Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 36, Issue 1–2, pp 167–184 | Cite as

“I would like to see the subtitles and the face or at least hear the voice”: Effects of picture ratio and audio–video bitrate ratio on perception of quality in mobile television

Article

Abstract

In new mobile video applications, the subjectively perceived visual and audiovisual qualities are critical factors in the wide audience adoption of mass products. The critical factors in mobile video coding are related to low bitrates, framerates and screen size of the devices. The first part of this study examined the effects of codecs, bitrates and picture ratio on the perceived visual video quality. In the second study, effects of two audio–video bitrate ratios are presented as factors in the perceived audiovisual video quality and the results are compared to the previous study that showed the content dependency in the audio–video bitrate ratio comparisons. In the results of the visual quality study, H.264 was rated as the most satisfying, but the quality was still not enough for text legibility and perceiving important details of image due to the QCIF picture ratio. The codec XviD was in generally experienced as worse than the H.264, but with the screen size SIF-SP with XviD codec was rated better with several contents. In the audiovisual study, the results also showed that in the low total bitrates the significance of audio is increased. However, the higher and lower bitrates had similar content dependent effects.

Keywords

Subjective evaluation Bitrate Picture ratio Audiovisual quality Visual quality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    ANSI T1.801.02 (1996) Digital transport of video teleconferencing/videoTelephony signals—performance terms, definitions, and examples. ANSI, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Apteker RT, Fisher JA, Kisimov VS, Neishlos H (1995) Video acceptability and frame rate. IEEE Multimed 3(3):32–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barten PGJ (1999) Contrast sensitivity of the human eye and its effects on image quality. SPIE, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beerends JG, de Caluwe FE (1999) The influence of video quality on perceived audio quality and vice versa. J Audio Eng Soc 47(5):355–362Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brandenburg K (1999) MP3 and AAC explained, AES 17th International Conference on HighQuality Audio Coding. ItalyGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Engeldrum PG (2000) Psychometric scaling. A toolkit for imaging systems development. Imcotek, WinchesterGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ETSI (2005) “Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Specification for the use of video and audio coding in DVB services delivered directly over IP,” ETSI standard, ETSI TS 102 005 V1.2.0, 2005Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Finnpanel. Television audience measurements. http://www.finnpanel.fi. (visited 05/2004)
  9. 9.
    Fukuda K (2000) Integrated QoS control mechanisms for real-time multimedia systems in Reservation-based networks. PhD Thesis, Osaka UniversityGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ghinea G, Chen SY (2003) The impact of cognitive styles on perceptual distributed multimedia quality. Br J Educ Technol 34(4):393–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ghinea G, Thomas JP (1998) QoS impact user perception and understanding of multimedia video clips. Proceedings of ACM Multimedia ‘98. Bristol: 1998. pp 49–54Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goldstein EB (2002) Sensation and perception. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, p 684Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gulliver SR,Serif T, Ghinea G (2004) Pervasive and standalone computing: the perceptual effects of variable multimedia quality. Int J Human Comput Stud 60(5–6):640–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hands DS (2004) A basic multimedia quality model. IEEE Trans Multimedia 6(6):806–816 (December)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hinton PR, Bronlow C, MaMurray I, Conzens B (2004) SPSS explained. Routledge, New York, p 377Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO Standards Handbook 35 (1990) Acoustics, 1st edn. International Standardization Organization, Switzerland, p 386Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ISO 7029 SFS-EN Acoustics (2000) Statistical distribution of hearing threshold as a function of age. International Standardization Organization.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISO/IEC 14496-10:2003 (2003) “Coding of Audiovisual Objects-Part 10: Advanced Video Coding,” 2003, also ITU-T Recommendation H.264 “Advanced vide o coding for generic audiovisual services”Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ITU-R BT.500-11 (2002) Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures, International Telecommunications Union—Radiocommunication sector.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ITU-T P.911 (1998) Subjective audiovisual quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. Telecommunications Union—Telecommunication sector.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ITU-T P.920 (2000) Interactive test methods for audiovisual communications, International Telecommunications Union—Telecommunication sector.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jumisko-Pyykkö S, Häkkinen J (2005) Evaluation of subjective Video Quality on Mobile Devices. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM international conference on multimedia 6–12 November, Singapore, pp 535–538Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Knoche H, McCarthy JD, Sasse MA (2005) Can small be beautiful? Assessing image size requirements for mobile TV. In Proceedings of ACM multimedia 2005, 561, 6–12 November, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koskinen I, Kurvinen E, Lehtonen T-K (2002) Mobile image. IT-Press, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lessiter J, Freeman J (2001) Really hear? The effects of audio on precence. In: 4th international workshop on presence (Philadelphia, USA). 21–23. MayGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lu Z, Lin W, Seng BC, Katob C, Yao S, Ong E, Yang XK (2005) Measuring the negative impact of frame dropping on perceptual visual quality. In: Proceedings of the SPIE/IS&T human vision and electronic imaging, vol. 5666. San Jose, United States of America (January)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    McCarthy JD, Sasse MA, Miras D (2004) Sharp or smooth?: comparing the effect of quantization vs. framerate for streamed video. In: Proceedings of the 2004 conference on human factors in computing systems. Vienna. pp 535–542Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    McGurk H, MacDonald J (1976) Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature 264:746–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mullin J, Jackson M, Anderson AH, Smallwood L, Sasse MA, Watson A, Wilson G (2002) Assessment method for assessing audio and video in real-time interactive communications. FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nemethova O, Zahumensky M, Rupp M (2004) Preprocessing of ball game video-sequences for robust transmission over mobile networks. In: Proceedings of the CIC 2004 the 9th CDMA international conferenceGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Patton MQ (1986) Qualitative evaluation methods. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Södergård C (ed) (2003) Mobile television—technology and user experiences, Report on the Mobile -TV Project. Espoo: VTT Publications 506, 2003. p 298Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Van Wassenhove V, Grant KW, Poeppel D (2005) Visual speech speeds up the neural processing of auditory speech. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102(4):1181–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    VQEG (2000) VOEG—Final Report from the video quality experts group on the validation of objective models of video quality assessment (http://www.vqeg.org)
  36. 36.
    Vuori T, Olkkonen M, Pölönen M, Siren A, Häkkinen J (2004) Can eye movements be quantitatively applied to image quality studies? In: Proceedings of the third Nordic conference on human–computer interaction. Tampere. pp 335–338Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Watson A, Sasse MA(1998) Measuring perceived quality of speech and video in multimedia conferencing applications. In: Proceedings of the ACM multimedia 1998. Bristol, UK. pp 55–60Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wiegand T, Sullivan GJ, Bjøntegaard G, Luthra A (2003) Overview of the H.264/ AVC video coding standard. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 13(7):1–19Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Winkler S, Faller C (2005) Audiovisual quality evaluation of low-bitrate video. In: Proceedings of the SPIE/IS&T human vision and electronic imaging, vol. 5666. San Jose, USA: January. pp 139–148Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Winkler S, Faller C (2005) Maximizing audiovisual quality at low bitrates. In: Workshop on video processing and quality metrics for consumer electronics. Scottsdale, USA: January (invited paper)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Human-Centered TechnologyTampere University of TechnologyTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations