MPEG-4/AVC versus MPEG-2 in IPTV

Stefan Paulsen, Tadeus Uhl, Krzysztof Nowicki

Abstract

This paper is essentially a treatment of the theoretical and practical aspects of the new IPTV service. The central part of the paper constitutes a detailed presentation of analysis scenarios and results, and addresses the following issues in particular: What influence does the encoding rate have of on QoE values? What effect does the most obtrusive impairment factor in a network, i.e. packet loss, have on QoE in IPTV? Is the MPEG-2 Transport Stream suitable for encapsulation and transport of MPEG-4/AVC content? Are there alternatives to the ISO/IEC 13818-1 Transport Stream? If so, how do they affect quality of service (QoE)?

References

  1. ISO/IEC 13818-2, 1995. Information technology -- Generic coding of moving pictures and associated audio information, http://cutebugs.net/files/mpegdrafts/is138182.pdf, page last viewed Mai 2012.
  2. ITU-T H.264, 2007. The Advanced Video Coding Standard, http://www-ee.uta.edu/Dip/Courses/EE5359 /H.264%20Standard2007.pdf, page last viewed Mai 2012.
  3. ISO/IEC 13818-1, 2000. Generic coding of moving pictures and associated audio information: Systems, http://mumudvb.braice.net/mumudrupal/sites/default/fi les/iso13818-1.pdf, page last viewed Mai 2012.
  4. IETF RFC 2250, 1998. RTP Payload Format for MPEG1/MPEG2 Video, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc 2250.txt, page last viewed Mai 2012.
  5. IETF RFC 3984, 2005. RTP Payload Format for H.264 Video, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3984.txt, page last viewed Mai 2012.
  6. FFmpeg (current Window builds), http://ffmpeg.zeranoe. com/builds, page last viewed March 2012.
  7. IETF RFC 3640, 2003. RTP Payload Format for Transport of MPEG-4 Elementary Streams, http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3640.html, page last viewed Mai 2012.
  8. ITU-T H.241, 2006. Extended video procedures and control signals for H.300-series terminals, http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.241-200605-I/en¸ page last viewed Mai 2012.
  9. Company “Opticom”, http://www.opticom.de, page last viewed Mai 2012.
  10. MacAulay, A., Felts, B., Fisher, Y., 2005. IP Streaming of MPEG-4: Native RTP vs. MPEG-2 Transport Stream, http://www.envivio.com/files/white-papers/RTPvsTSv4.pdf, page last viewed Mai 2012.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Paulsen S., Uhl T. and Nowicki K. (2012). MPEG-4/AVC versus MPEG-2 in IPTV . In Proceedings of the International Conference on Signal Processing and Multimedia Applications and Wireless Information Networks and Systems - Volume 1: SIGMAP, (ICETE 2012) ISBN 978-989-8565-25-9, pages 27-30. DOI: 10.5220/0004013700270030


in Bibtex Style

@conference{sigmap12,
author={Stefan Paulsen and Tadeus Uhl and Krzysztof Nowicki},
title={MPEG-4/AVC versus MPEG-2 in IPTV},
booktitle={Proceedings of the International Conference on Signal Processing and Multimedia Applications and Wireless Information Networks and Systems - Volume 1: SIGMAP, (ICETE 2012)},
year={2012},
pages={27-30},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0004013700270030},
isbn={978-989-8565-25-9},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the International Conference on Signal Processing and Multimedia Applications and Wireless Information Networks and Systems - Volume 1: SIGMAP, (ICETE 2012)
TI - MPEG-4/AVC versus MPEG-2 in IPTV
SN - 978-989-8565-25-9
AU - Paulsen S.
AU - Uhl T.
AU - Nowicki K.
PY - 2012
SP - 27
EP - 30
DO - 10.5220/0004013700270030