Advertisement

Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 74, Issue 2, pp 381–411 | Cite as

VLQoE: Video QoE instrumentation on the smartphone

  • Selim IckinEmail author
  • Markus Fiedler
  • Katarzyna Wac
  • Patrik Arlos
  • Canberk Temiz
  • Khadija Mkocha
Article

Abstract

The usage of network-demanding applications is growing rapidly such as video streaming on mobile terminals. However, network and/or service providers might not guarantee the perceived quality for video streaming that demands high packet transmission rate. In order to satisfy the user expectations and to minimize user churn, it is important for network operators to infer the end-user perceived quality in video streaming. Today, the most reliable method to obtain end-user perceived quality is through subjective tests, and the preferred location is the user interface as it is the closest point of application to the end-user. The end-user perceived quality on video streaming is highly influenced by occasional freezes; technically the extraordinary time gaps between two consecutive pictures that are displayed to the user, i.e., high inter-picture time. In this paper, we present a QoE instrumentation for video streaming, VLQoE. We added functionality to the VLC player to record a set of metrics from the user interface, application-level, network-level, and from the available sensors of the device. To the best of our knowledge, VLQoE is the first tool of its kind that can be used in user experiments for video streaming. By using the tool, we present a two state model based on the inter-picture time, for the HTTP- and RTSP-based video streaming via 3.5G. Next, we studied the influence of inter-picture time on the user perceived quality through out a user study. We investigated the minimum user perceived inter-picture time, and the user response time.

Keywords

QoE (Quality of Experience) QoS (Quality of Service) Smartphone Video User interface Human Computer Interaction (HCI) 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work of Katarzyna Wac has been supported by AAL-MyGuardian and WayFIS projects. We would like to thank anonymous reviewers for the valuable comments and suggestions to improve our paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Barakovic S, Kapov LS (2013) Survey and challenges of QoE management issues in wireless networks. J Comput Netw Commun 2013, Article ID 165146, 28 pagesGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonald T, Roberts JW (2012) Internet and the Erlang formula. SIGCOMM Comput Commun Rev 42(1):23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cherif W, Ksentini A, Negru D, Sidibe M (2011) APSQA: efficient real time video streaming QoE tool in a future media internet context. In: IEEE Conference in Multimedia and Expo (ICME), pp 1–6Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global mobile data traffic forecast update 2012–2017. [Online], Available: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705/ns827/white_paper_c11-.520862.html. Accessed Sept 2013
  5. 5.
    Dalal AC, Bouchard AK, Cantor S, Guo Y, Johnson A (2012) Assessing QoE of on-demand TCP video streams in real time. In: IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), pp 1165–1170Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Darwin Streaming Server. [Online], Available: http://developer.apple.com/opensource/server/streaming. Accessed Mar 2013
  7. 7.
    De la Cruz Ramos P, Vidal FG, Leal RP (2010) Perceived video quality estimation from spatial and temporal information contents and network performance parameters in IPTV. In: Fifth International Conference on Digital Telecommunications (ICDT), vol., no., JuneGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dialogic Corporation Quality of Experience for Mobile Video Users. White Paper, Canada, 2009Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Egger S, Hossfeld T, Schatz R, Fiedler M (2012) Waiting times for quality of experience for web based services. In: Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on quality of multimedia experienceGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fenimore C, Libert J (2013) Perceptual effects of noise in digital video compression. [Online], Available: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.196.1791&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed Sept 2013
  11. 11.
    Fiedler M (2011) Traffic models for quality of experience assessment, tutorial at Proceedings of the 23rd international Teletraffic Congress. San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    French H, Lin J, Phan T, Dala AC (2011) Real time video QoE analysis of RTMP streams. 30th International IEEE Performance Computing and Communications Conference (IPCCC), pp 1–2Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gardlo B, Ries M, Rupp M, Jarina R (2011) A QoE evaluation methodology for HD video streaming using social networking. In: IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia (ISM), pp 222–227Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grondin S (2010) Timing and time perception: a review of recent behavioral and neuroscience findings and theoretical directions. Atten Percept Psychophys 72(3):561–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hossfeld T, Schatz R, Egger S (2011) SOS: the MOS is not enough. In: Proceedings of the third international workshop on quality of multimedia experience, pp 131–136Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hossfeld T, Schatz R, Seufert M, Hirth M, Zinner T, Tran-Gia P (2011) Quantification of YouTube QoE via crowdsourcing. In: IEEE international workshop on multimedia quality of experience-modeling, evaluation, and directions (MQoE 2011). USAGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hossfeld T, Schatz R, Biersack E, Plissonneau L (2013) Internet video delivery in YouTube: from traffic measurements to quality of experience. Data Traffic Monit Anal Lect Notes Comput Sci 7754:264–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    HTTP Live Streaming draft-pantos-http-live-streaming-02. [Online], Available: http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-pantos-http-live-streaming-02.pdf. Accessed Sept 2013
  19. 19.
    Huang J, Xu Q, Tiwana B, Mao ZM, Zhang M, Bahl P (2010) Anatomizing application performance differences on smartphones. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on mobile systems, applications, and services (MobiSys ’10). ACM, New York, pp 165–178Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ickin S (2013) Identification of influential factors on Android Smartphone-based video quality of experience. Licentiate Dissertation, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ickin S, Janowski L, Wac K, Fiedler M (2012) Studying the challenges in assessing the perceived quality of mobile-phone based video. In: Fourth international workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), pp 164,169Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ickin S, Wac K, Fiedler M, Janowski L, Hong JH, Dey AK (2012) Factors influencing quality of experience of commonly-used mobile applications. IEEE Commun Mag 50(4):48–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Intille S, Kukla C, Ma X (2002) Eliciting user preferences using image-based experience sampling and reflection. In: Proceedings of human factors in computing systems CHIGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    ITU-T Rec. P. 800 (1996) Methods for subjective determination of transmission qualityGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    ITU-T Recommendation P.910Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications, Recommendations of the ITU (Telecommunication Standardization Sector), [Online], Available: http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-P.910-200804-I/en. Accessed Sept 2013
  26. 26.
    Janowski L, Romaniak P, Papir Z (2011) Content driven QoE assessment for video frame rate and frame resolution reduction. In: Multimedia tools and applications, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Juluri P, Plissonneau L, Medhi D (2011) Pytomo: a tool for analyzing playback quality of YouTube videos. In: 23rd International Teletraffic Congress (ITC), pp 304,305, 6–9Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Katabi D, Handley M, Rohrs C (2002) Congestion control for high bandwidth-delay product networks. In: Proceedings of the conference on applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications (SIGCOMM ’02). ACM, New York, pp 89–102Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Khan A, Sun L, Jammeh E, Ifeachor E (2010) Quality of experience-driven adaptation scheme for video applications over wireless networks. IET Commun 4(11):1337–1347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Laghari KR, Connelly K (2012) Toward total quality of experience: a QoE model in a communication ecosystem. IEEE Commun Mag 50(4):58–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Latre S, De Turck F (2012) Autonomic quality of experience management of multimedia networks. In: IEEE IFIP network operations and management symposium, pp 872–879Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Le Callet P, Moller S, Perkis A (eds) Qualinet white paper on definitions of quality of experience (QoE). [Online], Available: http://www.qualinet.eu/. Accessed Mar 2013
  33. 33.
    Li M, Li F, Claypool M, Kinicki R (2005) Weather forecasting - predicting performance for streaming video over wireless LANs. In: Proceeedings of NOSSDAV. Stevenson, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Menkovski V (2013) Intelligent control for adaptive video streaming. In: Proceedings of the international conference on consumer electronics. Las VegasGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Menkovski V, Liotta A (2013) QoE for mobile streaming, mobile multimedia - user and technology perspectives, InTech Europe, (2012), [Online], Available: http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/26696/InTech-Qoe_for_mobile_streaming.pdf. Accessed: September
  36. 36.
    Menkovski V, Exarchakos G, Liotta A (2011) The value of relative quality in video delivery. J Mob Multimed 7(3):151–162Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Migliorini D, Mingozzi E, Vallati C (2010) QoE oriented performance evaluation of video streaming over WiMAX. In: Eighth international conference on wired/wireless Internet communications. SwedenGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Minhas T (2012) Network impact on quality of experience of mobile video, Licentiate dissertation, Blekinge Institute of Technology. SwedenGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Musser G (2013) Time on the brain: how you are always living in the past, and other quirks of perception. [Online], Available: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/09/15/time-on-the-brain-how-you-are-always-living-in-the-past-and-other-quirks-of-perception/. Accessed Apr
  40. 40.
    Myung IJ (2003) Tutorial on maximum likelihood estimation. J Math Psychol 47(1):90–100CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Oliver E (2010) The challenges in large-scale smartphone user studies. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM international workshop on hot topics in planet-scale measurement. ACM, New York, Article 5, 5 pGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    PEVQ Perceptual Evaluation of Video Quality. [Online], Available: http://www.pevq.org/. Accessed Mar 2013
  43. 43.
    Qiao Z (2011) Smarter phone based live QoE measurement. In: 15th international conference on intelligence in next generation networksGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Quan HT, Ghanbari M (2008) Temporal aspect of perceived quality of mobile video broadcasting. IEEE Trans Broadcast 54(3):641–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    RFC2326: Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP). [Online], Available: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2326.txt. Accessed Sept 2013
  46. 46.
    Seow SC (2008) Designing and engineering time: the psychology of time perception in software. Addison-Wesley ProfessionalGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Singh KD, HadjadjAoul Y, Rubino G (2012) Quality of experience estimation for adoptive HTTP/TCP video streaming using H.264/AVC. In: IEEE Consumer Communications & Networking Conference, (CCNC), pp 127–131Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schatz R, Hossfeld T, Janowski L, Egger S (2013) From packets to people: quality of experience as a new measurement challenge. Data Traffic Monit Anal Lect Notes Comput Sci 7754:219–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Staehle B, Hirth M, Pries R, Wamser F, Staehle D (2010) YoMo: a Youtube application comfort monitoring tool. In: Proceedings of EuroITV Workshop QoE for Multimedia Content Sharing (QoEMCS’10). TampereGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Staelens N, Moens S, Van den Broeck W, Marien I, Vermeulen B, Lambert P, Van De Walle R, Demeester P (2010) Assessing quality of experience of IPTV and video on demand services in real-life environments. IEEE Trans Broadcast 56(4):458–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Top Project Listings. VideoLAN, Retrieved: 2013-01-22Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Van Kester S, Xiao T, Kooij RE, Brunnstrm K, Ahmed OK (2011) Estimating the impact of single and multiple freezes on video quality. In: Proceedings of SPIE, vol 7865Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Venkataraman M, Chatterja M (2009) Evaluating quality of experience for streaming video in real time. In: IEEE GLOBECOMGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Vidal RP, Gicquel J, Colomes C, Cherifi H (2004) Sporadic frame dropping impact on quality perception. Human Vis Electron Imaging IX, vol 5292Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Vishwanath A, Dutta P, Chetlur M, Gupta P, Kalyanaraman S, Ghosh A (2010) Perspectives on quality of experience for video streaming over WiMAX. ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Comput Commun Rev 13(4):15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    VLC Media Player for Android (2013) [Online], Available, http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-android.html. Accessed Mar 2013
  57. 57.
    Voice quality and MOS. [Online], Available: http://searchunifiedcommunications.techtarget.com/tip/Voice-quality-and-MOS. Accessed Apr 2013
  58. 58.
    Vuppala A, Sriram LN (2011) Measurement of user related performance problems of live video streaming in user interface. Masters Thesis, Blekinge Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wang Y, Claypool M (2005) RealTracer - tools for measuring the performance of RealVideo on the internet. In: Kluwer multimedia tools and applications, vol 27, issue no 3Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wang Z, Lu L, Bovik AC (2004) Video quality assessment based on structural distortion measurement. Proc Sig Process Image Commun Spec Issue Objective Video Qual Metrics 19(2):121–132Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Wang B, Kurose J, Shenoy P, Towsley D (2008) Multimedia streaming via TCP: an analytic performance study. ACM Trans Multimedia Comput Commun Appl 4, 2, Article 16, 22 pGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Winkler S, Mohandas P (2008) The evaluation of video quality measurement: from PSNR to hybrid metrics. IEEE Trans Broadcast 54(3):660–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    World Wide Smartphone Sales Share. [Online], Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Wide_Smartphone_Sales_Share.png. Accessed Apr 2013
  64. 64.
    Yang KC, Guest CC, El-Maleh K, Das PK (2007) Perceptual temporal quality metric for compressed video. IEEE Trans Multimedia 9Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Zinner T, Abboud O, Hohlfeld O, Hossfeld T, Tran Gia P (2010) Towards QoE management for scalable video streaming. In: 21st ITC specialist seminar on multimedia applications, traffic, performance and QoE. JapanGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Zupernick H, et al. (2008) Quality of experience based cross-layer design of mobile video systems. In: Proceedings of the 18th ITC specialist seminar on quality of experienceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Selim Ickin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Markus Fiedler
    • 1
  • Katarzyna Wac
    • 2
  • Patrik Arlos
    • 1
  • Canberk Temiz
    • 3
  • Khadija Mkocha
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Computing, Blekinge Institute of TechnologyBlekingeSweden
  2. 2.Institute of Services Science, University of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland
  3. 3.Blekinge Institute of TechnologyBlekingeSweden
  4. 4.Department of Electronics and Telecommunications EngineeringUniversity of Dar es SalaamDar es SalaamTanzania

Personalised recommendations