Submitted:
15 February 2024
Posted:
15 February 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Related work
3. Motivation
4. Methodology
5. The methods of proposed model
6. Results
6.1. Description of the dataset
- Dynamic road traffic-dynamic camera motion - frequent traffic at higher vehicle speeds (name in our database: Sc1)
- Dynamic road traffic-static camera motion (Sc2)
- Parking lot-dynamic camera motion - less dynamic movement of cars in a parking lot (Sc8)
- Parking lot-static camera motion (Sc3)
- Road traffic-busy traffic at lower vehicle speeds (Sc4)
- Traffic roundabout-dynamic camera motion - traffic on a roundabout (Sc5)
- Traffic roundabout with a parking lot - a dynamic part of the scene with slow movement in the parking lot (Sc6)
- Traffic roundabout-static camera motion-traffic on a roundabout (Sc10)
- Train station-train leaving the station (Sc7)
- Dynamic train-train in dynamic motion (Sc9)
- Trolleybus-trolleybus arriving at a public transport stop
- Dynamic trolleybus-trolleybus in dynamic driving
- The University town-university town (movement of people)
- Waving flags-flags flying in the university town
6.2. Encoding of the reference videosequences
- ffmpeg -i input_sequence -vf scale=resolution -c:v codec -b:v 15000k -maxrate 15000k -bufsize 15000k -an -pix_fmt yuv420p -framerate 50 SeqName.ts
- -i is used to import video from the selected file.
- -vf scale is used to specify the resolution of the video. In our case, this parameter was changed for Full HD resolution (1920x1080) and UHD resolution (3840x2160).
- -c:v is used to change the video codec, we used two codecs, H.264/AVC, which is written libx264, and the H.265/HEVC codec, which is written libx265.
- -b:v is used to select the bitrate, we varied this parameter to 5, 10, and 15Mbps.
- -maxrate is used to set the maximum bit rate tolerance. It requires buffsize in the settings.
- -bufsize is used to choose the buffer.
- -an is a parameter that removes the audio track from the video.
- pix_fmt is the parameter to select the subsampling.
- -framerate is used to set the number of frames per second.
6.3. Objective quality evaluation
6.4. Subjective quality evaluation
6.5. Correlation between Objective and Subjective assesment
7. Discussion
8. Conclusion
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sevcik, L. UHD database focus on smart cities and smart transport, 2024. [CrossRef]
- Mercat, A.; Viitanen, M.; Vanne, J. UVG dataset: 50/120fps 4K sequences for video codec analysis and development. Proceedings of the 11th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference. ACM, 2020, MMSys ’20. [CrossRef]
- Song, L.; Tang, X.; Zhang, W.; Yang, X.; Xia, P. The SJTU 4K video sequence dataset. 2013 Fifth International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX). IEEE, 2013. [CrossRef]
- Ghadiyaram, D.; Pan, J.; Bovik, A.C. A Subjective and Objective Study of Stalling Events in Mobile Streaming Videos. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 2019, 29, 183–197. [CrossRef]
- Hosu, V.; Hahn, F.; Jenadeleh, M.; Lin, H.; Men, H.; Sziranyi, T.; Li, S.; Saupe, D. The Konstanz natural video database (KoNViD-1k). 2017 Ninth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX). IEEE, 2017. [CrossRef]
- Bampis, C.G.; Li, Z.; Katsavounidis, I.; Huang, T.Y.; Ekanadham, C.; Bovik, A. Towards Perceptually Optimized End-to-end Adaptive Video Streaming. arXiv: Image and Video Processing 2018.
- Ghadiyaram, D.; Pan, J.; Bovik, A.C.; Moorthy, A.K.; Panda, P.; Yang, K.C. In-Capture Mobile Video Distortions: A Study of Subjective Behavior and Objective Algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 2018, 28, 2061–2077. [CrossRef]
- Duanmu, Z.; Ma, K.; Wang, Z. Quality-of-Experience for Adaptive Streaming Videos: An Expectation Confirmation Theory Motivated Approach. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 2018, 27, 6135–6146. [CrossRef]
- Sinno, Z.; Bovik, A.C. Large-Scale Study of Perceptual Video Quality. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 2019, 28, 612–627. [CrossRef]
- Long, C.; Cao, Y.; Jiang, T.; Zhang, Q. Edge Computing Framework for Cooperative Video Processing in Multimedia IoT Systems. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 2018, 20, 1126–1139. [CrossRef]
- Li, M.; Chen, H.L. Energy-Efficient Traffic Regulation and Scheduling for Video Streaming Services Over LTE-A Networks. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing 2019, 18, 334–347. [CrossRef]
- Grajek, T.; Stankowski, J.; Karwowski, D.; Klimaszewski, K.; Stankiewicz, O.; Wegner, K. Analysis of Video Quality Losses in Homogeneous HEVC Video Transcoding. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 96764–96774. [CrossRef]
- Ramachandra Rao, R.R.; Goring, S.; Robitza, W.; Feiten, B.; Raake, A. AVT-VQDB-UHD-1: A Large Scale Video Quality Database for UHD-1. 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia (ISM). IEEE, 2019. [CrossRef]
- Bouaafia, S.; Khemiri, R.; Sayadi, F.E. Rate-Distortion Performance Comparison: VVC vs. HEVC. 2021 18th International Multi-Conference on Systems, Signals & Devices (SSD). IEEE, 2021. [CrossRef]
- Mercat, A.; Makinen, A.; Sainio, J.; Lemmetti, A.; Viitanen, M.; Vanne, J. Comparative Rate-Distortion-Complexity Analysis of VVC and HEVC Video Codecs. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 67813–67828. [CrossRef]
- García-Lucas, D.; Cebrián-Márquez, G.; Cuenca, P. Rate-distortion/complexity analysis of HEVC, VVC and AV1 video codecs. Multimedia Tools and Applications 2020, 79, 29621–29638. [CrossRef]
- Topiwala, P.; Krishnan, M.; Dai, W. Performance comparison of VVC, AV1 and EVC. Applications of Digital Image Processing XLII; Tescher, A.G.; Ebrahimi, T., Eds. SPIE, 2019. [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.; Wieckowski, A.; Bross, B.; Marpe, D. Objective Evaluation of the Practical Video Encoders VVenC, x265, and aomenc AV1. 2021 Picture Coding Symposium (PCS). IEEE, 2021. [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.; Marpe, D. Compression efficiency analysis of AV1, VVC, and HEVC for random access applications. APSIPA Transactions on Signal and Information Processing 2021, 10. [CrossRef]
- Valiandi, I.; Panayides, A.S.; Kyriacou, E.; Pattichis, C.S.; Pattichis, M.S., A Comparative Performance Assessment of Different Video Codecs. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023; p. 265–275. [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.; Marpe, D. Future Video Coding Technologies: A Performance Evaluation of AV1, JEM, VP9, and HM. 2018 Picture Coding Symposium (PCS). IEEE, 2018. [CrossRef]
- Pourazad, M.T.; Sung, T.; Hu, H.; Wang, S.; Tohidypour, H.R.; Wang, Y.; Nasiopoulos, P.; Leung, V.C. Comparison of Emerging Video Compression Schemes for Efficient Transmission of 4K and 8K HDR Video. 2021 IEEE International Mediterranean Conference on Communications and Networking (MeditCom). IEEE, 2021. [CrossRef]
- Grois, D.; Giladi, A.; Choi, K.; Park, M.W.; Piao, Y.; Park, M.; Choi, K.P. Performance Comparison of Emerging EVC and VVC Video Coding Standards with HEVC and AV1. SMPTE 2020 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. IEEE, 2020. [CrossRef]
- Haiqiang Wang, I.K. VideoSet: A Large-Scale Compressed Video Quality Dataset Based on JND Measurement, 2016. [CrossRef]
- Karthikeyan, V.; Allan, B.; Nauck, D.D.; Rio, M. Benchmarking Video Service Quality: Quantifying the Viewer Impact of Loss-Related Impairments. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management 2020, 17, 1640–1652. [CrossRef]
- Kazemi, M.; Ghanbari, M.; Shirmohammadi, S. The Performance of Quality Metrics in Assessing Error-Concealed Video Quality. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 2020, 29, 5937–5952. [CrossRef]
- Diaz, C.; Perez, P.; Cabrera, J.; Ruiz, J.J.; Garcia, N. XLR (piXel Loss Rate): A Lightweight Indicator to Measure Video QoE in IP Networks. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management 2020, 17, 1096–1109. [CrossRef]
- Silva, C.A.G.D.; Pedroso, C.M. MAC-Layer Packet Loss Models for Wi-Fi Networks: A Survey. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 180512–180531. [CrossRef]
- Neves, F.; Soares, S.; Assuncao, P.A.A. Optimal voice packet classification for enhanced VoIP over priority-enabled networks. Journal of Communications and Networks 2018, 20, 554–564. [CrossRef]
- Katsenou, A.V.; Dimitrov, G.; Ma, D.; Bull, D.R. BVI-SynTex: A Synthetic Video Texture Dataset for Video Compression and Quality Assessment. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 2021, 23, 26–38. [CrossRef]
- Badidi, E.; Moumane, K.; Ghazi, F.E. Opportunities, Applications, and Challenges of Edge-AI Enabled Video Analytics in Smart Cities: A Systematic Review. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 80543–80572. [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.Y.; Lin, Y.H.; Hu, Y.C.; Hsia, C.H.; Lian, Y.A.; Jhong, S.Y. Distributed Real-Time Object Detection Based on Edge-Cloud Collaboration for Smart Video Surveillance Applications. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 93745–93759. [CrossRef]
- Yun, Q.; Leng, C. Intelligent Control of Urban Lighting System Based on Video Image Processing Technology. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 155506–155518. [CrossRef]
- Smida, E.B.; Fantar, S.G.; Youssef, H. Video streaming challenges over vehicular ad-hoc networks in smart cities. 2017 International Conference on Smart, Monitored and Controlled Cities (SM2C). IEEE, 2017. [CrossRef]
- Duan, Z.; Yang, Z.; Samoilenko, R.; Oza, D.S.; Jagadeesan, A.; Sun, M.; Ye, H.; Xiong, Z.; Zussman, G.; Kostic, Z. Smart City Traffic Intersection: Impact of Video Quality and Scene Complexity on Precision and Inference. 2021 IEEE 23rd Int Conf on High Performance Computing & Communications; 7th Int Conf on Data Science & Systems; 19th Int Conf on Smart City; 7th Int Conf on Dependability in Sensor, Cloud & Big Data Systems & Application (HPCC/DSS/SmartCity/DependSys). IEEE, 2021. [CrossRef]
- Malik, M.; Prabha, C.; Soni, P.; Arya, V.; Alhalabi, W.A.; Gupta, B.B.; Albeshri, A.A.; Almomani, A. Machine Learning-Based Automatic Litter Detection and Classification Using Neural Networks in Smart Cities. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 2023, 19, 1–20. [CrossRef]
- Li, B.; Zhang, W.; Tian, M.; Zhai, G.; Wang, X. Blindly Assess Quality of In-the-Wild Videos via Quality-Aware Pre-Training and Motion Perception. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 2022, 32, 5944–5958. [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.; Roh, H.; Lee, N. Enhanced quality adaptation scheme for improving QoE of MPEG DASH. 2017 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology Convergence (ICTC). IEEE, 2017. [CrossRef]
- Chang, S.H.; Wang, K.J.; Ho, J.M. Optimal DASH Video Scheduling over Variable-Bit-Rate Networks. 2018 9th International Symposium on Parallel Architectures, Algorithms and Programming (PAAP). IEEE, 2018. [CrossRef]
- Mizdos, T.; Barkowsky, M.; Uhrina, M.; Pocta, P. How to reuse existing annotated image quality datasets to enlarge available training data with new distortion types. Multimedia Tools and Applications 2021, 80, 28137–28159. [CrossRef]
- Sevcik, L.; Voznak, M. Adaptive Reservation of Network Resources According to Video Classification Scenes. Sensors 2021, 21, 1949. [CrossRef]
- ITU-T. Recommendation ITU-T P.800.1 - Mean opinion score (MOS) terminology. [online] Available: https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-P.800.1 2016.
- ITU-T. Recommendation ITU-T P.1204.5 - Video quality assessment of streaming services over reliable transport for resolutions up to 4K with access to transport and received pixel information. [online] Available: https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-P.910-200804-I/en 2023.











| Resolution | Ultra HD (3840×2160) |
|---|---|
| Compression standard | H.265/HEVC |
| Bitrate | 120 Mbps |
| Video Frame Rates | 50 fps (Frames per Second) |
| Subsampling | 4:2:0 |
| Bit depth | 8b |
| max SI | max TI | |
|---|---|---|
| Sc1 | 90.8834 | 35.9334 |
| Sc2 | 83.8965 | 6.29607 |
| Sc3 | 85.1865 | 5.19369 |
| Sc4 | 88.624 | 19.3205 |
| Sc5 | 72.303 | 22.8181 |
| Sc6 | 74.9079 | 11.1935 |
| Sc7 | 96.9839 | 16.6872 |
| Sc8 | 78.7106 | 5.47847 |
| Sc9 | 87.0767 | 24.1257 |
| Sc10 | 76.3554 | 5.06084 |
| Resolution | Full HD, Ultra HD |
|---|---|
| Compression standard | H.264/AVC, H.265/HEVC |
| Bitrate [Mbps] | 5, 10, 15 |
| Frames per Second | 50 fps |
| Subsampling | 4:2:0 |
| Bit depth | 8b |
| MOS score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Average value | |
| Sequence 1: (15 Mbps, H.264, UHD) | 0 times | 6 times | 11 times | 9 times | 4 times | 3,37 |
| Sequence 2: (10 Mbps, H.264, UHD) | 2 | 7 | 14 | 7 | 0 | 2,87 |
| Sequence 3: (15 Mbps, H.264, Full HD) | 10 | 8 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 2,27 |
| Sequence 4: (10 Mbps, H.264, Full HD) | 1 | 5 | 15 | 8 | 1 | 3,1 |
| Sequence 5: (15 Mbps, H.265, UHD) | 0 | 3 | 7 | 11 | 9 | 3,87 |
| Sequence 6: (10 Mbps, H.265, UHD) | 2 | 6 | 10 | 9 | 3 | 3,17 |
| Sequence 7: (15 Mbps, H.265, Full HD) | 4 | 6 | 11 | 8 | 1 | 2,87 |
| Sequence 8: (10 Mbps, H.265, Full HD) | 2 | 6 | 10 | 9 | 3 | 3,17 |
| Sequence 9: (5 Mbps, H.264, UHD) | 20 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1,43 |
| Sequence 10: (5 Mbps, H.265, UHD) | 3 | 7 | 12 | 6 | 2 | 2,9 |
| Sequence 11: (5 Mbps, H.264, Full HD) | 7 | 7 | 9 | 7 | 0 | 2,53 |
| Sequence 12: (5 Mbps, H.265, Full HD) | 1 | 11 | 8 | 8 | 2 | 2,97 |
| Sc1 | Sc9 | Sc10 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MOS | SSIM | MOS | SSIM | MOS | SSIM | |
| Sequence 1: (15 Mbps, H.264, UHD) | 3,8 | 0,929 | 2,27 | 0,968 | 3,6 | 0,962 |
| Sequence 2: (10 Mbps, H.264, UHD) | 3,43 | 0,903 | 3,1 | 0,961 | 3,57 | 0,955 |
| Sequence 5: (15 Mbps, H.265, UHD) | 3,6 | 0,942 | 2,87 | 0,974 | 3,73 | 0,971 |
| Sequence 6: (10 Mbps, H.265, UHD) | 3,47 | 0,929 | 3,17 | 0,969 | 3,67 | 0,967 |
| Sequence 9: (5 Mbps, H.264, UHD) | 1,67 | 0,82 | 2,53 | 0,938 | 2,73 | 0,928 |
| Sequence 10: (5 Mbps, H.265, UHD) | 3,63 | 0,894 | 2,97 | 0,953 | 3,57 | 0,956 |
| Pearson correlation coefficient | 0,917 | 0,981 | 0,968 | |||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).