Telecommunication Systems

, Volume 62, Issue 2, pp 265–275 | Cite as

Impact of packet loss and delay variation on the quality of real-time video streaming

  • Jaroslav Frnda
  • Miroslav Voznak
  • Lukas Sevcik


The aim of this work is to bring complex view on video streaming service performance within IP-based networks. Video quality as a part of multimedia technology has a crucial role nowadays due to this increase. Since architecture of IP network has not been designed for real-time services like audio or video, there are many factors that can influence the final quality of service, especially packet loss and delay variation (also known as Jitter). The research was focused on the quality of video data delivery in many scenarios included different packet loss rate and simulating of different delay variation values in the network. Performed tests were evaluated by using of video objective methods. Based on results of these measurements, an extended QoS model for estimation of triple play services was designed. The proposed model allows us to compute the estimated objective quality parameters that describe the final quality of video service as a part of triple play services.


Delay variation Packet loss Prediction model  VQM SSIM Video quality assessment 



This work was supported by Grant of the SGS No. SP2015/82 and was partially supported by the European Regional Development Fund in the IT4Innovations Centre of Excellence project (CZ.1.05/1.1.00/02.0070).


  1. 1.
    Voznak, M., Kovac, A., & Halas, M. (2012). Effective packet loss estimation on VoIP jitter buffer. In Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics) (Vol. 7291 LNCS, pp. 157–162).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sevcik, L., Voznak, M., & Frnda, J. (2014). QoE prediction model for multimedia services in IP network applying queuing policy. In Proceedings of the 2014 international symposium on performance evaluation of computer and telecommunication systems, SPECTS 2014—part of summerSim 2014 Multiconference, art. no. 6879998, (pp. 593–598).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    International Telecommunications Union, ITU-T G.711, Appendix I. (1999). A high quality low-complexity algorithm for packet loss concealment with G.711.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Syvamprasad, Ch., Vitaj, S., Reisslein, M., & Karam, L. J. (2011). Objective video quality assessment methods: A classification, review, and performance comparison. IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, 57(2), 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Changhoon, Y., & Bovik, A. C. (2011). Evaluation of temporal variation of video quality in packet loss networks. Signal Processing: Image Communication, 26, 34–38.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feamster, N., & Balakrishnan, H. (2002). Packet loss recovery for streaming video. In 12th international packet video workshop, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Uhrina, M., Frnda, J., Sevcik, L., & Vaculik, J. (2014). Impact of H.264/AVC and H.265/HEVC compression standards on the video quality for 4K resolution. Advances in Electrical and Electronic Engineering, 12(4), 368–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim, I. K., Lee, S., Piao, Y., & Chen, J. (2014). Coding efficiency comparison of new video coding standards: HEVC vs VP9 vs AVS2 video. In International conference on multimedia and expo workshops (ICMEW) (pp. 1–6).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bovik, A. (2005). Handbook of image and video processing (2nd ed.). Burlington: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Uhrina, M., Hlubik, J., & Vaculik, M. (2013). Correlation between objective and subjective methods used for video quality evaluation. Advances in Electrical and Electronic Engineering, 11(2), 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Loke, H.M., Ong, P.E., Lin, W., Lu, Z., & Yao, S. (2006). Comparison of video quality metrics on multimedia videos. In IEEE international conference on image processing (pp. 457–460).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Uhrina, M., Hlubik, J., & Vaculik, M. (2012). Impact of compression on the video quality. Advances in Electrical and Electronic Engineering, 10(4), 251–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhou, W., Bovik, A. C., Sheikh, H. R., & Simoncelli, E. P. (2004). Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 12(4), 1057–7149.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chan, M. C., & Ramjee, R. (2005). TCP/IP performance over 3G wireless links with rate and delay variation. Wireless Networks, 11(1–2), 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of TelecommunicationsVSB – Technical University of OstravaOstravaCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations