Wireless Personal Communications

, Volume 97, Issue 3, pp 4877–4895 | Cite as

An Evaluation of Screen Content Casting over Mobile and Wireless Networks

  • Truong Cong ThangEmail author
  • Pham Ngoc Nam
  • Duc V. Nguyen
  • Huyen T. Tran


Thanks to the availability of many smart devices, displays, and broadband connections, screen casting/sharing has become an important functionality for user devices. Meanwhile, a new video standard called screen content coding (SCC) is going to be issued to support this trend. This paper presents a standard-compliant implementation and evaluation of SCC streaming to mobile devices. The study is targeted at a feasible design and settings for customer devices, supporting both content-generating side and content-consuming side. The evaluation results help to answer how a sending device should generate screen content videos, and how a receiving device could be implemented and adjusted in time-varying environments of mobile networks and wireless home networks. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first evaluation study for SCC casting.


Screen casting Screen content coding E-learning Streaming 



The authors would like to sincerely thank Prof. Christian Timmerer of Klagenfurt University for providing the bandwidth trace used in this study.

Complaince with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Pan, Z., Shen, H., Lu, Y., Li, S., & Yu, N. (2013). A low-complexity screen compression scheme for interactive screen sharing. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 23(6), 949–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Murphy-Hill, E. (2014). The future of social learning in software engineering. Computer, 47(1), 48–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shen, H., Lu, Y., Wu, F. & Li, S. (2009). A high-performance remote computing platform. In Proceedings of IEEE international conference on pervasive computing and communications (pp. 578–583), Texas, USA, March 2009.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lin, Y., Xie, W., Jin, L. & Shen, R. (2012). Content-adaptive H.264 rate control for live screencasting. In Proceedings of IEEE international conference visual communications and image processing (pp. 1–6), San Diego, CA, USA, November 2012.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shen, H., Lu, Y., Wu, F. & Li, S. (2010). Low-cost realtime screen sharing to multiple clients. In Proceedings of IEEE international conference on multimedia and expo (pp. 980–985), Singapore, July 2010.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guo, P. J., Kim, J. & Rubin, R. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of mooc videos. In Proceedings of ACM conference on learning at scale (pp. 41–50), Atlanta, USA, March 2014.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lai, Y. C., Young, S. S. C. & Huang, N. F. (2015). A preliminary study of producing multimedia online videos for ubiquitous learning on MOOCs. In Proceedings of IEEE international conference on ubi-media computing (pp. 295–297), Colombo, Sri Lanka, August 2015.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pires, K., & Simon, G. (2014). “Dash in twitch: Adaptive bitrate streaming in live game streaming platforms”, in Proc (pp. 13–18). Quality and Deployment of Adaptive Video Streaming: ACM Workshop on Design.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sullivan, G., Ohm, J.-R., Han, W.-J., & Wiegand, T. (2012). Overview of the high efficiency video coding (HEVC) standard. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 22(12), 1649–1668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Xu, J., Joshi, R., & Cohen, R. A. (2016). Overview of the emerging HEVC screen content coding extension. IEEE Transactions Circuits Systems for Video Technology, 26(1), 50–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sullivan, G. J., Boyce, J. M., Chen, Y., Ohm, J.-R., Segall, C. A., & Vetro, A. (2013). Standardized extensions of high efficiency video coding. IEEE Journal on Selected Topics Signal Processing, 7(6), 1001–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thang, T. C., Ho, Q. D., Kang, J. W., & Pham, A. T. (2012). Adaptive streaming of audiovisual content using MPEG DASH. IEEE Transactions On Consumer Electronics, 58(1), 78–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bouten, N., et al. (2015). QoE-driven in-network optimization for adaptive video streaming based on packet sampling measurements. Computer Networks, 81, 96–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nightingale, J., Wang, Q., & Grecos, C. (2012). HEVStream: A framework for streaming and evaluation of high efficiency video coding (HEVC) content in loss-prone networks. IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, 58(2), 404–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thang, T. C., Le, H. T., Pham, A. T., & Ro, Y. M. (2014). An evaluation of bitrate adaption methods for HTTP live streaming. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 32(4), 693–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hassan, Y. M., Helmy, A. & Rehan, M. M. (2014). Effect of varying segment size on DASH streaming quality for mobile user. In Proceedings of international conference on engineering and technology (pp. 1–4), Cairo, Egypt, April 2014.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pan, Z., Shen, H., Lu, Y. & Li, S. (2012). A low-latency transmission scheme for interactive screen sharing. In Proceedings of IEEE international symposium on circuits and systems (pp. 1107–1110), Seoul, Korea, May 2012.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yang, M., Fu, J., Lu, Y., Cai, J. & Foh, C. H. (2014). An adaptive multi-layer low-latency transmission scheme for H.264 based screen sharing system. In Proceedings of IEEE international symposium on circuits and systems (pp. 2153–2156), Melbourne, Australia, June 2014.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kiong, T. K. & Narayanan, A. S. (2015). Feasibility of adaptive streaming technologies in developing an integrated learning platform. In Proceedings of IEEE conference on cybernetics and intelligent systems and IEEE conference on robotics, automation and mechatronics (pp. 126–130), Angkor Wat, Cambodia, July 2015.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sanchez, Y., Grinshpun, E., Faucher, D., Schierl, T.& Sharma, S. (2014). Low latency DASH based streaming over LTE. In Proceedings of IEEE international conference visual communications and image processing (pp. 1–4), Valletta, Malta, December 2014.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bouzakaria, N., Concolato, C.& Le Feuvre, J. (2014). Overhead and performance of low latency live streaming using MPEG-DASH. In Proceedings of international conference on information, intelligence, systems and applications (pp. 92–97), Chania, Greece, July 2014.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lohmar, T., Einarsson, T., Frojdh, P., Gabin, F.& Kampmann, M. (2011). Dynamic adaptive HTTP streaming of live content. In Proceedings of IEEE international symposium on a world of wireless, mobile and multimedia networks, Tuscany, Italy (pp. 1–8), June 2011.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ahn, Y. J., Ryu, H., Sim, D., & Kang, J. W. (2015). Analysis of screen content coding based on HEVC. IEIE Transaction on Smart Processing & Computing, 4(4), 231–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Joshi, R. et al. (2015). Screen content coding test model 6 encoder description (SCM 6). In 22nd JCT-VC meeting, document JCTVC-V1014, Geneva, Switzerland, October 2015.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yu, H., Cohen, R., Rapaka, K. & Xu, J. (2015). Common test conditions for screen content coding. In 21st JCT-VC meeting, document JCTVC-U1015, Warsaw, Poland, June 2015.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Deshpande, S. (2013). Adaptive HTTP streaming utilizing temporal sub-layers of high efficiency video coding (HEVC). In Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia (pp. 384–390) California, USA, December 2013.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    ITU-T recommendation P910. (1999). Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications, Telecommunication Standardization Sector of ITU, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Open IPTV forum, Service and platform requirements V2, December 2008.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Muller, C., Lederer, S.& Timmerer, C. (2012). An evaluation of dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP in vehicular environment. In Proceedings of ACM workshop on mobile video (pp. 37–42), Chapel Hill, USA, February 2012.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Truong Cong Thang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pham Ngoc Nam
    • 1
    • 2
  • Duc V. Nguyen
    • 1
  • Huyen T. Tran
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Communications LabThe University of AizuAizu-WakamatsuJapan
  2. 2.Hanoi University of Science and TechnologyHanoiVietnam

Personalised recommendations