Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 355–374 | Cite as

Quantified PQoS assessment based on fast estimation of the spatial and temporal activity level

  • H. KoumarasEmail author
  • A. Kourtis
  • D. Martakos
  • J. Lauterjung


This paper presents a novel method for fast and quantified estimation of the Perceived Quality of Service (PQoS) for MPEG-4 video content, encoded at constant bit-rates. Taking into account the instant PQoS variation due to the Spatial and Temporal (S–T) activity within a given MPEG-4 encoded content, this paper introduces the Mean PQoS (MPQoS) as a function of the video encoding rate and the picture resolution, and exploits it as a metric for objective video quality assessment. The validity of this metric is assessed by comparing PQoS experimental curves to the theoretical benefit functions vs. allocated resources. Based on the proposed metric, and taking into account the qualitative similarity between theoretical and experimental curves, the paper presents a prototype method for pre-encoding PQoS assessment based on the fast estimation of the S–T activity level of a video signal.


Perceived Quality of Service (PQoS) Mean Perceived Quality of Service (MPQoS) Benefit function Objective measurement of PQoS 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alpert T, Contin L (1997) DSCQE experiment for the evaluation of the MPEG-4 VM on error robustness functionality. ISO/IEC—JTC1/SC29/WG11, MPEG 97/M1604Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bradley AP (1999) A wavelet difference predictor. IEEE Trans Image Process 5:717–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buxton W (1995) Integrating the periphery and context: a new taxonomy of telematics. In: Proceedings of graphics interface 1995, pp 239–246Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Daly S (1992) The visible difference predictor: an algorithm for the assessment of image fidelity. In: Proceedings SPIE, vol 1616. pp 2–15Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guawan IP, Ghanbari M (2003) Reduced-reference picture quality estimation by using local harmonic amplitude information. London Communications SymposiumGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO-IEC 14496 MPEG-4 Coding of Audio Visual ObjectsGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ITU (2000) Methology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures. Recommendation ITU-R BT.500-10Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lai YK, Kuo J (2000) A haar wavelet approach to compressed image quality measurement. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Understanding 11:81–84Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lauterjung J (1998) Picture quality measurement. In: Proceedings of the International Broadcasting Convention (IBC). Amsterdam, pp 413–417Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee W, Srivastava J (2001) An algebraic QoS-based resource allocation model for competitive multimedia applications. International Journal of Multimedia Tools and Applications, Kluwer, vol 13. pp 197–212Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lu L, Wang Z, Bovik AC, Kouloheris J (2002) Full-reference video quality assessment considering structural distortion and no-reference quality evaluation of MPEG video. IEEE International Conference on MultimediaGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mullin J, Smallwood L, Watson A, Wilson G (2001) New techniques for assessing audio and video quality in real-time interactive communications. In: Third International Workshop on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices. Lille, FranceGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Olson J (1994) In a framework about task-technology fit, what are the tasks features. In: Proceedings of CSCW ’94: Workshop on Video Mediated Communication: Testing, Evaluation & Design ImplicationsGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pereira F, Alpert T (1997) MPEG-4 video subjective test procedures and results. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 7(1):32–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Richardson IG (2003) H.264 and MPEG-4 video compression: video coding for next generation multimedia. WileyGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sabata B, Chatterjee S, Sydir J (1998) Dynamic adaptation of video for transmission under resource constraints. In: International Conference of Image Processing. Chicago, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Seeling P, Reisslein M, Kulapala B (2004) Network performance evaluation using frame size and quality traces of single layer and two layer video: a tutorial. IEEE Communications Surveys 6(3), Third QuarterGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tan KT, Ghanbari M (2000) A multi-metric objective picture quality measurements model for MPEG video. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 10(7):1208–1213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Voran S, Wolf S (2000) Objective estimation of video and speech quality to support network and QoS efforts. In: 2nd Quality of Service Workshop, Houston, Texas, FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    VQEG (2000) Final report from the video quality experts group on the validation of objective models of video quality assessment. Retrieved from
  21. 21.
    Wang Z, Bovik AC, Lu L (2002) Why is image quality assessment so difficult. Proc IEEE Int Conf Acoust Speech Signal Proc 4:3313–3316Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang Z, Bovik AC, Sheikh HR, Simoncelli EP (2004) Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans Image Process 13(4):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang Z, Lu L, Bovik AC (2004) Video quality assessment based on structural distortion measurement. Signal Process Image Commun 19(2):121–132, special issue on Objective video quality metricsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang Z, Sheikh HR, Bovik AC (2003) Objective video quality assessment. In: Furht B, Marqure O (eds) The handbook of video databases: design and applications. CRC, pp 1041–1078Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Watson AB, Hu J, McGowan JF (2001) DVQ: a digital video quality metric based on human vision. J Electron Imaging 10(1):20–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wolf S, Pinson MH (1999) Spatial–temporal distortion metrics for in-service quality monitoring of any digital video system. In: SPIE International Symposium on Voice, Video, and Data Communications. Boston, pp 11–22Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Koumaras
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • A. Kourtis
    • 2
  • D. Martakos
    • 1
  • J. Lauterjung
    • 3
  1. 1.Informatics and Telecommunications DepartmentUniversity of AthensAthensGreece
  2. 2.Institute of Informatics and Telecommunications NCSR «DEMOKRITOS»AthensGreece
  3. 3.Rohde & Schwarz CorporationMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations