• Save
Generic Video Adaptation Framework Towards Content – and Context Awareness in Future Networks
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Generic Video Adaptation Framework Towards Content – and Context Awareness in Future Networks

  • 3,019 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
3,019
On Slideshare
1,138
From Embeds
1,881
Number of Embeds
5

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 1,881

http://www.scoop.it 1,204
http://www.ict-alicante.eu 663
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 9
http://eltrovemo.tumblr.com 4
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com 1

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

Transcript

  • 1. Generic Video AdaptationFramework Towards Content –and Context Awareness inFuture NetworksW.Aubry1,2,3, D.Négru2, B.Le Gal1, S.Desfarges2, D.Dallet11University of Bordeaux, IMS Lab, France2University of Bordeaux, LaBRI Lab, France3Viotech Communications, France
  • 2. Outline Context Awareness Video Adaptation Proposed Framework Format Adapter Conclusion
  • 3. Video Consumption Increasing consumption of Video content  Youtube, IPTV, … Video requires a lot of bandwidth  HD file : 8-10 MB/s  Average Website page : 320 kB Network congestion happens more and more often
  • 4. Actual Network  Agnostic nature of the actual network  Mail, Music, Video, … = data 10011101001Content Provider Network End user
  • 5. Content & Context awareness Network & Content management considering  Content (mail, music, video, …)  Context (network state, terminal, …) e.g. reducing video bitrate to fit in the available bandwidth  Less packet loss  Less buffering time (lag)  Less video quality
  • 6. Quality of Experience Quality of Experience (QoE)  Video quality  Viewing condition  Accessibility, lag …
  • 7. Video Adaptation to Context Network state  Bitrate to match bandwidth Terminal  Frame resizing to screen resolution  Codec change to decoding capabilities e.g. frame resizing to reduce energy consumption at the terminal side
  • 8. Video Adaptation System modified video stream video Home End User source Gateway Terminal configuration protocol General Interface Interface Interface Network Network Network Low Power purpose processor processor video FPGA Video Decoder Display accelerator (ASIC/ASIP) Controller display
  • 9. Video adaptation constraints High quality  QoE depends on video quality Real time processing  lag avoidance Generic enough
  • 10. Video adaptation  Video adaptation researches aim at  Reducing computational cost  Maintaining high quality output1 I. Ahmad et al. “Video Transcoding: An Overview of Various Techniques and Research Issues” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, October 2005.2 Y. Xin et al. “Digital Video Transcoding” Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 93, No. 1, January 2005
  • 11. Generic ? No Proposals optimize a specific process:  MPEG-2 to h.264  Frame resizing in h.263 … It is too costly to implement each and every possible adaptation process
  • 12. Generic video adaptation Any kind of adaptation  Frame rate  Bitrate  Frame resolution Any codec
  • 13. Our proposition Decoding Pool Adaptation Pool Encoding Pool MPEG-2 id MPEG-2 H.264 Adapt 2 H.264 ... Adapt 1 ... ... Video Format Video Format Video Decoder Adapter Adaptation Adapter Encoder Decoding Path Adaptation Path Encoding Path
  • 14. Our proposition Unified adaptation format  Codec is seamless  codec re-usability  Possibility to use a 3rd party codec Format defined to enable  already proposed adaptation algorithms  codec features
  • 15. Standard features h.264/MPEG-4 Features MPEG-2 h.263 AVCMacroblock size 16x16 16x16 16x16 MV Resolution ½ ½ ¼ Transform 8X8 DCT 8X8 DCT 4X4, 8X8 Integer 16x16, 16x8,Vector Block Size 16x16, 16x8 16x16,8x8 8x16, 8x8, 8x4, 4x8, 4x4 Support Intra No No Yes prediction
  • 16. Adaptation Format Data : Features h.264/MPEG-4 AVC  Pixeldomain Macroblock size 16x16  4x4 blocks MV Resolution ¼ Transform 4X4, 8X8 Integer Metadata 16x16, 16x8,  H.264 based Vector Block Size 8x16, 8x8, 8x4, 4x8, 4x4 Support Intra Yes prediction
  • 17. Format converters Specific to a decoder (or encoder) implementation Main tasks  Re-order pixel data  16x16  4x4  Translate Metadata
  • 18. Metadata Conversion from decoder to adaptatation  From 16x16 block to 4x4 block  Duplicate metadata MacroBlock Divider Metadata Metadata Metadata Metadata Macroblock
  • 19. Metadata Conversion from adaptation to coder  From 4x4 block to 16x16 block  Use 4 to 1 downscaling algorithms  e.g. : for MPEG-2  MV : Linear average  Quantizer scale : min …
  • 20. Motion Vector block size forH.264 h.264 introduces variable vector block size 0 7 10 15 0 3 7 15
  • 21. Motion Vector block size forH.264 0 0 07 7 71015 0 3 7 15 0 3 7 15 0 3 7 15 Decoder Output Adaptation Input Adaptation Output Encoder input
  • 22. Block Recombination Block selection Motion Comparison Combination
  • 23. Recombination Possibilities
  • 24. Block Recombination Recombination done 4 times Procedure repeated on coarser 4 blocksMore than one vectorBlock not considered
  • 25. Conclusion A « generic » adaptation framework  pixel domain  encoder/decoder re-usability  adaptation algorithm agnostic Unified adaptation format  h.264 based  format adapter
  • 26. Future works Extend adaptation format to HEVC Evaluate computational cost  Computational time  Silicon space
  • 27. Thank you for your attention