Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of Video File Format on Quality of Experience (QoE) of Multimedia Content

3D Research volume 9, Article number: 39 (2018) Cite this article

Abstract

Video file formats are used to record, play and store videos according to heterogeneous platforms; devices and online streaming on networks vary by speed. Video formats are different codecs and resolution from each other and also vary in display quality and storage size which also differentiate the quality of experience (QoE) of users. This paper presents the subjective QoE of end user’s for different video file format varied according to resolution quality and bitrate. Videos of most popular formats which are used for online streaming was downloaded from YouTube and stored on the local system for play for subjects to perceive the video quality. Subjective QoE experiments were conducted by questionnaires given to subjects to perceive video quality and assign ratings. Results show high ratings for FLV 240P and WebM 360P for low resolution videos where high ratings for the MP4 video for 720P and 2160P high resolutions.

Graphical Abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

References

  1. Networking Index, C.V., (2016). Forecast and methodology, 2016-2021, white paper. San Jose, CA, USA, 1.

  2. Laghari, A. A., He, H., Zardari, S., & Shafiq, M. (2017). Systematic analysis of quality of experience (QoE) frameworks for multimedia services. IJCSNS, 17(5), 121.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Xiao, Y., Kalyanaraman, R. S. & Yla-Jaaski, A. (2008). Energy consumption of mobile youtube: Quantitative measurement and analysis. In The second international conference on next generation mobile applications, services and technologies, 2008. NGMAST’08 (pp. 61–69).

  4. Mustafa, M. A., Elahi, M. M., Hossain, M. A. & Islam, M. M. (2010). Comparative performance analysis of MPEG4, FLV and 3GP multimedia file formats using wireless network parameters. In 2010 13th international conference on computer and information technology (ICCIT), (pp. 306-311).

  5. Gloe, T., Fischer, A., & Kirchner, M. (2014). Forensic analysis of video file formats. Digital Investigation, 11, S68–S76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Amon, P., Rathgen, T., & Singer, D. (2007). File format for scalable video coding. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 17(9), 1174–1185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Varsa, V. & Curcio, I. (2003). Transparent end-to-end packet switched streaming service (pss); rtp usage model (release 5). 3GPP TR 26.937 V1. 4.0.

  8. McNamee, R., Evans, G. & Frederick, M. R., ROGER B & Ann K Mcnamee Trust U/t/a/d. (2017). Systems and methods for communicating events to users. U.S. Patent 9,788,035.

  9. Tian, L., Wang, H., Zhou, Y., & Peng, C. (2018). Video big data in smart city: Background construction and optimization for surveillance video processing. Future Generation Computer Systems, 86, 1371–1382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kalampogia, A., & Koutsakis, P. (2018). H. 264 and H. 265 video bandwidth prediction. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 20(1), 171–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Zaidi, S., Bitam, S., & Mellouk, A. (2018). Hybrid error recovery protocol for video streaming in vehicle ad hoc networks. Vehicular Communications, 12, 110–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Rajan, R., Sekhon, N. K., Kaur, J., & Tiwari, M. (2017). Mobile computing and android support: A review. World Journal of Technology, Engineering and Research, 1(1), 104–126.

    Google Scholar 

  13. https://www.webmproject.org/about/ Accessed on 4/28/2018.

  14. Kromer, R. (2017). Matroska and FFV1: One file format for film and video archiving? Journal of Film Preservation, 96, 41.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lopes Goncalves Magalhaes, F. (2017). Intelligent Security System connected to IoT.

  16. Laghari, A. A., He, H., Halepoto, I. A., Memon, M. S., & Parveen, S. (2017). Analysis of quality of experience frameworks for cloud computing. IJCSNS, 17(12), 228.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Laghari, A. A., Laghari, K. U. R., Channa, M. I. & Falk, T. H. (2012). QON: Quality of experience (QoE) framework for network services. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on software technology and engineering (ICSTE’12).

  18. Le Callet, P., Möller, S. & Perkis, A. (2013). Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of Quality of Experience (2012). European Network on Quality of Experience in Multimedia Systems and Services (COST Action IC 1003). Version 1.2. Mar-2013.

  19. Laghari, A. A., Sadhayo, I. H., & Channa, M. I. (2015). Enhanced autonomic networking management architecture (Enama). Engineering, Science & Technology, 14(1), 9–13.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gohil, R., & Pandya, V. (2015). A comparative study of different video compression. International Journal of Advance Research in Computer Science and Management Studies, 3(6), 39–43.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rogge, B., Bekaert, J., & Van de Walle, R. (2004). Timing issues in multimedia formats: Review of the principles and comparison of existing formats. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 6(6), 910–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Laghari, A. A., He, H., Shafiq, M. & Khan, A., (2016). Assessing effect of Cloud distance on end user’s Quality of Experience (QoE). In 2016 2nd IEEE international conference on computer and communications (ICCC), (pp. 500–505).

  23. Laghari, A. A., He, H., Karim, S., Shah, H. A., & Karn, N. K. (2017). Quality of experience assessment of video quality in social clouds. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, 2017, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLeJJPxua3E. Accessed on 4/13/2018.

  25. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76f6J4x87hI. Accessed on 4/13/2018.

  26. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27bdrguQxew. Accessed on 4/13/2018.

  27. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9RQX1oGtEs. Accessed on 4/13/2018.

  28. https://en.savefrom.net/1-how-to-download-youtube-video/. Accessed on 4/13/2018.

  29. https://mediasave.online/. Accessed on 4/13/2018.

  30. https://www.genyoutube.net/formats-resolution-youtube-videos.html. Accessed on 4/13/2018.

  31. UIT, U., 500-11 Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures. (2002). International Telecommunication Union.

  32. ITU-T RECOMMENDATION, P. (1999) Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications.

  33. Youn, S., Baek, S., Jeong, T., & Lee, C. (2018). Perceptual video quality comparison of various 3D video formats and displays. Displays, 52, 21–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Laghari, A. A., He, H., & Channa, M. I. (2018). Measuring effect of packet reordering on quality of experience (QoE) in video streaming. 3D Research, 9(3), 30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Laghari, A. A., He, H., Shafiq, M., & Khan, A. (2018). Assessment of quality of experience (QoE) of image compression in social cloud computing. Multiagent and Grid Systems, 14(2), 125–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. https://windowsfileviewer.com/. Accessed on 5/13/2018.

  37. Solera, M., Toril, M., Palomo, I., Gomez, G., & Poncela, J. (2018). A testbed for evaluating video streaming services in LTE. Wireless Personal Communications, 98(3), 2753–2773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. https://www.videolan.org/index.html. Accessed on 5/13/2018.

  39. https://www.videohelp.com/software/MediaInfo. Accessed on 5/13/2018.

  40. Hoque, M. A., Siekkinen, M., Nurminen, J. K., Aalto, M., & Tarkoma, S. (2015). Mobile multimedia streaming techniques: QoE and energy saving perspective. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 16, 96–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The work is supported by the National Key R&D Program of China under grant No. 2017YB0801801, the National Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under grant No. 61472108. Asif Ali Laghari and Professor Hui He are the corresponding authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computer Science and Technology, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China

    Asif Ali Laghari, Hui He & Sajida Karim

  2. School of Engineering, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, Devon, UK

    Asiya Khan

Authors
  1. Asif Ali Laghari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hui He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Asiya Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sajida Karim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Asif Ali Laghari or Hui He.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Laghari, A.A., He, H., Khan, A. et al. Impact of Video File Format on Quality of Experience (QoE) of Multimedia Content. 3D Res 9, 39 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13319-018-0191-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13319-018-0191-x

Keywords

search

Navigation