Advertisement

Subjective Quality of Spatially Asymmetric Omnidirectional Stereoscopic Video for Streaming Adaptation

  • Igor D. D. Curcio
  • Deepa Naik
  • Henri Toukomaa
  • Alireza Zare
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11010)

Abstract

Asymmetric video coding is a well-studied area for bit rate reduction in stereoscopic video coding. Such video coding technique is possible because of the binocular fusion theory which states that the Human Visual System (HVS) is capable of fusing views from both the eyes. As a result, past literature has shown that the final perceived quality of different left and right quality images is closer the highest quality of the two views. In this paper, we investigate spatially asymmetric omnidirectional video in subjective experiments using a Head Mounted Display (HMD). We want to subjectively verify to what extent the binocular fusion theory applies in immersive media environments, and also assess to what degree reducing the omnidirectional video streaming bandwidth is feasible. We prove that (1) the HVS is capable of partial suppression of the low-quality view up to a certain resolution; (2) there is a bandwidth saving of 25% when 75% of the spatial resolution is used for one of the views, while ensuring a subjective visual quality with a DMOS of 4.7 points; (3) in case of bandwidth adaptation using asymmetric video, bit rate savings are in the range 25–50%.

Keywords

Omnidirectional video Virtual reality streaming Subjective quality evaluation Asymmetric video Streaming adaptation 

References

  1. 1.
    Blake, R.: Threshold conditions for binocular rivalry. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 3(2), 251–257 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Valizadeh, S., Azimi, M., Nasiopoulos, P.: Bitrate reduction in asymmetric stereoscopic video with low-pass filtered slices. In: IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 13–16 January 2012Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brust, H., Smolic, A., Mueller, K., Tech, G., Wiegand, T.: Mixed resolution coding of stereoscopic video for Mobile devices. In: IEEE 3DTV Conference, Potsdam, Germany, 4–6 May 2009Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Azimi, M., Valizadeh, S., Li, X., Coria, L.E., Nasiopoulos, P.: Subjective study on asymmetric stereoscopic video with low-pass filtered slices. In: IEEE International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC), Maui, HI, USA, 30 January–2 February 2012Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chung, K.-L., Huang, Y.-H., Liu, W.-C.: Quality-efficient upsampling method for asymmetric resolution stereoscopic video coding with interview motion compensation and error compensation. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol. 24(3), 430–442 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aksay, A., Bilen, C., Akar, G.B.: Subjective evaluation of effects of spectral and spatial redundancy reduction on stereo images. In: IEEE 13th European Signal Processing Conference, Antalya, Turkey, 4–8 September 2005Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aflaki, P., Hannuksela, M.M., Hakala, J., Häkkinen, J., Gabbouj, M.: Joint adaptation of spatial resolution and sample value quantization for asymmetric stereoscopic video compression: a subjective study. In: IEEE 7th International Symposium on Image and Signal Processing and Analysis (ISPA), Dubrovnik, Croatia, 4–6 September 2011Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stelmach, L., Tam, W.J., Meegan, D., Vincent, A.: Stereo image quality: effects of mixed spatio-temporal resolution. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol. 10(2), 188–193 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aflaki, P., Hannuksela, M.M., Gabbouj, M.: Subjective quality assessment of asymmetric stereoscopic 3D video. SIViP 9(2), 331–345 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Curcio, I.D.D., Toukomaa, H., Naik, D.: Bandwidth reduction of omnidirectional viewport-dependent video streaming via subjective quality assessment. In: ACM International Workshop on Multimedia Alternate Realities at ACM Multimedia Conference, Mountain View, CA, USA, 27 October 2017Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Curcio, I.D.D., Toukomaa, H., Naik, D.: 360-degree video streaming and its subjective quality. In: SMPTE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Hollywood, CA, USA, 23–26 October 2017Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bao, Y., Wu, H., Zhang, T., Ramli, A.A., Liu, X.: Shooting a moving target: motion-prediction-based transmission for 360-degree videos. In: IEEE International Conference on Big Data, Washington, DC, USA, 5–6 December 2016Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hosseini, M., Swaminathan, V.: Adaptive 360 VR video streaming: divide and conquer! In: IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia, San Jose, CA, USA, 11–13 December 2016Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sanchez, Y., Skupin, R., Hellge, C., Schierl, T.: Random access point period optimization for viewport adaptive tile based streaming of 360° video. In: IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP 2017), Beijing, China, 17–20 September 2017Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ITU – Radiocommunication (ITU-R), Recommendation BT.2021-1: Subjective methods for the assessment of stereoscopic 3DTV systems, February 2015Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Battisti, F., Carli, M., Stramacci, A., Boev, A., Gotchev, A.: A perceptual quality metric for high-definition stereoscopic 3D video. In: Image Processing: Algorithms and Systems XIII [939916], SPIE Conference Proceedings, vol. 9399Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ITU – Radiocommunication (ITU-R), Recommendation BT.500-13: Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures, January 2012Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ITU – Standardization (ITU-T), Recommendation P.910: Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications, April 2008Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ITU – Radiocommunication (ITU-R), Recommendation BT.2021-1: Subjective methods for the assessment of stereoscopic 3DTV systems, February 2015Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ITU – Standardization (ITU-T), Recommendation P.915: Subjective assessment methods for 3D video, March 2016Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zare, A., Aminlou, A., Hannuksela, M.M.: Virtual reality content streaming: viewport-dependent projection and tile-based techniques. In: IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zinner, T., Abboud, O., Hohlfeld, O., Hossfeld, T., Tran-Gia, P.: Towards QoE management for scalable video streaming. In: 21th ITC Specialist Seminar on Multimedia Applications - Traffic, Performance and QoE, Miyazaki, JapanGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Media Technology ResearchNokia TechnologiesTampereFinland
  2. 2.Department of Signal ProcessingTampere University of TechnologyTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations