A COMPARISION OF USER-END STRATEGIES IN 3D VIDEO TRANSMISSION

In 3D video transmission, the user Quality of Experience (QoE) can be greatly affected by network congestion or packet errors. In case of durable impairment within a view, the user-end could skip its impaired frames, or compensate its frames from the other view, or degrade its image resolution to ensure playback continuity. These operations have the inevitable leverage to Frame Loss (FL), Frame Compensation (FC) and Quality Fluctuation (QF). In this work, we compare the monocular and binocular impacts of FL, FC and QF on the user QoE of 3D High Definition (HD) videos. Among them, the QF is shown to be the preferable choice for subjects. We hope our findings could benefit the improvement of 3D HD video transmission.

[1]  Gabriel-Miro Muntean,et al.  An Innovative No-Reference Metric for Real-Time 3D Stereoscopic Video Quality Assessment , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting.

[2]  Weisi Lin,et al.  Perceptual Full-Reference Quality Assessment of Stereoscopic Images by Considering Binocular Visual Characteristics , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[3]  Chaminda T. E. R. Hewage,et al.  Quality of experience for 3D video streaming , 2013, IEEE Communications Magazine.

[4]  Tingting Jiang,et al.  Subjective quality assessment of mobile 3D videos , 2014, 2014 Sixth International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX).

[5]  David Budgen,et al.  Evaluating Subjective Impressions of Quality Controlled 3D Films on Large and Small Screens , 2015, Journal of Display Technology.

[6]  Wei Zhang,et al.  Toward a Reliable Collection of Eye-Tracking Data for Image Quality Research: Challenges, Solutions, and Applications , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[7]  Qionghai Dai,et al.  Models of Monocular and Binocular Visual Perception in Quality Assessment of Stereoscopic Images , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging.

[8]  Romain Cousseau,et al.  Subjective quality assessment of error concealment strategies for 3DTV in the presence of asymmetric transmission errors , 2010, 2010 18th International Packet Video Workshop.

[9]  Zhang Yu,et al.  A 3D subjective quality prediction model based on depth distortion , 2016 .

[10]  Ian Burnett,et al.  3D fatigue from stereoscopic 3D video displays: Comparing objective and subjective tests using electroencephalography , 2015, TENCON 2015 - 2015 IEEE Region 10 Conference.

[11]  Chaminda T. E. R. Hewage,et al.  Times Change, Stalling Stays: Subjective Quality Assessment over Time of Stalling in Autostereoscopic 3D Video Services , 2016, 2016 12th International Conference on Signal-Image Technology & Internet-Based Systems (SITIS).

[12]  Wei Zhou,et al.  3D-HEVC visual quality assessment: Database and bitstream model , 2016, 2016 Eighth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX).

[13]  Jacques G. Verly,et al.  Impact of image brightness reduction on perceived quality of 3D experience for 3D cinema spectators , 2016, 2016 International Conference on 3D Imaging (IC3D).

[14]  Yutaka Ishibashi,et al.  QoE assessment in tele-operation with 3D video and haptic media , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo.

[15]  Fernando Jaureguizar,et al.  Subjective assessment of the impact of transmission errors in 3DTV compared to HDTV , 2011, 2011 3DTV Conference: The True Vision - Capture, Transmission and Display of 3D Video (3DTV-CON).

[16]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[17]  Eduardo A. B. da Silva,et al.  An objective 3D quality assessment model to adjust stereo camera baseline , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP).

[18]  C.-C. Jay Kuo,et al.  Subjective and Objective Video Quality Assessment of 3D Synthesized Views With Texture/Depth Compression Distortion , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.