. R. Mok, E. Chan, X. Luo, and R. Chang. Inferring the QoE of HTTP video streaming from user-viewing activities. In Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM W-MUST, 2011.
  31. M. Pinson and S. Wolf. Comparing subjective video quality testing methodologies. Visual Communications and Image Processing, 5150(1):573 -582, 2003.
  32. H. Riiser, P. Vigmostad, C. Griwodz, and P. Halvorsen. Bitrate and video quality planning for mobile streaming scenarios using a GPS-based bandwidth lookup service. In IEEE ICME, 2011.
  33. H. Schwarz, D. Marpe, and T. Wiegand. Overview of the scalable video coding extension of the H.264/AVC standard. IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 17(9):1103 -1120, 2007.
  34. T. Stockhammer. Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP -: Standards and design principles. In Proc. ACM MMSys, 2011.
  35. X. Xing, J. Dang, S. Mishra, and X. Liu. A highly scalable bandwidth estimation of commercial hotspot access points. In Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, 2011.
  36. M. Zink, O. Künzel, J. Schmitt, and R. Steinmetz. Subjective impression of variations in layer encoded videos. In Proc. IWQoS, 2003.