Objective and Subjective Assessment Methods of Video Quality in Multimedia Broadcasting

  • Harilaos G. Koumaras

14.1 Introduction

Current digital broadcasting network throughput rates are insufficient to handle raw video data in real time, even if low spatial and temporal resolution (i.e. frame size and frame rate) has been selected. Towards alleviating the network bandwidth requirements for efficient transmission of audiovisual content, coding/compression techniques have been applied on raw video data, performing compression on both temporal and spatial redundancy of the content.

More specifically, coding applications that are specialized and adapted in broadcasting digitally encoded audiovisual content have known an explosive growth in terms of development, deployment, and provision. Video coding is defined as the process of compressing and decompressing a digital video sequence, which results in lower data volumes, besides enabling the transmission of video signals over bandwidth-limited means, where uncompressed video signals would not be possible to be transmitted.

In this multievolutionary...


Packet Loss Video Quality Error Concealment Packet Loss Ratio Broadcasting Service 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Acknowledgments Part of the work in this chapter has been supported and was carried out within the framework of the Information Society Technologies (IST) Integrated Project ENTHRONE phase II/ FP6—38463.


  1. 1.
    Richardson I E G (2004) H.264 and MPEG-4 Video Compression, ed., Wiley, ISBN: 978-0-470-84837-1, October 2003, USA.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Engelke U, Zepernick H-J (2006) Perceptual quality measures for image and video services. Euro-NGI Workshop on Socio-Economic Aspects of Next Generation Internet, Lyngby, Denmark, October 9–10, 2006.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ITU (2000) Methodology for the Subjective Assessment of the Quality of Television Pictures. Recommendation ITU-R BT.500–10.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ITU (1999) Subjective Video Quality Assessment Methods for Multimedia Applications. Recommendation ITU-T P.910.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arriba C (2007) Subjective Video Quality Evaluation and Estimation for H.264 Codec and QVGA Resolution Sequences. Institut fur Nachrichtentechnik und Hochfrequenztechnik Fakultat fur Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik, Technischen Universitat Wien.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Silva E A, Panetta K, Agaian S (2007) Quantifying image similarity using measure of enhancement by entropy. In Mobile Multimedia/Image Processing for Military and Security Applications 2007, Sos S Agaian, Sabah A Jassim, Editors, 65790U, Proceedings of SPIE 6579.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang Z, Sheikh H R and Bovik A C (2003) Objective video quality assessment. In The Handbook of Video Databases: Design and Applications, B Furht and O Marqure, Editors, CRC Press. p. 1041–1078, USA.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    VQEG (2000) Final Report from the Video Quality Experts Group on the Validation of Objective Models of Video Quality Assessment.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang Z, Bovik A C, Lu L (2002) Why is image quality assessment so difficult? InIEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, May 2002.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang Z, Lu L, Bovik A C (2004) Video quality assessment based on structural distortion measurement. Signal Processing: Image Communication, special issue on Objective Video Quality Metrics 19(2): p. 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang Z, Bovik A C, Sheikh H R, Simoncelli E P. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 13(4): p. 1–14, Apr. 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Watson A B (1998) Toward a perceptual video quality metric. Proceedings of SPIE Human Vision and Electronic Imaging, 3299: p. 19–147.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lu L, Wang Z, Bovik A C, Kouloheris J (2002) Full-reference video quality assessment considering structural distortion and no-reference quality evaluation of MPEG video. In IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, Aug. 2002.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gunawan I P, Ghanbari M (2003) Reduced-reference picture quality estimation by using local harmonic amplitude information. In London Communications Symposium 2003, 8th–9th September 2003, London.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ries M, Crespi C, Nemethova O, Rupp M (2007) Content based video quality estimation for H.264/AVC video streaming. Proceedings of IEEE Wireless and Communications & Networking Conference, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lu L, Wang Z, Bovik A C, Kouloheris J (2002) Full-reference video quality assessment considering structural distortion and no-reference quality evaluation of MPEG video. In IEEE International Conference on Multimedia, Volume: 1, p. 61–64, Lausanne, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ries M, Nemethova O, Rupp M (2007) Motion based reference-free quality estimation for H.264/AVC video streaming. International Symposium on Wireless Pervasive Computing, San Juan, Poerto Rico, 5–7 February.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Seeling P, Reisslein M, Kulapala B (2004) Network performance evaluation using frame size and quality traces of single layer and two layer video: a tutorial. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 6(3): p. 58–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koumaras H, Kourtis A, Martakos D (2005) Evaluation of video quality based on objectively estimated metric. Journal of Communications and Networks, 7(3): p. 235–242.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Koumaras H, Pallis E, Xilouris G, Kourtis A, Martakos D, Lauterjung J (2004) Pre-encoding PQoS assessment method for optimized resource utilization. In HET-NETs04 Ilkley, West Yorkshire, U.K.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Koumaras H, Kourtis A, Martakos D, Lauterjung J (2007) Quantified PQoS assessment based on fast estimation of the spatial and temporal activity level. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 34(3): p. 355–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Koumaras H, Kourtis A (2007) Video quality prediction based on the spatial and temporal classification of the uncompressed content. The 18th Annual IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Comm. (PIMRC), Athens, Greece, 3–7 September.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Koumaras H, Pliakas T, Kourtis A (2007) A novel method for pre-encoding video quality prediction. IST Mobile Summit, Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koumaras H, Gardikis G, Kourtis A (2003) Objective evaluation of the perceived quality of video content. IST Mobile Summit 2003, Aveiro, Portugal.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kanumuri S, Cosman P C, Reibman A R, Vaishampayan V A (2006) Modeling packet-loss visibility in MPEG-2 video. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 8(2): p. 341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    He Z, Xong H (2006) Transmission distortion analysis for real-time video encoding and streaming over wireless networks. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 16(9): p. 1051–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee W, Srivastava J (2001) An algebraic QoS-based resource allocation model for competitive multimedia applications. International Journal of Multimedia Tools and Applications, 13(197–212).MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Koumaras H, Kourtis A, Lin C-H, Shieh C-K (2007) A theoretical framework for end-to-end video quality prediction of MPEG-based sequences. The Third International Conference on Networking and Services — ICNS07, Athens, Greece.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harilaos G. Koumaras
    • 1
  1. 1.NCSR DemokritosInstitute of Informatics and TelecommunicationsAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations