skip to main content
10.1145/2155555.2155558acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmmsysConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

QDASH: a QoE-aware DASH system

Published:22 February 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

Dynamic Adaptation Streaming over HTTP (DASH) enhances the Quality of Experience (QoE) for users by automatically switching quality levels according to network conditions. Various adaptation schemes have been proposed to select the most suitable quality level during video playback. Adaptation schemes are currently based on the measured TCP throughput received by the video player. Although video buffer can mitigate throughput fluctuations, it does not take into account the effect of the transition of quality levels on the QoE.

In this paper, we propose a QoE-aware DASH system (or QDASH) to improve the user-perceived quality of video watching. We integrate available bandwidth measurement into the video data probes with a measurement proxy architecture. We have found that our available bandwidth measurement method facilitates the selection of video quality levels. Moreover, we assess the QoE of the quality transitions by carrying out subjective experiments. Our results show that users prefer a gradual quality change between the best and worst quality levels, instead of an abrupt switching. Hence, we propose a QoE-aware quality adaptation algorithm for DASH based on our findings. Finally, we integrate both network measurement and the QoE-aware quality adaptation into a comprehensive DASH system.

References

  1. Akamai HD Video Demo. http://wwwns.akamai.com/hdnetwork/demo/flash/default.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. comScore releases May 2010 U. S. online video rankings. http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/6/comScore_Releases_May_2010_U.S._Online_Video_Rankings.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. F4V/FLV Technology Center. http://www.adobe.com/devnet/f4v.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Netfilter. http://www.netfilter.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Open Source Media Framework (OSMF). http://www.osmf.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Strobe Media Playback. http://sourceforge.net/adobe/smp.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Tcpdump/libpcap. http://www.tcpdump.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. wget. http://www.gnu.org/s/wget.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Adobe. HTTP Dynamic Streaming on the Adobe Flash Platform. http://www.adobe.com/products/httpdynamicstreaming.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Adobe. Video technology center, delivery: Progressive download. http://www.adobe.com/devnet/video/progressive.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. S. Akhshabi, A. Begen, and C. Dovrolis. An experimental evaluation of rate-adaptation algorithms in adaptive streaming over HTTP. In Proc. ACM MMSys, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Apple. HTTP Live Streaming. http://developer.apple.com/resources/http-streaming.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. A. Begen, T. Akgul, and M. Baugher. Watching video over the Web: Part 1: Streaming Protocols. IEEE Internet Comput., 15(2):54--63, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. R. Braden. RFC1122. Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Communication Layers, 1989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. E. Chan, A. Chen, X. Luo, R. Mok, W. Li, and R. Chang. TRIO: Measuring asymmetric capacity with three minimum round-trip times. In Proc. ACM CoNext, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. N. Cranley, L. Murphy, and P. Perry. User-perceived quality-aware adaptive delivery of MPEG-4 content. In Proc. ACM NOSSDAV, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. N. Cranley, P. Perry, and L. Murphy. User perception of adapting video quality. Int. Journal of human-computer studies, 64(8):637--647, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. L. De Cicco and S. Mascolo. An experimental investigation of the Akamai adaptive video streaming. In Proc. USAB, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. L. De Cicco, S. Mascolo, and V. Palmisano. Feedback control for adaptive live video streaming. In Proc. ACM MMSys, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. N. Feamster, D. Bansal, and H. Balakrishnan. On the interactions between layered quality adaptation and congestion control for streaming video. In Proc. Packet Video, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. M. Jain and C. Dovrolis. End-to-end available bandwidth: measurement methodology, dynamics, and relation with TCP throughput. IEEE/ACM Trans. on Networking, 11(4):537--549, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. L. Kleinrock. Queueing Systems. Volume 1: Theory. Wiley-Interscience, 1975. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. E. Kohler, R. Morris, B. Chen, J. Jannotti, and M. F. Kaashoek. The click modular router. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., 18(3):263--297, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. R. Kuschnig, I. Kofler, and H. Hellwagner. An evaluation of TCP-based rate-control algorithms for adaptive Internet streaming of H.264/SVC. In Proc. ACM MMSys, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. A. Lie and J. Klaue. Evalvid-RA: trace driven simulation of rate adaptive MPEG-4 VBR video. ACM Multimedia Systems Journal, 14:33--50, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. C. Liu, I. Bouazizi, and M. Gabbouj. Rate adaptation for adaptive HTTP streaming. In Proc. ACM MMSys, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. X. Luo, E. Chan, and R. Chang. Design and implementation of TCP data probes for reliable and metric-rich network path monitoring. In Proc. USENIX Annual Tech. Conf. 2009, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Microsoft. IIS Smooth Streaming technical overview. http://learn.iis.net/page.aspx/626/smooth-streaming-technical-overview/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. R. Mok, E. Chan, and R. Chang. Measuring the quality of experience of HTTP video streaming. In Proc. IEEE/IFIP IM (pre-conf.), 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. R. Mok, E. Chan, X. Luo, and R. Chang. Inferring the QoE of HTTP video streaming from user-viewing activities. In Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM W-MUST, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. M. Pinson and S. Wolf. Comparing subjective video quality testing methodologies. Visual Communications and Image Processing, 5150(1):573--582, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. H. Riiser, P. Vigmostad, C. Griwodz, and P. Halvorsen. Bitrate and video quality planning for mobile streaming scenarios using a GPS-based bandwidth lookup service. In IEEE ICME, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. H. Schwarz, D. Marpe, and T. Wiegand. Overview of the scalable video coding extension of the H.264/AVC standard. IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 17(9):1103--1120, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. T. Stockhammer. Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP --: Standards and design principles. In Proc. ACM MMSys, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. X. Xing, J. Dang, S. Mishra, and X. Liu. A highly scalable bandwidth estimation of commercial hotspot access points. In Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. M. Zink, O. Künzel, J. Schmitt, and R. Steinmetz. Subjective impression of variations in layer encoded videos. In Proc. IWQoS, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. QDASH: a QoE-aware DASH system

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        MMSys '12: Proceedings of the 3rd Multimedia Systems Conference
        February 2012
        247 pages
        ISBN:9781450311311
        DOI:10.1145/2155555
        • General Chair:
        • Mark Claypool,
        • Program Chair:
        • Carsten Griwodz

        Copyright © 2012 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 22 February 2012

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate176of530submissions,33%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader