V-Factor Competitive Advantage October 2008. End-to-End Solution  Headend to CPE monitoring is a great value proposition  Control the delivery chain.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Ensuring High-quality
Advertisements

IPTV Technology Team 3 – Christopher Monclova, Rafael Leefoon, Nick Adasi, Robb Zucker & Oscar Ucedo.
Doc.: IEEE /0965r1 Submission July 2006 Royce Fernald - Intel CorporationSlide 1 Video Performance Notice: This document has been prepared to.
Presented by Santhi Priya Eda Vinutha Rumale.  Introduction  Approaches  Video Streaming Traffic Model  QOS in WiMAX  Video Traffic Classification.
“POLITEHNICA” UNIVERSITY OF TIMIOARA FACULTY OF ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS DIPLOMA THESIS VIDEO QUALITY ASSESSMENT.
Streaming Video over the Internet: Approaches and Directions Dapeng Wu, Yiwei Thomas Hou et al. Presented by: Abhishek Gupta
ATM service types CBR (Constant Bit Rate)
Streaming Media. Unicast Redundant traffic Multicast One to many.
CSc 461/561 CSc 461/561 Multimedia Systems 0. Introduction.
Streaming Video Gabriel Nell UC Berkeley. Outline Scalable MPEG-4 video – Layered coding method – Integrated transport-decoder buffer model RAP streaming.
Media Streaming Protocols Presented by: Janice Ng and Yekaterina Tsipenyuk May 29 th, 2003 CSE 228: Multimedia Systems.
Statistical Multiplexer of VBR video streams By Ofer Hadar Statistical Multiplexer of VBR video streams By Ofer Hadar.
G. Valenzise *, M. Tagliasacchi *, S. Tubaro *, L. Piccarreta Picture Coding Symposium 2007 November 7-9, 2007 – Lisboa, Portugal * Dipartimento di Elettronica.
Variable Bit Rate Video Coding April 18, 2002 (Compressed Video over Networks: Chapter 9)
Measuring Quality of Experience for Successful IPTV Deployments Dr. Stefan Winkler.
MPEG-2 Transport streams tMyn1 MPEG-2 Transport streams The MPEG-2 Systems Standard specifies two methods for multiplexing the audio, video and other data.
RTP/RTCP – Real Time Transport Protocol/ Real Time Control Protocol Presented by Manoj Sivakumar.
Video Capacity of WLANs with a Multiuser Perceptual Quality Constraint Authors: Jing Hu, Sayantan Choudhury, Jerry D. Gibson Presented by: Vishwas Sathyaprakash,
©2013 Avaya Inc. All rights reservedFebruary 26-28, 2013 | Orlando, FL.
Providing Controlled Quality Assurance in Video Streaming across the Internet Yingfei Dong, Zhi-Li Zhang and Rohit Rakesh Computer Networking and Multimedia.
Audio/Video compression More about video compression and MPEG Alain Bouffioux December, 20, 2006.
MPEG: (Moving Pictures Expert Group) A Video Compression Standard for Multimedia Applications Seo Yeong Geon Dept. of Computer Science in GNU.
MPEG Motion Picture Expert Group Moving Picture Encoded Group Prateek raj gautam(725/09)
Computing Department A Utility-based QoS Model for Emerging Multimedia Applications Mu Mu, Andreas Mauthe Computing Department, Lancaster University Lancaster,
Establishing and Maintaining Broadcast Quality Video over IP Yannick LE DREAU 4 September 2010.
Computer Networks: Multimedia Applications Ivan Marsic Rutgers University Chapter 3 – Multimedia & Real-time Applications.
Infrastructures and Obstacles for Reliable Delivery
Streaming Stored Audio and Video (1) and Video (1) Advanced Multimedia University of Palestine University of Palestine Eng. Wisam Zaqoot Eng. Wisam Zaqoot.
Object Based Processing for Privacy Protected Surveillance Karl Martin Kostas N. Plataniotis University of Toronto Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering.
Content Clustering Based Video Quality Prediction Model for MPEG4 Video Streaming over Wireless Networks Asiya Khan, Lingfen Sun & Emmanuel Ifeachor 16.
1 Lecture 17 – March 21, 2002 Content-delivery services. Multimedia services Reminder  next week individual meetings and project status report are due.
V-Factor QoE Platform Q-1000 Solution Overview. PAGE 2© COPYRIGHT SYMMETRICOM ( ) V-Factor Components Headend AnalyzerNetwork Probes Software.
DISTRI Meeting / Copyright: MAYAH Communications, 2006 IO [io] 8000 / 8001 Copyright: MAYAH Communications, 2006 Table of contents  Management.
The Way Forward Factors Driving Video Conferencing Dr. Jan Linden, VP of Engineering Global IP Solutions.
A T M (QoS).
QoE Division Yves Cognet CTO Quality of Experience metrics for IPTV.
1 o characteristics – From an application-level API to the physical layer – CBR, VBR, ABR and UBR – Cell: bytes – Virtual circuits: virtual channel.
Pravin Rajamoney CSE-581 Network Technology
QART Presentation – July Videosurveillance Streams Rate Time Series Videosurveillance Streams, when encoded with traditional H.264 encoders, at.
1 Making Networks Smarter. Trends Everything is moving to the network –Telephony –Video –Web services (and further.
AGH and Lancaster University. Assess based on visibility of individual packet loss –Frame level: Frame dependency, GoP –MB level: Number of affected MBs/slices.
LOG Objectives  Describe some of the VoIP implementation challenges such as Delay/Latency, Jitter, Echo, and Packet Loss  Describe the voice encoding.
Carnegie Mellon. Carnegie Mellon Video I Carnegie Mellon Digital Video Size quality Broadcast quality is very different from www MPEG-2 is satellite.
Scalable Video Coding and Transport Over Broad-band wireless networks Authors: D. Wu, Y. Hou, and Y.-Q. Zhang Source: Proceedings of the IEEE, Volume:
Video Multicast over the Internet Presented by: Liang-Yuh Wu Lung-Yuan Wu Hao-Hsiang Ku 12 / 6 / 2001 Bell Lab. And Georgia Institute of Technologies IEEE.
Technologies, products, services and advantages vs competitors November 2013.
AIMS’99 Workshop Heidelberg, May 1999 Assessing Audio Visual Quality P905 - AQUAVIT Assessment of Quality for audio-visual signals over Internet.
Ch 6. Multimedia Networking Myungchul Kim
1 Objective Video Quality Models for HEVC. 2 Introduction ITU-T SG9 and ITU-R WP6C have successfully developed a number of Recommendations All the Recommendations.
Multiplexing Team Members: Cesar Chavez Arne Solas Steven Fong Vi Duong David Nguyen.
TSG-C SWG1.2 Multimedia Services 1/21 3GPP2 Evolution Workshop Multimedia Codecs and Protocols 3GPP2 TSG-C SWG1.2.
Audio Streaming © Nanda Ganesan, Ph.D.. Audio File Features Audio file is a record of captured sound that can be played back –The WAV File is an example.
Ch 6. Multimedia Networking Myungchul Kim
Overview of Digital Video Compression Multimedia Systems and Standards S2 IF Telkom University.
3GPP2 Evolution Workshop Multimedia Codecs and Protocols 3GPP2 TSG-C SWG1.2.
Alan Clark Telchemy Modeling the effects of Burst Packet Loss and Recency on Subjective Voice Quality Alan Clark Telchemy
Introduction to Quality of Service Klara Nahrstedt CS 538.
Objective Quality Assessment Metrics for Video Codecs - Sridhar Godavarthy.
The Internet and Real-Time Applications Identifying Voice Transmission and Switching Issues for Packet Data Networks S. Wood Nov Copyright 2006 Modern.
Multimedia Communication Systems Techniques, Standards, and Networks Chapter 6 Multimedia Communication Across Networks.
ITU Workshop on QoS and QoE of Multimedia Applications and Services Haarlem, The Netherlands 9-11 May 2016 Standards for video QoE assessment Paul Coverdale.
Networked Multimedia Basics. Network Characteristics.
MDC METHOD FOR HDTV TRANSMISSION OVER EXISTING IP NETWORK
Video Performance Authors: July 2006 Month Year
RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications
Video Compression - MPEG
Multimedia networking: outline
CIS679: MPEG-2 Review of MPEG-1 MPEG-2 Multimedia and networking.
Standards Presentation ECE 8873 – Data Compression and Modeling
Multimedia networking: outline
Presentation transcript:

V-Factor Competitive Advantage October 2008

End-to-End Solution  Headend to CPE monitoring is a great value proposition  Control the delivery chain across multiple realms:  Video realm: Headend  Network realm: Core/Access network  User realm: CPE  Allows controlling the delivery of value-added services and content  Allows faster root-cause fault analysis by segmenting the delivery chain  But what about the input to the delivery chain?

Source Video Analysis Existing solutions  What operators use for source quality control today  Nothing at all  Subjective tests  Manual quality check (technician, golden eye)  Network/Transport stream-based monitoring solutions  Full-reference video test solutions  Open questions  Scalability: How can I monitor 100s of channels in parallel?  Efficiency: Does my quality assurance process leverage my infrastructure and expertise?  Objectivity: How questionable is my quality assurance process?  Repeatability: – fatigue, expert opinion, quality test sampling, etc…

Source Video Analysis V-Factor  V-Factor is ideal to validate source video quality  Automated source video testing  Pre- and post-encoder monitoring  Managed monitoring solution (Q-1200)  Emulates Human Visual System (HVS) – high correlation with subjective tests  Repeatable, objective results  Non-intrusive and real-time  Video Mean Opinion Score (MOS) – similar to voice/audio test  Additional metrics to facilitate issue identification  Blockiness  Blur  Jerkiness

Network impairments  Loss  Jitter  Bandwidth A/Video artifacts (source, compressed)  Blockiness  Blur  Pixelation, bad audio  Freezes, black frame Human Vision System model Score Transport issues  Sync  Multiplex  Bandwidth In order to be accurate and pertinent, A/V content artifacts and network - A/V transports impairments must be detected. Q-Advisor Correlation

Network impairments  Loss  Jitter  Bandwidth A/Video artifacts (source, compressed)  Blockiness  Blur  Pixelation, bad audio  Freezes, black frame Human Vision System model Score When the stream is encrypted, content is not accessible Transport issues  Sync  Multiplex  Bandwidth Only network and A/V transport metrics are available Without correlation, only network and A/V transport impairments can be monitored. Correlation between upstream and downstream metrics remove this limitation. Q-Advisor Correlation

Network impairments  Loss  Jitter  Bandwidth A/Video artifacts (source, compressed)  Blockiness  Blur  Pixelation, bad audio  Freezes, black frame Transport issues  Sync  Multiplex  Bandwidth Network and A/V transport impairments are monitored downstream for all encrypted programs. Content artifacts are monitored upstream before encryption. Q-Advisor Correlation Symmetricom patent pending solution overcomes all limitations when the video contents are encrypted. It combines both DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) in the headend and correlation downstream using MPEG2TS time stamps Content metrics are captured in the headend Network and A/V transport metrics are captured in the network

Time stamps are used for synchronizing downstream and upstream metrics for each program (patent pending) Q-Advisor V-Factor ® Aggregation/Correlation Loss Model Entropy Content Probes (w DPI) Codec type, I/B/P/S, Quantizer bandwidth, video quality, etc Network Probes (w DPI) Transport Stream analysis (PCR, Out of sequence), network jitter, loss Correlation Engine TSi = I-Frame TSi = Packet Loss Packet Loss : I-Frame Human Vision System model

V-Factor vs MDI Network conditions MDI indicates good video quality while V- Factor indicates poor video quality Both indicate good video quality

V-Factor vs MDI Variable Bitrate – Symmetricom Lab Video – Spiderman  Standard Definition  Video Coding: H.264  Audio Coding: MPEG-4  Encoder: SW  Streamer: Tektronix  Bit rate: 4% Variable  Q-400 –Video Jitter Buffer: 50 –Audio Jitter Buffer: 50 –Quantization: 36 MDI metrics (MLR-DF) are not a reliable video quality metric on VBR

V-Factor vs MDI Variable Bitrate – Major MSO Live Network Same source content with CBR encoding (top) and VBR encoding (bottom) V-Factor is suited for both CBR and VBR content. MDI is designed for CBR content – Alarm flood for VBR content V-Factor is suited for both CBR and VBR content. MDI is designed for CBR content – Alarm flood for VBR content

V-Factor vs MDI Variable Bitrate – Major MSO Live Network Same channel before (top) and after (bottom) encoder fault isolation. MPEG-2 quantizer value set to 30 (top), and adaptative 7 to 23 (bottom) V-Factor can detect headend issues even in the network. DPI provides content monitoring when MDI provides network monitoring only.