Muhammad saleem koul sm ieee mskoul@uta edu ee dept ut arlington
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 37

Muhammad Saleem Koul, SM IEEE [email protected] EE Dept., UT Arlington PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Muhammad Saleem Koul, SM IEEE [email protected] EE Dept., UT Arlington. EE 5359: Multimedia Processing Final Project. Error Resilience and Performance Evaluation of H.264/AVC video streams in a Lossy Wireless Environment. Synopsis.

Download Presentation

Muhammad Saleem Koul, SM IEEE [email protected] EE Dept., UT Arlington

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

Muhammad saleem koul sm ieee mskoul@uta edu ee dept ut arlington

Muhammad Saleem Koul, SM IEEE

[email protected]

EE Dept., UT Arlington

EE 5359: Multimedia Processing

Final Project

Error Resilience and Performance Evaluation of H.264/AVC video streams in a Lossy Wireless Environment



  • Multimedia over Wireless has become a reality with Broadband 3G/4G Cellular Technologies .

  • Inherent nature of the transmission medium makes the problems of Packet Loss and Delay variance (jitter) more severe in Wireless/Cellular networks.

  • Several Error Concealment Algorithms for H.264 are compared, their advantages and disadvantages are analyzed. A new EC Algorithm is also proposed.

  • A Video Quality Assessment (VQA) methodology is introduced, that helps analyze and quantify these effects on the Quality of the received Video.

Typical 3g 4g network applications

Typical 3G/4G Network Applications

~10 Mbps

~10 Mbps

CDMA 2000 1X: 144 kbps

EVDO Rev A: 500-700kbps

WiMAX: >3.1Mbps

CDMA 2000 1X: 144 kbps

EVDO Rev A: 500-700kbps

WiMAX: >3.1Mbps

~10 Mbps

~10 Mbps

Correlation in video sequences

Correlation in Video Sequences

temporal correlation

spatial correlation

Figure 3.2 Spatial and temporal correlation in a video sequence

H 264 performance

H.264 Performance

Better image quality at the same compressed bitrate,

or a lower compressed bitrate for the same image quality.

video frame compressed at the same bitrate (150 kbps) using MPEG-2 (left), MPEG-4 Visual (center) and H.264 compression (right),

Courtesy: Vcodex White paper

Typical stream setup courtesy streamingmedia org

Typical Stream Setup courtesy:

H 264 avc structure

H.264/AVC Structure




Split into


16x16 pixels






Quant.Transf. coeffs



Scaling & Inv. Transform

















Basic coding structure for H.264/AVC for a macroblock.

Error concealment vs error resilience

Error Concealment vs Error Resilience

Error Resilience

Error concealment frame missing

Error Concealment – Frame missing

  • Temporal Replacement

    • Replaces missed Frame/MB as (0,0)

    • Copy a MB/Frame from previously reconstructed reference slice at the exact same position

Temporal replacement contd

Temporal Replacement (contd.)

Frames# 115, 116 and 117 of the Original Sequence

Successfully decoded Frame# 115 and lost Frame #116. Frame# 116 was reconstructed by Frame copy. Frame #117 is degraded.

Error concealment frame missing contd

Error Concealment – Frame missing (contd.)

  • Multi-frame Motion Vector Averaging (MVA)

    • Exploits MVs of a few past frames

    • Estimate the MV of each pixel in last successful frame

    • Project last frame onto an estimate of missing frame

    • Sometimes worse than temporal replacement

      • How many past frames should be used?

      • Farther reference frame could not contain helpful MV

Error concealment frame missing contd1

Error Concealment – Frame missing (contd.)

  • Motion Vector Extrapolation (MVE)

    • Compensate the missed MB by extrapolating each MV that is stored in previously decoded frame

    • 8x8 sub-block based process

    • Large overlapped MV is selected for the sub-block

      • If there is no overlap, then use Zero MV

Different error concealment techniques

Different Error Concealment Techniques

Ref: I.C.Todoli “Performance of Error Concealment Methods for

Wireless Video”, Diploma Thesis, Vienna University of Technology, 2007 [1]










Decode I







Deformable surface morphing 10 11

Deformable Surface Morphing [10,11]

  • One of the simplest Morphing methods is Image morphing using deformable surfaces.

  • We devised a mapping of the H.264 motion vectors to a deformable surface morph.

  • Once the morphing surface matrix is obtained we apply it to the previous frame to obtain the next frame.

  • We show that a geometric warp transform inherently smooths out the motion vectors in case of lost motion vectors and residual information.

  • Conversely, the same geometric warp could be applied at the encoder to reduce the size of the residual, thus decreasing the overall bandwidth overhead.

Motion vector to deformable surface morphing

Motion Vector to Deformable Surface Morphing

Different error concealment techniques qcif

Different Error Concealment Techniques (QCIF)

a) Error (No Error Concealment)

MSE: 2498

PSNR: 14.15 dB

SSIM: 0.7340

b) Weighted averaging

MSE: 891.24

PSNR: 18.63 dB

SSIM: 0.7522

c) Frame Copy

MSE: 123. 8

PSNR: 27.20 dB

SSIM: 0.8598

Different error concealment techniques qcif1

Different Error Concealment Techniques (QCIF)

d) Decoded without residual

MSE: 46.10

PSNR: 31.49 dB

SSIM: 0.925

e) Motion vector copy without residual

MSE: 52.50

PSNR: 30.93 dB

SSIM: 0.913

f) Geometric warping after MV copy

MSE: 42.51

PSNR: 31.85 dB

SSIM: 0.928

Different error concealment techniques cif

Different Error Concealment Techniques (CIF)

a) Original Frames 36 and 37

Frame 37 suffers packet loss resulting

in several MBs lost.

b) Error (No Error Concealment)

MSE: 207

PSNR: 25 dB

SSIM: 0.925

c) Weighted averaging

MSE: 97.56

PSNR: 28.24 dB

SSIM: 0.946

Different error concealment techniques cif1

Different Error Concealment Techniques (CIF)

d) Frame Copy

MSE: 23.41

PSNR: 34.44 dB

SSIM: 0.9781

e ) Motion vector copy

MSE: 7.74

PSNR: 39.25 dB

SSIM: 0.9903

f) Geometric warping after MV copy

MSE: 6.72

PSNR: 39.90 dB

SSIM: 0.9915

Error propagation due to i or p frame damage loss

Error Propagation due to I or P Frame Damage/Loss

A packet loss model courtesy feamster balakrishnan

A Packet Loss Modelcourtesy: Feamster, Balakrishnan

This plot shows the relationship between Packet Loss Rate and Frame Rate (or Perceived Video Quality) for Videos of different original PSNR.

Muhammad saleem koul sm ieee mskoul uta ee dept ut arlington

Packet Loss Model contd.

  • Effects of Packet Loss on observed frame rate at the receiver.

  • Using selective reliability of specific frames can improve the over all received Video quality

  • The graph shows that as the packet loss rate p increases, the frame rate/quality degrades roughly as [14]:

  • Let P(F|fi) be the conditional probability that a frame was successfully decoded at the receiver. Defining it as a Bernoulli random variable:

  • Successful decoding of a P frame depends on all I and P frames that precede it in the GOP:

  • Where p = packet loss rate

  • SI and SP are the average number of packets in an I and P frame respectively

  • NP = Number of P frames in a GOP

Probability of frame loss of i frames and p frames

Probability of frame loss of I-frames and P-frames

  • Following plots show the dependence of the probability of frame loss of typical Predicted frames.

  • I-frames have been proven by the model to result in the highest number of dependencies and probability of error propagation.

  • If the probability of degradation/loss of I-frames is decreased, it decreases the probability of degradation/loss of P-frames.

Errors in jm13 2 ec implementation

Errors in JM13.2 EC implementation

  • The Error Concealment implementation in the latest JM decoder is far from perfect at this stage.

  • Several Open issues are already under investigation. Bugs have already been reported to the JVT-JM team.

  • Current implementation of the Motion Vector Copy does not work properly in JM13.2

  • Ref URL:

Objective video quality analysis of the received sequences

(Objective) Video Quality Analysis of the Received Sequences

  • In this section we detail several Video Quality Analysis schemes applied to the transmitted and received video sequences and analyze their results in light of the VQEG final report ‘No one objective model outperforms the other in all cases’.

  • We compare results from RMSE, PSNR, DVQ and SSIM.

  • The VQA methods need to be mapped to a Human Perceivable Score (MOS). The importance of MOS mapping is discussed.

Root mean square error rmse

Root-Mean-Square Error (RMSE)

  • It calculates the “difference” between two images. It can be applied to digital video by averaging the results for each frame.

  • For an MxN image, RMSE can be calculated as:

Psnr peak signal to noise ratio

PSNR (Peak Signal to Noise Ratio)

  • The most commonly used objective quality metric is the Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR). For a video sequence of frames. The PSNR (dB) of each frame having N*M pixels can be calculated as:

where 255 is the maximum pixel value in the N*M pixel image (8-bit PCM).

Dct based vq evaluation

DCT based VQ Evaluation

  • The conventional video metrics (RMSE and PSNR) do not take into account the spatial and temporal properties of human visual perception.

  • This DCT based VQ Metric proposed Xiao’s [8] is based on Watson’s work [7].

  • The 8x8 based block based distortion is the ‘atom’ of all current compression based video processing. This kind of block based distortions are very eminent hallmarks in all decoded video sequences. Hence a metric that does the evaluation in the DCT domain on 8x8 blocks yields significant results:

Structural similarity approach

Structural Similarity Approach

  • This approach emphasizes that the Human Visual System (HVS) is highly adapted to extract structural information from visual scenes. Therefore, a measurement of structural similarity (or difference) should provide a good approximation to perceptual image quality.

  • The SSIM index is defined as a product of luminance, contrast and structural comparison functions. [9]

  • Where μ is the mean intensity, and σis the standard deviation as a round estimate of the signal contrast. C1 and C2 are constants. M is the numbers of samples in the quality map.

Mos mapping

MOS Mapping

  • In Multimedia, the Mean Opinion Score (MOS) provides a numerical indication of the perceived quality of received media after compression and/or transmission. The MOS is expressed as a single number in the range 1 to 5, where 1 is lowest perceived quality, and 5 is the highest perceived quality.

Mobile to mobile qcif clips

Mobile to Mobile QCIF Clips


Sender trace

Receiver trace


Server to mobile device cif clips

Server to Mobile Device CIF Clips


Sender trace

Receiver trace


Applications and future work

Applications and Future Work

  • A framework for evaluating the quality of standard video transmissions over a wireless infrastructure (system/subsystem).

  • Implement several novel error concealment algorithms using the JM 13.2 standard software [13].

  • A test bed to test novel VQA approaches. It can also be used for new encoding schemes, compression algorithms, motion estimation methods etc.



  • I.C.Todoli “Performance of Error Concealment Methods for Wireless Video”, Diploma Thesis, Vienna University of Technology, 2007

  • T. Wiegand, G.J. Sullivan, G. Bjontegaard, and A. Luthra, "Overview of the H.264/AVC Video Coding Standard", IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, Vol. 13, No. 7, pp. 560-576, July 2003.

  • Iain Richardson, “H.264 and MPEG-4 Video Compression”, John Wiley & Sons, 2003.

  • B. R. J. Klaue and A. Wolisz, “Evalvid - a framework for video transmission and quality evaluation,” Proc. 13th Intl Conf on Modeling, Techniques and Tools for Computer Performance Evaluation, Urbana, IL, 2003.

  • P. Seeling, et al., Video traces for network performance evaluation: a comprehensive overview and guide on video traces and their utilization in networking research. Springer, 2007.

  • Video Trace research group at ASU, “Yuv video sequences,”

  • A.B. Watson, "Toward a perceptual video quality metric", Human Vision, Visual Processing, and Digital Display VIII, 3299, pp 139-147, 1998.

  • F. Xiao, “Dct-based video quality evaluation,” Final Project for EE392J Stanford Univ. 2000.

  • Z. Wang, “The SSIM index for image quality assessment,”

References contd

References (contd.)

  • D. Pröfrock, M. Schlauweg, E. Müller, ”Content-Based Watermarking by Geometric Warping and Feature-Based Image Segmentation”, IEEE/ACM Proceedings of International Conference on Signal-Image Technology & Internet-Based Systems, 17 - 21. 2006, Hammamet, Tunisia.

  • S.Y. LEE, K.Y. CHWA, S.Y. SHIN “Image morphing using deformable surfaces”, Proc. Computer Animation(1994) , vol 200, pp. 31-39.

  • Joint Video Team (JVT), "ITU-T Recommendation H.264: ISO/TEC 14496-10:2005," ITU-T, 2005.

  • Joint Model (JM) - H.264/AVC Reference Software.

  • N. Feamster and H. Balakrishnan, “Packet Loss Recovery for Streaming Video”12th International Packet Video Workshop, Pittsburgh, PA, April 2002.

  • VQEG, “Final report from the video quality experts group on the validation of objective models of video quality assessment,” Mar. 2000.

  • Login