Quality of Experience vs. QoS in Video Transmission

Author(s):  
André F. Marquet ◽  
Jânio M. Monteiro ◽  
Nuno J. Martins ◽  
Mario S. Nunes

In legacy television services, user centric metrics have been used for more than twenty years to evaluate video quality. These subjective assessment metrics are usually obtained using a panel of human evaluators in standard defined methods to measure the impairments caused by a diversity of factors of the Human Visual System (HVS), constituting what is also called Quality of Experience (QoE) metrics. As video services move to IP networks, the supporting distribution platforms and the type of receiving terminals is getting more heterogeneous, when compared with classical video distributions. The flexibility introduced by these new architectures is, at the same time, enabling an increment of the transmitted video quality to higher definitions and is supporting the transmission of video to lower capability terminals, like mobile terminals. In IP Networks, while Quality of Service (QoS) metrics have been consistently used for evaluating the quality of a transmission and provide an objective way to measure the reliability of communication networks for various purposes, QoE metrics are emerging as a solution to address the limitations of conventional QoS measuring when evaluating quality from the service and user point of view. In terms of media, compressed video usually constitutes a very interdependent structure degrading in a non-graceful manner when exposed to Binary Erasure Channels (BEC), like the Internet or wireless networks. Accordingly, not only the type of encoder and its major encoding parameters (e.g. transmission rate, image definition or frame rate) contribute to the quality of a received video, but also QoS parameters are usually a cause for different types of decoding artifacts. As a result of this, several worldwide standard entities have been evaluating new metrics for the subjective assessment of video transmission over IP networks. In this chapter we are especially interested in explaining some of the best practices available to monitor, evaluate and assure good levels of QoE in packet oriented networks for rich media applications like high quality video streaming. For such applications, service requirements are relatively loose or difficult to quantify and therefore specific techniques have to be clearly understood and evaluated. By the mid of the chapter the reader should have understood why even networks with excellent QoS parameters might have QoE issues, as QoE is a systemic approach that does not relate solely to QoS but to the ensemble of components composing the communication system.

Author(s):  
Mihai Ivanovici ◽  
Razvan Beuran

There is a significant difference between what a network application experiences as quality at network level, and what the user perceives as quality at application level. From the network point of view, applications require certain delay, bandwidth and packet loss bounds to be met – ideally zero delay and zero loss. However, users should not be directly concerned with network conditions, and furthermore they are usually neither able to measure nor predict them. Users only expect good application performance, i.e., a fast and reliable file transfer, high quality for voice or video transmission, and so on, depending on the application being used. This is true both in wired as well as wireless networks. In order to understand network application behavior, as well as the interaction between the application and the network, one must perform a delicate task – the one of correlating the Quality of Service (QoS), i.e., the degradation induced at network level (as a measure of what the application experiences), with the Quality of Experience (QoE), i.e., the degradation perceived by the user at application level (as a measure of the user-perceived quality) (Ivanovici, 2006). This is done by simultaneously measuring the QoS degradation and the application QoE on an end-to-end basis. These measures must be then correlated by taking into account their temporal relationship. Assessing the correlation between QoE and QoS makes it possible to predict application performance given a known QoS degradation level, and to determine the QoS bounds that are required in order to attain a desired QoE level.


2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4(Suppl.)) ◽  
pp. 1387
Author(s):  
Muhamad Hanif Jofri ◽  
Ida Aryanie Bahrudin ◽  
Noor Zuraidin Mohd Safar ◽  
Juliana Mohamed ◽  
Abdul Halim Omar

Video streaming is widely available nowadays. Moreover, since the pandemic hit all across the globe, many people stayed home and used streaming services for news, education,  and entertainment. However,   when streaming in session, user Quality of Experience (QoE) is unsatisfied with the video content selection while streaming on smartphone devices. Users are often irritated by unpredictable video quality format displays on their smartphone devices. In this paper, we proposed a framework video selection scheme that targets to increase QoE user satisfaction. We used a video content selection algorithm to map the video selection that satisfies the user the most regarding streaming quality. Video Content Selection (VCS) are classified into video attributes groups. The level of VCS streaming will gradually decrease to consider the least video selection that users will not accept depending on video quality. To evaluate the satisfaction level, we used the Mean Opinion Score (MOS) to measure the adaptability of user acceptance towards video streaming quality. The final results show that the proposed algorithm shows that the user satisfies the video selection, by altering the video attributes.


Author(s):  
Woojae Kim ◽  
Sewoong Ahn ◽  
Anh-Duc Nguyen ◽  
Jinwoo Kim ◽  
Jaekyung Kim ◽  
...  

Over the past 20 years, research on quality of experience (QoE) has been actively expanded even to cover aesthetic, emotional and psychological experiences. QoE has been an important research topic in determining the perceptual factors that are essential to users in keeping with the emergence of new display technologies. In this paper, we provide in-depth reviews of recent assessment studies in this field. Compared to previous reviews, our research examines the human factors observed over various recent displays and their associated assessment methods. In this study, we first provide a comprehensive QoE analysis on 2D display including image/video quality assessment (I/VQA), visual preference, and human visual system-related studies. Second, we analyze stereoscopic 3D (S3D) QoE research on the topics of I/VQA and visual discomfort from the human perception point of view on S3D display. Third, we investigate QoE in a head-mounted display-based virtual reality (VR) environment, and deal with VR sickness and 360 I/VQA with their individual approach. All of our reviews are analyzed through comparison of benchmark models. Furthermore, we layout QoE works on future display and modern deep-learning applications.


Sensors ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 1949
Author(s):  
Lukas Sevcik ◽  
Miroslav Voznak

Video quality evaluation needs a combined approach that includes subjective and objective metrics, testing, and monitoring of the network. This paper deals with the novel approach of mapping quality of service (QoS) to quality of experience (QoE) using QoE metrics to determine user satisfaction limits, and applying QoS tools to provide the minimum QoE expected by users. Our aim was to connect objective estimations of video quality with the subjective estimations. A comprehensive tool for the estimation of the subjective evaluation is proposed. This new idea is based on the evaluation and marking of video sequences using the sentinel flag derived from spatial information (SI) and temporal information (TI) in individual video frames. The authors of this paper created a video database for quality evaluation, and derived SI and TI from each video sequence for classifying the scenes. Video scenes from the database were evaluated by objective and subjective assessment. Based on the results, a new model for prediction of subjective quality is defined and presented in this paper. This quality is predicted using an artificial neural network based on the objective evaluation and the type of video sequences defined by qualitative parameters such as resolution, compression standard, and bitstream. Furthermore, the authors created an optimum mapping function to define the threshold for the variable bitrate setting based on the flag in the video, determining the type of scene in the proposed model. This function allows one to allocate a bitrate dynamically for a particular segment of the scene and maintains the desired quality. Our proposed model can help video service providers with the increasing the comfort of the end users. The variable bitstream ensures consistent video quality and customer satisfaction, while network resources are used effectively. The proposed model can also predict the appropriate bitrate based on the required quality of video sequences, defined using either objective or subjective assessment.


2012 ◽  
Vol 532-533 ◽  
pp. 1219-1224
Author(s):  
Hong Tao Deng

During video transmission over error prone network, compressed video bit-stream is sensitive to channel errors that may degrade the decoded pictures severely. In order to solve this problem, error concealment technique is a useful post-processing tool for recovering the lost information. In these methods, how to estimate the lost motion vector correctly is important for the quality of decoded picture. In order to recover the lost motion vector, an Decoder Motion Vector Estimation (DMVE) criterion was proposed and have well effect for recover the lost blocks. In this paper, we propose an improved error concealment method based on DMVE, which exploits the accurate motion vector by using redundant motion vector information. The experimental results with an H.264 codec show that our method improves both subjective and objective decoder reconstructed video quality, especially for sequences of drastic motion.


Author(s):  
R. Serral-Gracià ◽  
E. Cerqueira ◽  
M. Curado ◽  
M. Yannuzzi ◽  
E. Monteiro ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document