Adaptive playoutnov10 2011


Published on

Adaptive playout, Sinky

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Selection of TH is critical. Overestimation: playout rate declines giving bad playout performance. Underestimation: higher probability of having an empty buffer = playout discontinuityOptimal TH  trade off rise in probability of empty buffer against increase in playout rateQueue analysis is performed and the frame arrival processes is modeled by a Poisson process. This is to simulate random networking delays, etc.Authors solve for optimal probabilities of empty buffer and frame loss probability, which is the metric for this study. Seems to be either fast or slow!!!!
  • Stanford University
  • When target buffer size has been reached (similar to TH in previous work) playout begins
  • For B_target from 50 to 200 packets in increments of 10. Higher MTBBU is good! Channel model is a two-state Markov (good or bad) . Packet loss probability is 0.05No video is used…. Everything is based on packet assumptions
  • Again Poisson arrival process of frames (they admit the poor choice of modelling the frame arrival rate)Makes use of variance of discontinuity (VoD)
  • MPR: Mean Playout RateSmall TH allows buffer overflow to take place thus losing frames
  • Adaptive playoutnov10 2011

    1. 1. Adaptive Video PlaybackMohammed Sinky
    2. 2. Background Proposed concept falls under the general category of “Adaptive Media Playback or (AMP)” l 2lAMP: l ×s /f
    3. 3. Historical PerspectiveAdaptive Media Playout (AMP) Content Adaptive Optimal frame VDoP [Laoutaris] selection Laoutaris and Yet another AMP buffer design algorithm Video Smoothing First HD video used for evaluation Motion based AMP
    4. 4. Video Smoother -1996 Playout buffer (size N) Video frames playout of frames Threshold (TH) Playout rate Time controller If number of frames in playout buffer exceeds TH, maximum playout rate (m) is employed. Otherwise smoother uses proportionally reduced rates to eliminate playout pauses due to empty buffer.[1] M. C. Yuang, S. T. Liang, Y. G. Chen, and C. L. Shen, “Dynamic video playout smoothing method formultimedia applications,” in IEEE International Conference on Communications, 1996, vol. 3, pp. 1365–1369.
    5. 5. Video Smoother Metrics as TH increases (l: mean frame arrival rate) p0: probability of empty buffer pL: frame loss probability
    6. 6. Video Smoother
    7. 7. Video Smoother hh
    8. 8. Adaptive Media Playout (AMP) - 2001 Adaptive Media Playout: the adjustment of the playout speed of the media packets depending on the condition of the channel and the current client buffer fullness. Video playout based on channel conditions:  Bad conditions: slow down playout, virtual increase in buffer  Good conditions: following recovery of bad conditions, playout is done faster than normal[2] E. Steinbach, N. Farber, and B. Girod, “Adaptive playout for low latency video streaming,” in ImageProcessing, 2001. Proceedings. 2001 International Conference on, 2001, vol. 1, pp. 962–965.
    9. 9. AMP Assumptions: Audio+Video frame fit into one packet Lost packets: retransmission requests are sent from client to server (application layer)
    10. 10. AMP Packet burst error and the arrival of retransmissions If a packet burst loss exceeds the maximum playout time, we get buffer underflow: freeze video
    11. 11. AMP Two main criteria for evaluation  Probability of buffer underflow Average value of max burst length:  Average end-to-end delay introduced by adaptive playout
    12. 12. AMP Metric: Mean Time Between Buffer Underflow (MTBBU) s: slowdown factor (s≥1) f: speed-up factor (f≤1)
    13. 13. Variance of Distortion of Playout(VDoP) - 2001 New metric to gage interruptions in video playback Extension of 1996 work done by Yuang which suffered from an undesirable fast forward effect[3] N. Laoutaris and I. Stavrakakis, “Adaptive playout strategies for packet video receivers with finite buffercapacity,” in Communications, 2001. ICC 2001. IEEE International Conference on, 2001, vol. 3, pp. 969–973.
    14. 14. VDoP Some Results
    15. 15. Recent Take into consideration motion characteristics of frames Choosing specific frames (frame selection) Most work revolves around finding the optimum buffer size, threshold and corresponding frame rate adjustment in the context of AMP
    16. 16.  Many of the works consider the network to be a cloud (possibly internet, LAN, etc.)  We consider specific home network, ad hoc, 802.11 based Most deal with frames as a whole, and don’t get into details of packetization  We are relying on frames split across packets Assumptions are made on frame arrival rates  In our scenario a more accurate estimation of frame arrival rates can be considered HD video is not considered  Our work is centralized around HD video