Advertisement

Subjective Assessment of a Model-Based Video Codec Compared to H.263

  • Ali Al-Qayedi
  • A. F. Clark

Abstract

Obtaining a reliable evaluation of the performance of any video codec, especially one designed for very low bit-rate applications, is a difficult task due to the various factors playing a role in the encoding—decoding process — for example, the available channel bit-rate, the frame rate at which the system is required to operate, and most importantly the nature of the encoded scene (scene activity). Each factor introduces radically different artefacts in the pictures, which are difficult to compare and may produce different responses from different people. Nevertheless, there is still a need to assess the performance of such codecs in accordance to the human eye,the very end of any visual communication system. This chapter describes a subjective assessment experiment conducted for evaluating a prototyped model-based coding (MBC) system. However, since there is no other ready-to-use MBC codec that can be comparatively evaluated with the developed one, an H.263 codec is used instead to code the same sequences as coded by the model-based codec. Statistical results obtained from the subjective test show that the MBC codec produced good performance in comparison with the H.263 especially in the very low bit-rate regions.

Keywords

Subjective Assessment Test Sequence Test Video Video Codec Facial Animation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    D. Pearson, Developments in model-based video coding. Proceedings of the IEEE 83: 1–16, June 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. Aizawa, Model-based synthesis image coding system-modeling a person’s face and synthesis of facial expressions. Proc. GLOBECOM-87 pp. 45–49, November 1987. Paper No. A-2.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    H.G. Musmann, M. Hotter and J. Ostermann, Object-oriented analysis-synthesis coding of moving images. Signal Processing:Image Communication 1: 117–138, October 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Yau and N. Duffy, A texture mapping approach to 3D facial image synthesis. Computer Graphics Forum 7: 129–134, 1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Kaneko, A. Koike and Y. Hatori, Coding of facial image sequence based on a 3d model of the head and motion detection. J. Visual Communication. Image Represent 2: 39–54, March 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    S.M. Smith, J.M. Brady, SUSAN - a new approach to low level image processing. Int. Journal of Computer Vision, 23: 45–78, May 1997. http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/-steve/Susan/index.html CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    S.M. Smith, Flexible filter neighbourhood designation. In Proc. of 19th Int. Conference on Pattern Recognition, 1: 206–212, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Rydfalk, Candide, a parameterised face. Tech. Rep., Department of Electrical Engineering, Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden, 1987.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Reinders, Model adaptation for image coding. PhD Thesis Delft University, 1995Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Ekman and W.V. Friesen, Facial Action Coding System. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Ekman and W.V. Friesen, Manual for the Facial Action Coding System. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press, 1978Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D.R. H.263Video coding for narrow telecommunication channels at < 64 kbits/sITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector, Experts Group for Very Low Bitrate Video Telephony,July1995. http://www.nta.no/brukere/DVC/h263-wht
  13. 13.
    B. Loos, L.V. Eyken and A. Oosterlinck, Real-time H.263 motion estimation on workstations. Int. Picture Coding Symposium Melbourne, Australia, March 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    ITU-R, Recommendation 500–7: Method for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures. ITU, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. Aldridge, J. Davido, M. Ghanbari, D. Hands, and D. Pearson (eds.), Subjective assessment of time varying coding distortion. Int. Picture Coding Symposium (PCS-96) Melborne, Australia, March 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ali Al-Qayedi
    • 1
  • A. F. Clark
    • 2
  1. 1.Etisalat College of EngineeringSharjahUAE
  2. 2.Dept. ESEUniversity of EssexUK

Personalised recommendations