Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Encoding and video content based HEVC video quality prediction

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Advances in multimedia devices and video compression techniques and the availability of increased network bandwidth in both fixed and mobile networks has increased the proliferation of multimedia applications (e.g. IPTV, video streaming and online gaming). However, this has also posed a real challenge to network and service providers to deliver these applications with an acceptable Quality of Experience (QoE). In these multimedia applications, it is highly desirable to predict and if possible control video quality to meet such QoE and user expectations. Streamed video quality is affected by both encoding and transmission processes. The impacts of these processes are content dependent. This issue has gradually been recognised in video quality modelling research in recent years. In this paper, we carried out objective and subjective tests on video sequences to investigate the impact of video content type and encoding parameter settings on HEVC video quality. Initial results show that varying video content type and encoding parameters impact video quality. Based on the test results, we developed a content-based video quality prediction (CVQP) model that takes into account HEVC encoding parameter such as Quantization Parameter (QP) and video content type (characterised by motion activities and complexity of video sequences). We achieved an accuracy of 92 % for the test dataset when model predicted PSNR values were compared with full reference PSNR measurements. The performance of the model was also evaluated by comparing predicted PSNR with those of Double Stimulus Impairment Scale (DSIS) subjective quality ratings. Results show a good correlation between actual MOS and predicted PSNR. The proposed model could be used by content providers to determine the initial quality of videos based on QP and content type.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Argyropoulos S, Raake A, Garcia M, List P (2011) No-reference video quality assessment for SD and HD H.264/AVC sequences based on continuous estimates of packet loss visibility. Third Int Work Qual Multimed Experience, pp. 31–36

  2. Bhat A, Richardson I, Kannangara S (2009) A novel perceptual quality metric for video compression. IEEE Picture Coding Symp PCS, pp. 1–4

  3. Bossen F (2010) Common test conditions and software reference configurations. JCT-VC Doc. JCTVC-G1200

  4. Boujut H, Benois-Pineau J, Ahmed T, Bonnet P, Sheva B, Armstrong N (2011) A metric for no-reference video quality assessment for HD TV delivery based on saliency maps. IEEE Int Conf Multimed Expo (ICME), pp. 1–5

  5. Choi H, Nam J, Sim D, Bajiü IV (2011) Scalable video coding based on high efficiency video coding (HEVC). IEEE Pac Rim Conf Commun Comput Sig Process, pp. 346–351

  6. Dymarski P, Kula S, Huy TN (2011) QoS conditions for VoIP and VoD. J Telecommun Inf Technol:29–37

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hands DS (2004) A basic multimedia quality model. IEEE Trans Multimed 6(6):806–816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hiramatsu K, Nakao S, Hoshino M, Imamura D (2010) Technology evolutions in LTE/LTE-advanced and its applications. IEEE Int Conf Commun Syst, 161–165

  9. Hu J, Wildfeuer H (2009) Use of content complexity factors in video over IP quality monitoring. Int Work Qual Multimed Exp, 216–221

  10. ITU-T Recomm. BT.500-13, Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures

  11. ITU-T Recomm. P.910, Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications

  12. ITU-T SG16 WP3/ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 JCTVC-A124 (2010) Samsung’s Response to Call Propos. Video Compression Technol. Dresden

  13. Kanwisher N, Wojciulik E (2000) Visual attention: insights from brain imaging. Nat Rev Neurosci 1:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Khan A, Sun L, Ifeachor E (2009) content clustering based video quality prediction model for MPEG4 video streaming over wireless networks. IEEE Int Conf Commun ICC, pp. 1–5

  15. Khan A, Sun L, Ifeachor E (2009) Content-based video quality prediction for MPEG4 video streaming over wireless networks. J Multimed 4:228–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Khan A, Sun L, Ifeachor E (2012) QoE prediction model and its application in video quality adaptation over UMTS networks. IEEE Trans Multimed 14(2):431–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kim J-O, Kohout FJ (1975) Analysis of variance and covariance: subprograms ANOVA and ONEWAY. Stat Packag Soc Sci 2:398–433

    Google Scholar 

  18. Klaue J, Rathke B, Wolisz A (2003) EvalVid - a framework for video transmission and quality evaluation. Model Tech Tools Comput Perform Eval, 255–272

  19. Koumaras H, Lin C-H, Shieh C-K, Kourtis A (2010) A framework for end-to-end video quality prediction of MPEG video. J Vis Commun Image Represent 21(2):139–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee B, Kim M (2013) No-reference PSNR estimation for HEVC encoded video. IEEE Trans Broadcast 59(1):20–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ong E, Lin W, Lu Z, Yao S, Yang X, Moschetti F (2003) Low bit rate quality assessment based on perceptual characteristics. IEEE Int Conf Image Process ICIP 1:3–5

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ou Y, Ma Z, Wang Y (2008) A novel quality metric for compressed video considering both frame rate and quantization artifacts. Int Work Image Process Qual Metrics Consum

  23. Pinson MH, Wolf S (2003) Comparing subjective video quality testing methodologies. SPIE Proc 5150(3):573–582

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pinson MH, Wolf S (2004) A New standardized method for objectively measuring video quality. IEEE Trans Broadcast 50(3):312–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pourazad MT, Doutre C, Azimi M, Nasiopoulos P (2012) HEVC: the New gold standard for video compression How does HEVC compare with H.264/AVC? IEEE Consum Electron Mag

  26. Reibman AR, Vaishampayan VA, Sermadevi Y (2004) Quality monitoring of video over a packet network. IEEE Trans Multimed 6(2):327–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ries M, Nemethova O, Badic B, Rupp M (2004) Assessment of H. 264 coded panorama sequences. First Int Conf Multimed Serv Access Netw, pp. 12–15

  28. Ries M, Nemethova O, Rupp M (2007) Motion based reference-free quality estimation for H.264/AVC video streaming. 2nd Int Symp Wirel Pervasive Comput

  29. Ries M, Nemethova O, Rupp M (2008) Video quality estimation for mobile H. 264/AVC video streaming. J Commun 3(1):41–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rosdiana E, Ghanbari M (2000) Picture complexity based rate allocation algorithm for transcoded video over ABR networks. Electron Lett 366 36(6):521–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Seshadrinathan K, Bovik AC (2009) Motion-based Perceptual Quality Assessment of Video. IS&T/SPIE Electron Imaging Int Soc Opt Photonics

  32. Seshadrinathan K, Bovik AC (2010) Motion tuned spatio-temporal quality assessment of natural videos. IEEE Trans Image Process 19(2):335–350

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1989) Statistical methods, 8th ed. Ames: Iowa State Univ Press, p. 503.

  34. Sullivan G, Ohm J, Han W, Wiegand T, High A, Video E, Hevc C (2012) Overview of the high efficiency video coding. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 22(12):1649–1668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Takahashi A, Hands D, Barriac V (2008) Standardization activities in the ITU for a QoE assessment of IPTV. IEEE Commun Mag 46(2):78–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Takahashi A, Schmidmer C, Lee C, Speranza F, Okamoto J (2010) VQEG Report on the validation of video quality models for high definition video content

  37. University of Plymouth - SPMC Subjective Video Test. [Online]. Available: http://www.tech.plymouth.ac.uk/spmc/staff/laanegekuh/subjective1/. [Accessed: 03-Aug-2013]

  38. Van Wallendael G, Staelens N, Janowski L (2012) No-reference bitstream-based impairment detection for high efficiency video coding. Fouth Int Work Qual Multimed Exp, 7–12

  39. Verscheure O, Frossard P, Hamdi M (1998) MPEG-2 video services over packet networks: joint effect of encoding rate and data loss on user-oriented QoS. 8th Int Work Netw Oper Syst Support Digit Audio Video (NOSSDAV 98), pp. 257–264

  40. Welling M (2004) Support vector regression. Dep Comput Sci Univ. Toronto

  41. Wolf S, Pinson M (2007) Application of the NTIA general video quality metric (VQM) to HDTV quality monitoring. Proc Third Int Work Video Process Qual Metrics Consum Electron (VPQM), pp. 4–8

  42. Zhai G, Cai J, Member S, Lin W (2008) Cross-dimensional perceptual quality assessment for Low bitrate videos. IEEE Trans Multimed 10(7):1316–1324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Zhai J, Yu K, Li J, Li S (2005) A Low complexity motion compensated frame interpolation method. IEEE Int Symp Circuits Syst ISCAS, 4927–4930

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Signal Processing and Multimedia Communication, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK

    Louis Anegekuh, Lingfen Sun & Emmanuel Ifeachor

Authors
  1. Louis Anegekuh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lingfen Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emmanuel Ifeachor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Louis Anegekuh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anegekuh, L., Sun, L. & Ifeachor, E. Encoding and video content based HEVC video quality prediction. Multimed Tools Appl 74, 3715–3738 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-013-1795-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-013-1795-z

Keywords