skip to main content
10.1145/3123266.3123372acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Optimal Set of 360-Degree Videos for Viewport-Adaptive Streaming

Published:19 October 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

With the decreasing price of Head-Mounted Displays (HMDs), 360-degree videos are becoming popular. The streaming of such videos through the Internet with state of the art streaming architectures requires, to provide high immersion feeling, much more bandwidth than the median user's access bandwidth. To decrease the need for bandwidth consumption while providing high immersion to users, scientists and specialists proposed to prepare and encode 360-degree videos into quality-variable video versions and to implement viewport-adaptive streaming. Quality-variable versions are different versions of the same video with non-uniformly spread quality: there exists some so-called Quality Emphasized Regions (QERs). With viewport-adaptive streaming the client, based on head movement prediction, downloads the video version with the high quality region closer to where the user will watch. In this paper we propose a generic theoretical model to find out the optimal set of quality-variable video versions based on traces of head positions of users watching a 360-degree video. We propose extensions to adapt the model to popular quality-variable version implementations such as tiling and offset projection. We then solve a simplified version of the model with two quality levels and restricted shapes for the QER. With this simplified model, we show that an optimal set of four quality-variable video versions prepared by a streaming server, together with a perfect head movement prediction, allow for 45% bandwidth savings to display video with the same average quality as state of the art solutions or allows an increase of 102% of the displayed quality for the same bandwidth budget.

References

  1. A. Aminlou, K. Kammachi Sreedhar, A. Zare, and M. Hannuksela. Testing methodology for viewport-dependent encoding and streaming. MPEG meeting, Oct. 2016. m39081.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. G. Boccignone, A. Marcelli, P. Napoletano, G. Di Fiore, G. Iacovoni, and S. Morsa. Bayesian integration of face and low-level cues for foveated video coding. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. A. Borji and L. Itti. State-of-the-art in visual attention modeling. transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. J. M. Boyce, Y. Ye, J. Chen, and A. K. Ramasubramonian. Overview of SHVC: scalable extensions of the high efficiency video coding standard. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Techn., 26(1):20--34, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. C. Concolato, J. Le Feuvre, F. Denoual, F. Maze, N. Ouedraogo, and J. Taquet. Adaptive streaming of hevc tiled videos using mpeg-dash. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. X. Corbillon, A. Devlic, G. Simon, and J. Chakareski. Viewport-adaptive navigable 360-degree video delivery. CoRR, abs/1609.08042, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. X. Corbillon, F. De Simone, and G. Simon. 360-degree video head movement dataset. In Proc of ACM Multimedia Systems (MMSys). ACM, 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. P. Di, Q. Xie, and J. Alvarez. Adaptive streaming for fov switching. MPEG meeting, Oct. 2016. m39207.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. S. Dodge and L. Karam. Visual saliency prediction using a mixture of deep neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.00372, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. V. Gaddam, H. Ngo, R. Langseth, C. Griwodz, D. Johansen, and P. Halvorsen. Tiling of Panorama Video for Interactive Virtual Cameras: Overheads and Potential Bandwidth Requirement Reduction. In Picture Coding Symposium (PCS), 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. M. Hosseini and V. Swaminathan. Adaptive 360 VR video streaming based on MPEG-DASH SRD. In Proc. of IEEE ISM, pages 407--408, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. ISO/IEC 23000-20. Omnidirectional media application format (omaf) committe draft, January 2017. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/W11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. L. Itti. Automatic foveation for video compression using a neurobiological model of visual attention. Transactions on Image Processing, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. E. Kuzyakov. End-to-end optimizations for dynamic streaming. Blogpost, February 2017. https://code.facebook.com/posts/637561796428084.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. E. Kuzyakov and D. Pio. Next-generation video encoding techniques for 360 video and vr. Blogpost, January 2016. https://code.facebook.com/posts/1126354007399553.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. J. Le Feuvre and C. Concolato. Tiled-based Adaptive Streaming using MPEG-DASH. In ACM MMSys, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. J.-S. Lee, F. De Simone, and T. Ebrahimi. Efficient video coding based on audio-visual focus of attention. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation, 22(8):704--711, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. K. M. Misra, C. A. Segall, M. Horowitz, S. Xu, A. Fuldseth, and M. Zhou. An overview of tiles in HEVC. J. Sel. Topics Signal Proc., 7(6):969--977, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. O. A. Niamut, E. Thomas, L. D'Acunto, C. Concolato, F. Denoual, and S. Y. Lim. MPEG DASH SRD: spatial relationship description. In ACM MMSys, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. D. Ochi, Y. Kunita, A. Kameda, A. Kojima, and S. Iwaki. Live streaming system for omnidirectional video. In IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. F. Quan, B. Han, L. Ji, and V. Gopalakrishnan. Optimizing 360 video delivery over cellular networks. In ACM SIGCOMM AllThingsCellular, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Y. Sánchez, R. Skupin, and T. Schierl. Compressed domain video processing for tile based panoramic streaming using HEVC. In IEEE ICIP, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. K. K. Sreedhar, A. Aminlou, M. M. Hannuksela, and M. Gabbouj. Viewport-adaptive encoding and streaming of 360-degree video for virtual reality applications. In Proc. of IEEE ISM, pages 583--586, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. E. Thomas. Draft for ve on region and point description in omnidirectional content. MPEG meeting, Oct. 2016. m39576.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. H. Wang, V.-T. Nguyen, W. T. Ooi, and M. C. Chan. Mixing Tile Resolutions in Tiled Video: A Perceptual Quality Assessment. In Proc. of ACM NOSSDAV, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. R. G. Youvalari, A. Aminlou, M. M. Hannuksela, and M. Gabbouj. Efficient coding of 360-degree pseudo-cylindrical panoramic video for virtual reality applications. In Proc. of IEEE ISM, pages 525--528, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. M. Yu, H. Lakshman, and B. Girod. A Framework to Evaluate Omnidirectional Video Coding Schemes. In IEEE ISMAR, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. A. Zare, A. Aminlou, M. M. Hannuksela, and M. Gabbouj. Hevc-compliant tile-based streaming of panoramic video for virtual reality applications. In Proc. of ACM Conf. on Multimedia MM, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. A. Zare, K. K. Sreedhar, V. K. M. Vadakital, A. Aminlou, M. M. Hannuksela, and M. Gabbouj. Hevc-compliant viewport-adaptive streaming of stereoscopic panoramic video. In Picture Coding Symposium (PCS). IEEE, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. C. Zhou, Z. Li, and Y. Liu. A measurement study of oculus 360 degree video streaming. In Proc. of ACM MMSys, 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Optimal Set of 360-Degree Videos for Viewport-Adaptive Streaming

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        MM '17: Proceedings of the 25th ACM international conference on Multimedia
        October 2017
        2028 pages
        ISBN:9781450349062
        DOI:10.1145/3123266

        Copyright © 2017 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 19 October 2017

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        MM '17 Paper Acceptance Rate189of684submissions,28%Overall Acceptance Rate995of4,171submissions,24%

        Upcoming Conference

        MM '24
        MM '24: The 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia
        October 28 - November 1, 2024
        Melbourne , VIC , Australia

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader