Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
FutureComm 2010: Making Real-Time Video Work Over the Internet
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

FutureComm 2010: Making Real-Time Video Work Over the Internet

635
views

Published on

Published in: Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
635
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide



  • THE TYPE OF TRAFFIC IS CHANGING: LESS STORE-AND-FORWARD MORE INTERACTIVE
    P2P = games, voice, music, and video files
    Video Content = exclusively video content: video caching & streaming
    Video Communication = Video content + interactivity
    The bandwidth challenges ushered in by online video sites (YouTube, MySpace, etc) is just the initial phase of the impact of internet video on the network.
    Static video such as video clips and films addressed with content distribution, and live video events will eventually be enabled by internet multicast. In general, video content can be pushed to the edge since it does not change real-time. With video calling, video sharing, interactive gaming, and Enterprise TelePresence, however, the traffic must travel over the long-haul network and cannot be cached.
  • Transcript

    • 1. Name: Title: Making Real-Time Video Work Over the Internet Yair Wiener CTO October 2010
    • 2. Gopher, FTP WWW P2P Video Content Video Communication 1993-1995 1995-2000 2000-2013 2013-2025 2025+ 1995: Web overtakes Gopher, FTP 2000: Peer-to-Peer overtakes Web 2013: Video Content overtakes Peer-to-Peer 2025: Video Communication overtakes Video Content Source: Cisco 2010 Dominant Traffic Types
    • 3. Video Compression The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly Uncompressed HD 720p30 Compressed HD 720p30
    • 4. Typical IP Network Impairments Corruption Corrupted packet rejection Multi-path Collisions BER Congestion Dropped by router / switch Packet Loss
    • 5. Typical IP Network Impairments Jitter TX RX T T+2Δ T+4Δ T+Δ
    • 6. Handling IP Network Impairments Packet Loss - Corruption SVC + FEC Packet Loss - Congestion NetSense Jitter, Out of Order AJB
    • 7. Handling Corruption 7
    • 8. Scalable Video Coding – The Promise Generate a single video stream that can serve multiple users “One ring to rule them all” The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R Tolkein
    • 9. Scalability of Video - Modalities Temporal - Change of frame rate (e.g 30 FPS, 15 FPS) Spatial - Change of resolution (e.g 720p, 480p, CIF) Fidelity / SNR - Change of quality (e.g 1 Mbps, 512 kbps) 0 20 40 0 500 1000 0 500 1000 1500 FPSResolution (H lines) Bitrate(Kbps)
    • 10. Video Layered Structure Base Layer (e.g qCIF@15 FPS) Enhancement Layer (e.g CIF@30 FPS) Enhancement Layer (e.g 4CIF@30 FPS) Single Layer (e.g 4CIF@30 FPS) SVC H.264
    • 11. SVC - Error Resiliency The layered structure of SVC allows Unequal Error Protection (UEP)
    • 12. Reliable Transmission - FEC 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 a 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10
    • 13. Reliable Transmission - FEC Protect SVC base layer Dynamic FEC strength FEC-XOR, FEC-RS
    • 14. Quality 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PSNR(dB) Pakcet loss rate (%) PSNR Vs. Packet loss rate SVC H.264
    • 15. Example SVC + FEC AVC
    • 16. Handling Congestion 16
    • 17. NetSense Classify network condition (congestion Vs. corruption) Estimate available BW Adapt bit rate to prevent congestion
    • 18. Performance 0 128 256 384 512 640 768 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Bandwidth(Kbps) Time (seconds)
    • 19. Quality of Experience Latency Performance * G.1070 score - The higher the score, the better the quality * The lower the latency, the better the quality 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 Videoquality(1-5) NetSense Google Talk Microsoft OCS (2.0.6362.36) 1 10 100 1000 Latency(milliseconds) NetSense Google Talk Microsoft OCS (2.0.6362.36)
    • 20. Handling Jitter 20
    • 21. Adaptive Jitter Buffer Jitter TX RX Buffer = 4Δ RX delayed
    • 22. Where to Find Us? Corporate site Community Blogs Newsletter twitter This seminar, online: http://community.radvision.com/page/futurecomm-2010/
    • 23. Name: Title:Yair Wiener yairw@radvision.com CTO Thank you!

    ×