Energy-Aware Software Video Encoding in Head-End

  • Mikko UittoEmail author
Part of the Computer Communications and Networks book series (CCN)


Today’s extremely fast network connections, as well as powerful processing devices, have enabled high-quality video streaming on the Internet. At the same time, high-definition displays in terminals allow increased video resolution leading also to a higher number of bits to be processed in the head-end. Therefore, demand for improved, novel video encoding technologies is needed. However, green networking ideology drives also for decreasing the carbon footprint in terms of reducing energy and power consumption. Head-end video encoding server usually needs to produce several encoded versions of the same input feed in order to cover different client terminals with unique characteristics, which can lead to extensive energy consumption increasing server-side costs. This work focuses on comparing current video coding format H.264 and state-of-the-art High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) for resolving ways to decrease the server-side energy consumption in a software-based video on demand (VoD) encoding. The techniques include selecting a proper hardware and video codec, suitable video resolution and encoding parameters for fulfilling sufficient video quality of experience. The work also introduces comparison between existing video coding technologies. The obtained results indicate that head-end energy consumption can be significantly decreased by using light compression technologies and suitable encoding parameters. In addition, usage of current novel video codecs can slightly increase the head-end energy consumption but obtain clear savings in the network.



This research was partially supported by the European Celtic-Plus project CONVINcE and partially funded by Finland, France, Sweden and Turkey. The author would like to thank for their support.


  1. 1.
    Cisco (2017) Cisco visual networking index: forecast and methodology 2016–2021. Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alliance for Open Media (2015) Alliance for Open Media established to deliver next-generation open media formats. Press releaseGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wiegand T, Sullivan GJ, Bjontegaard G, Luthra A (2003) Overview of the H.264/AVC video coding standard. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 13(7):560–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Information Technology (2017) Advanced video coding for audio-visual services: recommendation ITU-T H.264 Std, H.260–H.279:2016Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ITU-T (2017) Advanced video coding for audio-visual services: recommendation ITU-T H.265 Std. H.260–H.279:2016Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sullivan GJ, Ohm JR, Han WJ, Wiegand T (2012) Overview of the high efficiency video coding (HEVC) standard. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 22(12):1649–1668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Xu J, Joshi R, Cohen RA (2015) Overview of the emerging HEVC screen content coding extension. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 26(1):50–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mukherjee D, Bankoski J, Grange A, Han J (2013) The latest open-source video codec VP9—an overview and preliminary results. Paper presented at the picture coding symposium (PCS), San Jose, California, Dec 2013Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sodagar I (2011) The MPEG-DASH standard for multimedia streaming over the internet. IEEE Multimed 14(4):62–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Uitto M, Heikkinen A (2016) SAND-assisted encoding control for energy-aware MPEG-DASH live streaming. Paper presented at the 2016 24th international conference on software, telecommunications and computer networks (SoftCOM), Split, Croatia, Sept 2016Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yunmin G, Kwon OC, Song H (2015) An energy-efficient http adaptive video streaming with networking cost constraint over heterogeneous wireless networks. IEEE Trans Multimed 19(9):1646–1657Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khan S, Schroeder D, Essaili AE, Steinbach E (2014) Energy-efficient and QOE-driven adaptive HTTP streaming over LTE. Paper presented at the wireless communications and networking conference (WCNC), Istanbul, Turkey, Apr 2014Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Trestian R, Moldovan A-N, Ormond O, Muntean G-M (2012) Energy consumption analysis of video streaming to android mobile devices. Paper presented at the network operations and management symposium (NOMS), Maui, Hawai, USA, Apr 2012Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hu W, Cao G (2015) Energy-aware video streaming on smartphones. Paper presented at the IEEE conference on computer communication (INFOCOM), Hong Kong, May 2015Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoque MA, Siekkinen M, Nurminen JK (2015) Energy-efficient multimedia streaming to mobile devices—a survey. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 16(9):579–597Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ahmad JJ, Khan HA, Khayam SA (2009) Energy efficient video compression for wireless sensor networks. Paper presented at the 43rd annual conference on information sciences and systems (CISS), Baltimore, Maryland, USA, Mar 2009Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sharrab YO, Sarhan NJ (2013) Aggregate power consumption modeling of live video streaming systems. Paper presented in 4th ACM multimedia systems conference (MMSys), Oslo, Norway, Feb 2013Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Uitto M (2016) Energy consumption evaluation of H.264 and HEVC video encoders in high-resolution live streaming. Paper presented at the 2016 12th IEEE international conference on wireless and mobile computing, networking and communications (WiMob), New York, USA, Oct 2016Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    VideoLan (2016) x264 project.
  20. 20.
    Multicoreware (2017) x265 HEVC encoder/H.265 video codec.
  21. 21.
    MSU Graphics & Media Lab (Video Group) (2016) HEVC video codecs comparisonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ultra Video Group (2016) Kvazaar HEVC encoder.
  23. 23.
    WebM (2016) VP9 video codec.
  24. 24.
    Dipp S (2013) Encoding presets for x264.
  25. 25.
    Multicoreware (2014) x265 documentation.
  26. 26.
    Olsson S, Stroppiana M, Baina J (1997) Video objective methods for assessment of video quality: state of the art. IEEE Trans Broadcast 43(4):487–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chikkerur S, Sundaram V, Reisslein M, Karam LJ (2011) Objective video quality assessment methods: a classification, review and performance comparison. IEEE Trans Broadcast 57(2):165–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang Z, Bovik AC, Sheikh HR, Simoncelli EP (2004) Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans Image Process 13(4):600–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pinson MH, Wolf S (2004) A new standardized method for objectively measuring video quality. IEEE Trans Broadcast 50(3):312–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland90570 OuluFinland

Personalised recommendations