Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Network-status aware quality adaptation algorithm for improving real-time video streaming over the internet

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Video streaming over Internet has been gaining momentum and several quality adaptation schemes have been reported to improve quality of the streamed videos. Most of these schemes focus on adjusting the video encoding rate to match certain network conditions. This paper presents a new quality adaptation algorithm for real-time video streaming over Internet. The proposed algorithm is based upon simultaneous adaptation of multiple key parameters such as video frame rate, resolution, and frame quality to achieve the best possible video quality and minimize possibility of service interruption in lossy networks. Furthermore, the current network status and motion of the streamed video sequence have also been taken into account throughout the adaptation process. A video conferencing test-bed which incorporates the Adobe Flash Real-Time Media Flow Protocol (RTMFP) is built and utilized to investigate the effect of various combinations of the video parameters under study on the quality of sample video clips streamed at slow, medium and fast motions. A quality-adaptation algorithm based on experimental investigations is then developed and its performance is assessed using both subjective and objective evaluations. The obtained results and observations demonstrate superior performance of the developed adaptation algorithm as compared to equivalent algorithms with fixed video quality settings at similar test conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Annadurai S, Shanmugalakshmi R (2007) Fundamental of digital image processing. Pearson Education, India

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arregoces M, Portolani M (2003) Data center fundamentals. Cisco Press, USA

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baset SA, Schulzrinne HG (2006) An Analysis of the skype peer-to-peer internet telephony protocol. Proceedings INFOCOM 25th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications. doi:10.1109/INFOCOM.2006.312

  4. Braun R (1997) Internet protocols for multimedia communications. I. IPng-the foundation of Internet protocols. IEEE Trans Multimedia 4:85–90. doi:10.1109/93.621586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chan A, Zeng K, Mohapatra P, Lee SJ, Banerjee S (2010) Metrics for evaluating video streaming quality in lossy IEEE 802.11 wireless networks. Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM. doi:10.1109/INFCOM.2010.5461979

  6. Ciavattone L, Morton A, Ramachandran G (2003) Standardized active measurements on a tier 1 IP backbone. IEEE Commun Mag 41:90–97. doi:10.1109/MCOM.2003.1204753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hadar O, Shmueli R, Huber R (2004) Effects of frame rate, frame size and MPEG-2 compression on the perceived compressed video quality transmitted over lossy IP networks. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Information Technology: Research and Education, London, England. doi:10.1109/ITRE.2004.1393644

  8. Hsu CY, Ortega A, Khansari M (1999) Rate control for robust video transmission over burst-error wireless channels. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 17:756–773. doi:10.1109/49.768193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. http://compression.ru/video/quality_measure/video_measurement_tool_en.html. Accessed 20 Oct 2016

  10. http://www.adobe.com/devnet/adobe-media-server/articles/real-time-collaboration.html. Accessed 20 Oct 2016

  11. http://www.adobe.com/products/adobe-media-server-family.html. Accessed 20 Oct 2016

  12. Huynh-Thu Q, Ghanbari M (2012) The accuracy of PSNR in predicting video quality for different video scenes and frame rates. Telecommun Syst 49:35–48. doi:10.1007/s11235-010-9351-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. ITU-R Recommendation BT.500-11 (2002) Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  14. ITU-T Recommendations, P.910 (1999) Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jammeh E, Mkwawa I, Khan A, Goudarzi M, Sun L, Ifeachor E (2012) Quality of experience (QoE) driven adaptation scheme for voice/video over IP. Telecommun Syst 49:99–111. doi:10.1007/s11235-010-9356-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Joonho C, Reaz A, Mukherjee B (2012) A survey of user behavior in VoD service and bandwidth-saving multicast streaming schemes. IEEE Commun Surv Tutorials 14:156–169. doi:10.1109/SURV.2011.030811.00051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Khalifeh A, Yousefi’zadeh H (2010) Optimal audio transmission over error-prone wireless links. IEEE Trans Multimedia 12:204–214. doi:10.1109/TMM.2010.2041096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Khan A, Sun L, Ifeachor E (2009) Content-based video quality prediction for MPEG4 video streaming over wireless networks. J Multimed 4:228–239. doi:10.1109/ICC.2009.5198850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Koul M (2008) Analysis of the effects of packet loss and delay jitter on MPEG-4 video quality, Technical report. Electrical Engineering Department, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington

    Google Scholar 

  20. ManyCam Virtual Webcam software website, available at http://www.manycam.com. Accessed 20 Oct 2016

  21. MS Network Emulator. Available at: http://blog.mrpol.nl/2010/01/14/network-emulator-toolkit. Accessed 20 Oct 2016

  22. Murshed A, Khalifeh A, Al-Taee M (2013) Quality of experience analysis of video transmission over lossy networks. Proc. IEEE Applied Electrical Engineering and Computing Technologies (AEECT), Amman-Jordan, December 3–5, 2013

  23. Nejati N, Yousefi’zadeh H, Jafarkhani H (2010) Distortion optimal transmission of multi-layered FGS video over wireless channels. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun (JSAC) Spec Issue Wireless Video Transm 28:510–519. doi:10.1109/JSAC.2010.100421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ortega A, Ramchandran K (1998) Rate-distortion methods for image and video compression. IEEE Signal Process Mag 15:23–50. doi:10.1109/79.733495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pappas TN, Safranek RJ (2000) Perceptual criteria for image quality evaluation. Handbook of image and video processing, pp 669–684

  26. Seshadrinathan K, Soundararajan R, Bovik AC, Cormack LK (2010) Study of subjective and objective quality assessment of video image. IEEE Trans Image Process 19:1427–1441. doi:10.1109/JSTSP.2012.2212417

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Shmueli R, Hadar O, Huber R, Maltz M, Huber M (2008) Effects of an encoding scheme on perceived video quality transmitted over lossy Internet protocol networks. IEEE Trans Broadcast 54:628–640. doi:10.1109/TBC.2008.2001242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Singh K, Davids C (2011) Flash-based audio and video communication in the cloud. Arxiv preprint arXiv:1107.0011

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sudarshan S, Banaei-Kashani F, Shahabi C (2013) Real-time video segmentation based on motion detection. Integrated Media System Center Retreat (IMSC)

  30. Sullivan GJ, Wiegand T (1998) Rate-distortion optimization for video compression. IEEE Signal Process Mag 15:74–90. doi:10.1109/79.733497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Test video sequences. https://media.xiph.org/video/derf/. Accessed 20 Oct 2016

  32. Trestian R, Ormond O, Muntean G-M (2013) Energy–quality–cost tradeoff in a multimedia-based heterogeneous wireless network environment. IEEE Trans Broadcast 59:340–357. doi:10.1109/TBC.2013.2244790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Uti V, Fox R (2009) Improving delivery rate for real time mobile streaming video. Proc. 21st IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence. doi:10.1109/ICTAI.2009.34

  34. Venkataraman M, Chatterjee M, Chattopadhyay S (2009) Evaluating quality of experience for streaming video in real time. Global Telecommunications Conference, GLOBECOM IEEE. doi:10.1109/GLOCOM.2009.5425806

  35. Wu H, Claypool M, Kinicki RE (2006) Guidelines for selecting practical MPEG group of pictures. In: Proceeding of: Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Internet and Multimedia Systems and Applications, Innsbruck, Austria

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Jordanian Scientific Research Fund (grant no. ICT/1/04/2014) for funding this project throughout the different phases of its development lifecycle.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Electrical Engineering & IT, German-Jordanian University, Mushaqar, Amman, 213146, Jordan

    Ala’ F. Khalifeh

  2. Department of Electrical Engineering & Electronics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GJ, UK

    Majid A. Al-Taee

  3. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, The University of Siegen, Siegen, Germany

    Ayman N. Murshed

Authors
  1. Ala’ F. Khalifeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Majid A. Al-Taee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ayman N. Murshed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ala’ F. Khalifeh.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 6 Tables of PSNR values for all experimental findings
Full size table

Appendix 2

Fig. 10
figure 10

A screen shot of the developed video conferencing application which shows how the videoconference program estimates the packet loss to be around 10 % and adjusts the video quality parameters accordingly (Q = 70, Resolution = 160:120, and FPS: 20)

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khalifeh, A.F., Al-Taee, M.A. & Murshed, A.N. Network-status aware quality adaptation algorithm for improving real-time video streaming over the internet. Multimed Tools Appl 76, 26129–26152 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-016-3999-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-016-3999-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation