Video Quality Assessment for Mobile Devices on Mobile Devices

  • Milan MirkovicEmail author
  • Dubravko Culibrk
  • Srdjan Sladojevic
  • Andras Anderla
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9281)


Pervasiveness of mobile devices and ubiquitous broadband Internet access have laid foundations for video content to be consumed increasingly on smart phones or tablets. As over 85% of the global consumer traffic by 2016 is estimated to be generated by streaming video content, video quality as perceived by end-users of such devices is becoming an important issue. Most of the studies concerned with Video Quality Assessment (VQA) for mobile devices have been carried out in a carefully controlled environment, thus potentially failing to take into account variables or effects present in real-world conditions. In this paper, we compare the results of traditional approach to VQA for mobile devices to those obtained in real-world conditions by using a physical mobile device, for the same video test-set. Results indicate that a difference in perceived video quality between the two settings exists, thus laying foundations for further research to explain the reasons behind it.


Video quality assessment Subjective Mobile devices 


  1. 1.
    Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., Zickuhr, K.: Social media & mobile internet use among teens and young adults. Technical report, Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, DC (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ComScore: Today’s U.S. Tablet Owner Revealed (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    O’Hara, K., Mitchell, A., Vorbau, A.: Consuming video on mobile devices. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 857–866. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    CISCO: Cisco Visual Networking Index : Forecast and Methodology, 2011–2016. Technical report, CISCO (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Winkler, S.: Analysis of Public Image and Video Databases for Quality Assessment. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing 6, 616–625 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Winkler, S., Dufaux, F.: Video quality evaluation for mobile applications. In: Proceedings of SPIE Conference on Visual Communications and Image Processing, Lugano, Switzerland, pp. 593–603 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Winkler, S., Faller, C.: Audiovisual quality evaluation of low-bitrate video. In: SPIE/IS&T Human Vision and Electronic Imaging, pp. 139–148. Citeseer (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jumisko-Pyykko, S., Hakkinen, J.: Evaluation of subjective video quality of mobile devices. In: Proceedings of the 13th Annual ACM International Conference on Multimedia - MULTIMEDIA 2005, pp. 535–538 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jumisko, S., Ilvonen, V.: Vaananen-vainio mattila, K.: Effect of TV content in subjective assessment of video quality on mobile devices. In: Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 5684, pp. 243–254 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mirkovic, M., Vrgovic, P., Culibrk, D., Stefanovic, D., Anderla, A.: Evaluating the role of content in subjective video quality assessment. The Scientific World Journal 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Campbell, D.: Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin 54, 297 (1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anderson, C., Lindsay, J., Bushman, B.: Research in the psychological laboratory truth or triviality? Current Directions in Psychological Science 8, 3–9 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wolfe, J., Roberts, C.: A further study of the external validity of business games: five-year peer group indicators. Simulation & Gaming 24, 21–33 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bellard, F., Niedermayer, M.: FFMpeg (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ITU-T: Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Winkler, S., Campos, R.: Video quality evaluation for internet streaming applications. In: Proceedings of SPIE Human Vision and Electronic Imaging, pp. 104–115 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ITUT: Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Milan Mirkovic
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dubravko Culibrk
    • 1
  • Srdjan Sladojevic
    • 1
  • Andras Anderla
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Technical SciencesUniversity of Novi SadNovi SadSerbia

Personalised recommendations