Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
QoE rating performance evaluation of ITU-T recommended video quality metrics in the context of video freezes
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Communication Systems.
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Applied Signal Processing.
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Applied Signal Processing.
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Applied Signal Processing.
Show others and affiliations
2016 (English)In: Australian Journal of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, ISSN 1448-837X, Vol. 13, no 2, 122-131 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In real-time video streaming, video quality can be degraded due to network performance issues. Among other artefacts, video freezing and video jumping are factors that influence user experience. Service providers, operators and manufacturers are interested in evaluating the quality of experience (QoE) objectively because subjective assessment of QoE is expensive and, in many user cases, subjective assessment is not possible to perform. Different algorithms have been proposed and implemented in this regard. Some of them are in the recommendation list of the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T). In this paper, we study the effect of the freezing artefact on user experience and compare the mean opinion score of these videos with the results of two algorithms, the perceptual evaluation of video quality (PEVQ) and temporal quality metric (TQM). Both metrics are part of the ITU-T Recommendation J.247 Annex B and C. PEVQ is a full-reference video quality metric, whereas TQM is a no-reference quality metric. Another contribution of this paper is the study of the impact of different resolutions and frame rates on user experience and how accurately PEVQ and TQM measure varying frame rates.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2016. Vol. 13, no 2, 122-131 p.
Keyword [en]
Freezing; Image quality; Quality of service; Video signal processing; Video streaming, Objective video quality; Quality of experience (QoE); Subjective video quality; Temporal quality; Video quality, Quality control
National Category
Signal Processing Communication Systems
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:bth-13135DOI: 10.1080/1448837X.2015.1094855Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84965031048OAI: oai:DiVA.org:bth-13135DiVA: diva2:1017164
Available from: 2016-10-04 Created: 2016-10-03 Last updated: 2016-12-19Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Minhas, Tahir NawazShahid, MuhammadLövström, BennyRossholm, AndreasZepernick, Hans-JürgenFiedler, Markus
By organisation
Department of Communication SystemsDepartment of Applied Signal Processing
Signal ProcessingCommunication Systems

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 141 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf