73
Transporting Real-Time Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Video Over the Internet: Challenges Internet: Challenges and Approaches and Approaches Dapeng Wu, Yiwei Thomas Hou, and Ya-Qin Zhang PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, VOL. 88, NO. 12,DECEMBE R 2000 指指指指 : 指指指 指指 指指指指指指R89725048 指指

Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

Transporting Real-Time Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Video Over the Internet: Challenges and Challenges and ApproachesApproaches

Dapeng Wu, Yiwei Thomas Hou, and Ya-Qin ZhangPROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, VOL. 88, NO. 12,DECEMBER 2000

指導教授 : 林永松 博士

台大資管所碩一 R89725048 宋之揆

Page 2: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

2

Introduction

Internet multimedia applications: video conference, distance learning, digital libraries, and video-on-demand.There is no quality of service (Qos) guarantee for video transmission over the current Internet.

Page 3: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

3

Challenging QoS issues

Bandwidth: Current Internet does not provide bandwidth reservation Delay: Real-time video requires bounded end-to-end delay. Internet does not offer delay guarantee.Loss: Packet loss ratio required to be kept below a threshold. Internet does not provie any loss guarantee.

Page 4: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

4

Unicast and Multicast video distribution

Page 5: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

5

Tradeoff between bandwidth and flexibility

Page 6: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

6

Another challenge: Heterogeneity

Network heterogeneity: Different processing, bandwidth, storage, and congestion control policies.Receiver heterogeneity: Receivers have different latency requirement, visual quality requirement, and processing capability.

Page 7: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

7

Two general approaches to the above challenges

Network-centric: Routers/switches in the network are required to provide QoS support.*End system based: Guarantee QoS without imposing any requirements on the network.

Page 8: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

8

Congestion control

Rate controlRate-adaptiveVideo encodingRate shaping

Page 9: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

9

Rate control

Windows-based: Like TCP, using congestion window. Increase the window slowly, but decrease the window greatly. (may introduce intolerable delay) *Rate-based: Source-based, receiver-based, and hybrid rate control

Page 10: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

10

Source-based rate control

The sender is responsible for adapting the transmission rate of the video stream. It can minimize the amount of packet loss by matching the rate of the video stream to the available network bandwidth.Feedback is employed to convey the changing status of the Internet.hhg

Page 11: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

11

Source-based approach for unicast (cont’d)

<1> Probed-based approach: additive increase and multiplicative decrease (AIMD) MIMD

}),max{(:

}),min{(:

)(

MinRrr

else

MaxRAIRrr

Ppif th

p: packet loss ratio

Pth: threshold for the packet loss ratio

AIR: additive increase rate

r: sending rate at the source

α: multiplicative decrease factor

Page 12: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

12

Source behavior under the AIMD rate control

Page 13: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

13

<2> Model-based approach: also called TCP friendly rate control

Source-based approach for unicast (cont’d)

pRTT

MTU

22.1

λ: throughput of a TCP connection

MTU: maximum transit unit

RTT: round trip time

p: packet loss ratio

Page 14: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

14

Single channel Multicast

Only the probe-based rate control can be employed

}),min{(:

%)100(

),2/max(:

)(

MaxRAIRrr

Felseif

MinRrr

TFif

un

concon

Fcon: fraction of congested

Fun: fraction of unloaded

Tcon: threshold

AIR: additive increase rate

r: sending rate at the source

Page 15: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

15

Receiver-based control

Target at solving heterogeneity problemLayered multicast videoProbe-based approach and model-based approach

Page 16: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

16

Layered multicast video

Raw video sequence is compressed into multi layers: a base layer and one or more enhancement layers

Page 17: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

17

Probe-Based approach

When no congestion, a receiver probes for the available bandwidth by joining a layer, which leads to an increase of its receiving rate.When congestion id detected, the receiver drops a layer, resulting in reduction of its receiving rate.

Page 18: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

18

Model-based approachγi: transmission rate of layer i

Page 19: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

19

Hybrid rate control

Receiver regulate the receiving rate of video streams by adding/dropping channels while sender also adjusts the transmission rate of each channel based on feedback information from the receiver.

Page 20: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

20

Rate-adaptive video encoding: A compression approach

Video conference with H.261 and H.263MPEG-1, MPEG-2, and MPEG-4Maximize the perceptual quality under a given encoding rate.Encoder’s quantization parameter (QP)

Page 21: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

21

Rate-distortion (RD) theory

Page 22: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

22

RD theory approachesModel-based approach: Assumes various input distribution and quantizer characteristics. Close-form solutions can be obtained by using continuous optimization theory.Operational R-D based approach: The admissible quantizers are used by the rate control algorithm to determine the optimal strategy to minimize the distortion under the constraint of a given bit budget.

Page 23: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

23

Rate shaping

A rate shaper is a filter between the encoder and the network, with which the encoder’s output rate can be match to the available network bandwidth.It is applicable to any video coding scheme and both live and stored video.

Page 24: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

24

Rate shaping approaches (cont’d)

Transport perspective: Server selective frame discard. Two advantage: Taking the network bandwidth and client buffer constraint into account; take advantage of application-specific information such as regions of interest and group of pictures structure, in its decision in discarding frames.

Page 25: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

25

Rate shaping approaches (cont’d)

Compression perspective: Based on the R-D theory, the dynamic rate shaper selectively discards the discrete cosine transform (DCT) coefficients of the high frequency so that the target rate can be achieved.

Page 26: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

26

Error control

Forward error correction (FEC)RetransmissionError resilience

both the source and receiver sideError concealment

only receiver side

Page 27: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

27

FEC

Add extra information to a compressed video bit stream.Channel codingSource coding-based FECJoint source/channel coding

Page 28: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

28

Channel coding FECDisadvantages: It increases the transmission rate and delay. It is not adaptive to varying loss characteristics and works best only when the packet loss rate is stable.Unequal error protection: In MPEG I -frame >P -frame >B -frameHierarchical FEC: The FEC stream is used for recovery of a different video layer. More flexibility and bandwidth efficiency.

Page 29: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

29

Source coding-based FEC

The redundant information added by SFEC is more compressed versions of the raw data.SFEC recovers the video with reduced quality.Advantage: Lower delayDisadvantage: It increases the transmission rate and is inflexible to varying loss character.

Page 30: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

30

Joint source/channel coding

Page 31: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

31

Retransmission (cont’d)

Page 32: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

32

Retransmission (cont’d)

Page 33: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

33

Retransmission (cont’d)

Hybrid control: It could achieve better performance at the cost of higher complexity.Multicast: Retransmission has to be restricted within closely located multicast member.

Page 34: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

34

Optimal mode selection

Intermode vs Intramode

Page 35: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

35

Multiple description coding

A raw video sequence is compressed into multiple streams.Advantages:

<1>robustness to loss: even if a receiver gets only one description, it can still reconstruct video with acceptable quality.

<2>enhance quality

Page 36: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

36

Error concealment: A compression approach

Human eyes can tolerate a certain degree of distortion in video signals, error concealment is a viable technique to handle packet loss.Spatial and temporal interpolation

Page 37: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

37

Error resilience: A compression approach

Prevent error propagation or limit the scope if the damage.Optimal mode selectionMultiple description coding

Page 38: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

38

Simple error-concealment shemes

The receiver replaces the whole frame with the previous reconstructed frame.The receiver replaces a corrupted block with the block at the same location from the previous frame.The receiver replaces the corrupted block with the block from the previous frame pointed by a motion vector.

Page 39: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

39

Page 40: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

40

Page 41: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

MPEG-4

Transport MPEG-4 video over Internet is expected to be available !

Page 42: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

42

Introduction to MPEG-4 (cont’d)

以物件導向為基礎的壓縮方式針對不同的視訊物件 , 予以個別獨立之壓縮

Page 43: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

43

Introduction to MPEG-4 (cont’d)

每一個視訊物件還可以分層 , Base layer提供較低解析度 , Enhancement layer 提供較高解析度 .每一層由 Video object plane 組成 , 其中包含了物件的 shape 和 texture data.Spatial scalability: 透過分層調整物件的解析度Temporal scalability: 改變物件的播放速度

Page 44: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

44

MPEG 家族比較表Compression MPEG-4 MPEG-2 MPEG-1

媒體 網際網路類電話 DVD與 DTV VCD

解析度320X240160X120 720X480 352X240

訊框比 可變式

固定 60 個畫面 / 秒(NTSC/ 交錯 )

30 個畫面 / 秒(NTSC/ 漸進 )

固定 30 個畫面 / 秒(NTSC/ 漸進 )

傳輸速度網際網路攝影機約 28~384kbp

DTV: 3~10Mbps VCD :約 1.5Mbps

 

Page 45: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

45

MPEG-7

MPEG-7標準著重在影音內容的描述和定義,以明確的資料結構和語法來定義影音資料的內容。它的正式名稱是「 Multimedia Content Description Interface 」。藉由MPEG-7格式所定義的資訊,使用者可以有效率的搜尋,過濾和定義所要的影音資料。

Page 46: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

46

MPEG-21

MPEG-21是一個支援通過異質性網路和設備 , 使用戶透明而廣泛地使用多媒體資源的標準 , 其目標是建立一個易於交易的多媒體框架。 主要功能 : 通過網路設備存取、使用並交互操作多媒體物件;實現多種版權和交易機制的自動管理;對內容使用者隱私的尊重。

Page 47: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

On End-to-End On End-to-End Architecture for Architecture for Transporting MPEG-4 Over Transporting MPEG-4 Over the Internetthe Internet

Dapeng Wu, Yiwei Thomas Hou, Wenwu Zhu, Hung-Ju Lee, Tihao Chiang, Ya-Qin Zhang, and H.Jonathan ChaoIEEE TRASACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 6, SEPTEMBER 2000

Page 48: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

48

An end-to-end architecture for transporting MPEG-4 video

Page 49: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

49

Page 50: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

50

MPEG-4 layersCompression layer compresses the visual information and generates elementary streams, which contain the coded representation of the VOs.SyncLayer packetized streams, and provide time and synchronization information. The SL-packetized streams are multiplexed into a FlexMux Stream at the TransMux layer.

Page 51: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

51

RTP/RTCP protocol

RTP support the packet sequence number, timestamps, and some application-specific profiles.RTCP provides QoS feedback through use of receiver report (RR), sender report (SR), source description items (SDES) , BYE, and application specific functions (APP) .

Page 52: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

52

Page 53: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

53

End-to-end feedback control protocol

Page 54: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

54

Adaptive encoding rate control (ARC) for MPEG-4 video

Page 55: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

55

Initialization stage

rtβt: remaining available bit count for encoding the subsequent P -frames at the coding time instant t

T: duration of the video sequence (in second)

r: bit rate for the sequence (in bps)

I: number of bits actually used for the first I frame Channel output rate: β0 /N0 where N0 is the number of P -frames in the sequence

Buffer size: 0.5 × r

Page 56: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

56

Pre-encoding stage (cont’d)

SASN

R tt

tt )1(1

Rt+1: the target bit count for the P -frame at time t+1

Nt: the remaining number of P -frames at time t

S: the weight factor in target bit estimation, default value is 0.05

At: the actual bits used for the P -frames at time t

Page 57: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

57

Pre-encoding stage (cont’d)

ttt

ttt R

FF

FFR

)(2

)(2

tt RR

1

2

Ft: the current buffer fullness at time t

Θ: buffer size

μ= Ft /Θ

Page 58: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

58

Pre-encoding stage (cont’d)

},max{ tf

t RR

ρ : application bit rate

ρf : frame rate of the source video

Page 59: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

59

Pre-encoding stage (cont’d)

Avoid buffer fullness )1()( mFR tt

tt FmR )1(m: safety margin

Avoid buffer underflow

mFCR

mCFR

tt

tt )(C: β0 /N0 channel output rate

Page 60: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

60

Dynamic target Bit-rate distribution among VOs

Target bit budget for the i th VO at time t

MAD: mean absolute difference, which is computed after the motion compensation for the luminance component

Page 61: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

61

Encoding stage

Encoding the video frame and recording all actual bit-rate.Activating macroblock-layer rate control.

Page 62: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

62

Post-encoding stage (cont’d)

R-D Model update

Page 63: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

63

Post-encoding stage (cont’d)

Page 64: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

64

Shape-threshold control

Page 65: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

65

Frame-skipping control

Page 66: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

66

Packetization algorithm

Page 67: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

67

Simulation result <1>

Page 68: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

68

Page 69: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

69

Simulation result <2>

Page 70: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

70

Page 71: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

71

Page 72: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

72

Future work

MPEG-4 video over ADSLMPEG-4 video over Cable-modemMPEG-4 video over GPRS mobile phoneMPEG-4 video over 3G wireless mobile devices

Page 73: Transporting Real-Time Video Over the Internet: Challenges

Thank You!