journal article·2024-08-10Open access

Video Quality Modelling—Comparison of the Classical and Machine Learning Techniques

Janusz Klink, Michał Łuczyński, Stefan Brachmański

Applied Sciences· Volume 14· Issue 16

Abstract

The classical objective methods of assessing video quality used so far, apart from their advantages, such as low costs, also have disadvantages. The need to eliminate these defects results in the search for better and better solutions. This article proposes a video quality assessment method based on machine learning using a linear regression model. A set of objective quality assessment metrics was used to train the model. The results obtained show that the prediction of video quality based on a machine learning model gives better results than the objective assessment based on individual metrics. The proposed model showed a strong correlation with the subjective user assessments but also a good fit of the regression function to the empirical data. It is an extension and improvement of the efficiency of the classical methods of objective quality assessment that have been used so far. The solution presented here will allow for a more accurate prediction of the video quality perceived by viewers based on an assessment carried out using a much cheaper, objective method.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Image and Video Quality Assessment · Advanced Image Processing Techniques · Advanced Image Fusion Techniques

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Telecommunications and Teleinformatics, Faculty of Information and Telecommunication Technology, Wrocław University of Science and Technology, Wybrzeże Wyspiańskiego 27, 50-370 Wrocław, Poland

Photonics and Microsystems Department of Acoustics, Multimedia and Signal Processing, Faculty of Electronics, Photonics and Microsystems, Wrocław University of Science and Technology, Wybrzeże Wyspiańskiego 27, 50-370 Wrocław, Poland

References (42)

Show source-provided references
1. Sandvine (2024, July 01). Video Permeates, Streaming Dominates. Phenomena. Global Internet Phenomena Report 2023. Available online: https://www.sandvine.com/hubfs/Sandvine_Redesign_2019/Downloads/2023/reports/Sandvine GIPR 2023.pdf.
2. Barnett, T.K., Jain, S., and Andra, U. (2024, June 30). Cisco Visual Networking Index (VNI) Complete Forecast Update, 2017–2022. WHITE Pap. Available online: https://www.ieee802.org/3/ad_hoc/bwa2/public/calls/19_0624/nowell_bwa_01_190624.pdf.
3. Ericsson (2024, June 30). Mobile Network Data Traffic Ericsson Mobility Report, no. EAB-22:010742 Uen Rev D. Available online: https://www.ericsson.com/49ed78/assets/local/reports-papers/mobility-report/documents/2024/ericsson-mobility-report-june-2024.pdf.
4. From QoS to QoE: A Tutorial on Video Quality Assessment10.1109/COMST.2014.2363139 ↗
5. Vranjes, M., Rimac-Drlje, S., and Zagar, D. (2007, January 12–14). Objective video quality metrics. Proceedings of the ELMAR 2007, Zadar, Croatia.10.1109/ELMAR.2007.4418797 ↗
6. Full-Reference Video Quality Assessment by Decoupling Detail Losses and Additive Impairments10.1109/TCSVT.2012.2190473 ↗
7. Reduced-reference video quality assessment of compressed video sequences10.1109/TCSVT.2012.2202049 ↗
8. Shahid, M., Rossholm, A., Lövström, B., and Zepernick, H.J. (2014). No-reference image and video quality assessment: A classification and review of recent approaches. Eurasip J. Image Video Process., 40.10.1186/1687-5281-2014-40 ↗
9. Syahbana, Y.A., Rahman, A.A., and Bakar, K.A. (2011, January 11–14). Aligned-PSNR (APSNR) for Objective Video Quality Measurement (VQM) in video stream over wireless and mobile network. Proceedings of the 2011 World Congress on Information and Communication Technologies (WICT 2011), Mumbai, India.10.1109/WICT.2011.6141267 ↗
10. Measurement of Objective Video Quality in Social Cloud Based on Reference Metric10.1155/2020/5028132 ↗
11. Kotevski, Z.G., and Mitrevski, P.J. (2024, June 10). Performance Assessment of Metrics for Video Quality Estimation. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233380838_Performance_Assessment_of_Metrics_for_Video_Quality_Estimation.
12. A universal image quality index10.1109/97.995823 ↗
13. Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity10.1109/TIP.2003.819861 ↗
14. Sheikh, H.R., and Bovik, A.C. (2004, January 17–21). Image information and visual quality. Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, Montreal, QC, USA.
15. Rassool, R. (2017, January 7–9). VMAF reproducibility: Validating a perceptual practical video quality metric. Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB), Caligari, Italy.10.1109/BMSB.2017.7986143 ↗
16. A New Standardized Method for Objectively Measuring Video Quality10.1109/TBC.2004.834028 ↗
17. Wang, T., Pervez, A., and Zou, H. (2010, January 26–28). VQM-based QoS/QoE mapping for streaming video. Proceedings of the 2010 3rd IEEE International Conference on Broadband Network and Multimedia Technology (IC-BNMT), Beijing, China.
18. Mean squared error: Love it or leave it? A new look at Signal Fidelity Measures10.1109/MSP.2008.930649 ↗
19. Performance comparison of video quality metrics10.1117/12.853442 ↗
20. Wang, Y. (2006). Survey of Objective Video Quality Measurements, EMC Corp.
21. Klink, J. (2024, June 20). Video Quality Assessment: Some Remarks on Selected Objective Metrics. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345806668_Video_Quality_Assessment_Some_Remarks_on_Selected_Objective_Metrics.
22. Min, X., Duan, H., Sun, W., Zhu, Y., and Zhai, G. (2024, February 22). Perceptual Video Quality Assessment: A Survey. Available online: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.03413.
23. Study of Subjective and Objective Quality Assessment of Audio-Visual Signals10.1109/TIP.2020.2988148 ↗
24. (2023). Methodologies for the Subjective Assessment of the Quality of Television Images. Standard No. ITU-R BT 500-15.
25. Comparison of Full Factorial and Optimal Experimental Design for Perceptual Evaluation of Audiovisual Quality10.17743/jaes.2022.0063 ↗
26. Lopez, J.P., Martin, D., Jimenez, D., and Menendez, J.M. (2018, January 26–29). Prediction and Modeling for No-Reference Video Quality Assessment Based on Machine Learning. Proceedings of the SITIS 2018—The 14th International Conference on Signal Image Technology & Internet Based Systems, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.10.1109/SITIS.2018.00019 ↗
27. Søgaard, J., Forchhammer, S., and Korhonen, J. (2015, January 26–28). Video quality assessment and machine learning: Performance and interpretability. Proceedings of the 2015 7th International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience, QoMEX 2015, Costa Navarino, Greece.10.1109/QoMEX.2015.7148149 ↗
28. Akoa, B.E., Simeu, E., and Lebowsky, F. (2013, January 25–28). Using artificial neural network for automatic assessment of video sequences. Proceedings of the 2013 27th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops, Barcelona, Spain.10.1109/WAINA.2013.191 ↗
29. Klink, J., Brachmański, S., and Łuczyński, M. (2023). Assessment of the Quality of Video Sequences Performed by Viewers at Home and in the Laboratory. Appl. Sci., 13.10.3390/app13085025 ↗
30. Mercat, A., Viitanen, M., and Vanne, J. UVG dataset: 50/120fps 4K sequences for video codec analysis and development. Proceedings of theMMSys’ 21: Proceedings of the 12th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference.
31. ITU-T Rec (2021). Infrastructure of Audiovisual Services-Coding of Moving Video, Advanced Video Coding for Generic Audiovisual Services. H.264, International Telecommunication Union.
32. (2023). High Efficiency Video Coding. Standard No. ITU-T Rec. H.265.
33. Grange, A., Peter, G., Design, A., Hunt, J., and Design, A. (2024, January 10). VP9 Bitstream & Decoding Process Specification. Available online: https://storage.googleapis.com/downloads.webmproject.org/docs/vp9/vp9-bitstream-specification-v0.6-20160331-draft.pdf.
34. Brachmański, S., and Klink, J. (2022, January 22–24). Subjective Assessment of the Quality of Video Sequences by the Young Viewers. Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Software, Telecommunications and Computer Networks (SoftCOM 2022), Split, Croatia.10.23919/SoftCOM55329.2022.9911375 ↗
35. (2021). Subjective Video Quality Assessment Methods for Multimedia Applications. Standard No. ITU-T Rec. P.910.
36. Elecard (2024, January 10). Elecard—Video Quality Estimator. Available online: https://www.elecard.com/.
37. Vranješ, D., Žagar, D., and Nemčić, O. (2019, January 5–7). Comparison of objective quality assessment methods for scalable video coding. Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Systems, Signals and Image Processing (IWSSIP), Osijek, Croatia.
38. Video quality evaluation methodology and verification testing of HEVC compression performance10.1109/TCSVT.2015.2477916 ↗
39. Objective video quality assessment methods: Video encoders comparison
40. (2024, January 15). The Video Quality Experts Group. Final Report from the Video Quality Experts Group on the Validation of Objective Models of Video Quality Assessment, Phase II (FR_TV2). 2003, no. March, 2003. Available online: http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10015195696/en/.
41. Visual-PSNR measure of image quality10.1016/j.jvcir.2014.01.008 ↗
42. Image information and visual quality10.1109/TIP.2005.859378 ↗