With the increasing popularity of viewing and/or listening to content, such as music, shows, and movies, over the Internet, there is a need for optimizing the client's viewing experience. Because the Internet is a variable bitrate channel without dedicated bandwidth between the server and client, it is important to adjust the bitrate of the content being sent to the client.
For bitrate-switching streaming solutions that rely on server-side awareness of the needs of each specific client, additional server-side resources may be required. For example, locating bitrate selection decision making at the server may require additional server-side software and/or hardware resources. In addition, servers may require information about clients, such as client capabilities (e.g., hardware and software), and network bandwidth information.
Client bitrate selection of streaming media can be a complex problem. One solution is for a client to adjust its buffer to account for startup-delay and changes in network bandwidth during downloading of a fixed-bitrate stream covering a program. However, this solution can lead to rebuffering situations which interrupt the client viewing experience.
Therefore, there exists ample opportunity for improvement in technologies related to client side rate control and indexed file layout for streaming media.
In summary, the detailed description is directed to various techniques and solutions for optimized client side rate control and indexed file layout for streaming media.
According to one aspect of the techniques and solutions described herein, an indexed file layout for segmented streaming of multimedia content comprises one or more files containing index information for a program. The index information can comprise program description information describing the program and streaming segment index information describing each streaming segment of the program. In addition, the layout can comprise one or more file containing streaming segments of the program, where the streaming segments are each encoded at one or more bitrates independently of other streaming segments of the program. The layout supports client switching between different bitrates at segment boundaries.
According to another aspect of the techniques and solutions described herein, a method for optimizing client-side rate control of streaming content comprises, for each of a plurality of states, selecting one or more available paths that end in the state, where the one or more available paths are those paths ending in the state that satisfy a constraint condition, selecting a best path to the state from the one or more available paths (e.g., based on a cost measure such as a distortion measure), and eliminating as available all of the one or more available paths other than the best path. The method can also comprise downloading (e.g., by a client from a server) one or more streaming segments encoded at bitrates corresponding to the best path through the plurality of states, where each of the plurality of states corresponds to a specific bitrate of a specific streaming segment.
According to yet another aspect of the techniques and solutions described herein, a method for optimizing client-side rate control of streaming content comprises, for each of a plurality of states, selecting one or more available paths that end in the state, where the one or more available paths are those paths ending in the state that satisfy a constraint condition, and retaining the one or more available paths as possible paths to be included in a best end-to-end path. The method also comprises performing an end-to-end analysis of the possible paths to determine the best end-to-end path, where the best end-to-end path has the lowest overall distortion. The method can also comprise downloading (e.g., by a client from a server) one or more streaming segments encoded at bitrates corresponding to the best end-to-end path through the plurality of states, where each of the plurality of states corresponds to a measure of client buffer fullness for a specific bitrate of a specific streaming segment.
The described techniques and tools for solutions for optimized client side rate control and indexed file layout can be implemented separately or in combination.
The following description is directed to techniques and solutions for optimized client side rate control and indexed file layout for segmented streaming of multimedia content. The various techniques and solutions can be used in combination or independently. Different embodiments can implement one or more of the described techniques and solutions.
Program. A program is a self-contained piece of audio and/or video (e.g., multimedia) content. A program can contain multiple audio and/or video tracks. For example, a program could be a movie (e.g., comprising a stereo audio track, a multichannel surround sound audio track, and a video track), a video clip (e.g., comprising one or more audio and video tracks), or an audio recording (comprising one or more audio tracks).
Streaming segment. A streaming segment is a section of a program for a specific track, and a program is divided into one or more streaming segments. Each streaming segment is self-contained, meaning a client can start playback at the beginning of a streaming segment without reference to prior (or subsequent) streaming segments. Streaming segments define the boundaries at which a client can change the bitrate of the content it is downloading.
In a specific implementation, a streaming segment has the following constraints:
File Segment. A file segment is a file-level organization of streaming segments. A file segment contains one or more streaming segments.
In a specific implementation, a file segment has the following constraints:
Index information. Index information is meta-data information other than actual program content (encoded audio and/or video data). Index information can include program description information (e.g., program length, number and type of tracks, etc.), streaming segment index information (e.g., comprising size, quality, and complexity of steaming segments), and file-level index information.
I. Indexed File Layout
This section describes indexed file layout techniques and solutions that can be applied to segmented streaming of multimedia content. For example, indexed file layout solutions can include one or more of the following features and techniques: dividing a program into multiple streaming segments, providing a variable number of encoded bitrates per streaming segment, providing index information covering all available bitrates to facilitate pure client-side bitrate selection, and organization of streaming segments into files to provide efficient streaming of content.
In general, the file layout described herein can be used by standard HTTP servers to serve multimedia content at multiple bitrates with bitrate selection (rate control) being performed client-side (e.g., exclusively client-side). Clients can perform rate control by first obtaining index information from the server describing the various bitrates available for streaming segments of a program. Based on the index information, and possibly other information (e.g., network bandwidth, buffer information, etc.), the client can decide which bitrate streaming segments to download from the server to provide a desired user experience (e.g., the best user experience possible based on the available bitrates and current network conditions).
Other types of computing devices (e.g., other than traditional HTTP servers) can provide files using the indexed file layout described herein. For example, a computing device (e.g., a personal computer, server computer, or special-purpose streaming media server) can use the indexed file layout to serve multimedia content using various file serving protocols (e.g., File Transfer Protocol (FTP), Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP), MMS (Microsoft Media Services), etc.).
In order to support bitrate switching, programs are divided into temporal chunks called streaming segments (self-contained units). The server stores each streaming segment at one or more bitrates (e.g., each streaming segment-bitrate combination is a separate streaming segment encoding). Each streaming segment includes one or more available bitrate encodings for a specific track (e.g., a specific audio track, such as an English audio track, or a specific video track) of a program. Clients then determine which bitrate, from the available bitrates (e.g., from the available streaming segment encodings), to download for each streaming segment. For example, a client may obtain a first streaming segment, for a video track, encoded at 250 Kb/sec (kilo-bits per second) (from one or more available streaming segment encodings for the first streaming segment), a second streaming segment, for the video track, encoded at 500 Kb/sec (from one or more available streaming segment encodings for the second streaming segment), and a third streaming segment, for the video track, encoded at 1 Mb/sec (mega-bit per second) (from one or more available streaming segment encodings for the third streaming segment). Each streaming segment encoding can be at a constant bitrate (CBR) or at a variable bitrate (VBR) (and the use of CBR and VBR can be mixed on a per streaming segment encoding basis).
In a specific implementation, the server 110 is a standard HTTP server without any specialized streaming capability other than the ability to serve files. Because the server 110 does not support any specialized bitrate selection capability, the client 120 must perform all bitrate selection activities. In this implementation, the client 120 performs all bitrate selection activities. For example, the client 120 can perform rate control using the index information obtained from the server 110 (e.g., alone or in combination with other information, such as client buffer information, network bandwidth, etc.).
At 310, example streaming segment encodings for track 1 are depicted. In the example, track 1 is an audio track (e.g., an English language audio track of the program). Streaming segment 1 of track 1 is encoded at one bitrate (e.g., 128 Kb/sec). Streaming segment 2 of track 1 is encoded at two bitrates (e.g., 96 Kb/sec and 192 Kb/sec), representing two available streaming segment encodings for streaming segment 2 of track 1.
At 320, example streaming segment encodings for track 2 are depicted. In the example, track 2 is a second audio track (e.g., a French language audio track of the program). Streaming segment 1 of track 2 is encoded at two bitrates (e.g., 128 Kb/sec and 192 Kb/sec), representing two available streaming segment encodings for streaming segment 1 of track 2. Streaming segment 2 of track 2 is also encoded at two bitrates (e.g., 128 Kb/sec and 256 Kb/sec), representing two available streaming segment encodings for streaming segment 2 of track 2.
At 330, example streaming segment encodings for track 3 are depicted. In the example, track 3 is video track. Streaming segment 1 of track 3 is encoded at two bitrates (e.g., 256 Kb/sec and 512 Kb/sec), representing two available streaming segment encodings for streaming segment 1 of track 3. Streaming segment 2 of track 3 is encoded at three bitrates (e.g., 200 Kb/sec, 400 Kb/sec, and 830 Kb/sec), representing three available streaming segment encodings for streaming segment 2 of track 3.
Allowing for different bitrate encodings between streaming segments can provide greater efficiency and quality of streaming multimedia content. For example, if the audio content of streaming segment 1 of track 1 is less complex, it can be encoded at fewer and/or lower bitrates. If the audio content of streaming segment 2 of track 1 is more complex, it can be encoded at more and/or higher bitrates.
Streaming segments can have the same start and stop time between tracks, or they can have different start and stop times. If streaming segments are generally aligned across tracks, then clients can easily switch bitrates at streaming segment boundaries. In some implementations, corresponding streaming segments of audio tracks and video tracks are closely (but not necessarily exactly) aligned. For example, in
In the example 400, a program (with one audio and one video track) has been divided into two file segments. File segment 1 includes two streaming segments of the audio track, encoded at one bitrate (e.g., 128 Kb/sec). File segment 2 includes two streaming segments of the video track, encoded at two bitrates (e.g., 256 Kb/sec and 512 Kb/sec).
A file segment are used to organize content into physical files. A physical file can be created by combining one or more file segments from one or more track.
Streaming segments are stored in files based on file segment. In a specific implementation, a separate physical file is used to store each set of streaming segments of a file segment for a specific bitrate. Using file segment 1 depicted in 400, the following files can be used to store the streaming segments:
file1.aud (contains both streaming segments of audio bitrate 1)
file1_bitrate1.vid (contains both streaming segments of video bitrate 1)
file1_bitrate2.vid (contains both streaming segments of video bitrate 2)
In another implementation, a separate physical file is used to store each set of streaming segments of the file segments on a per-track basis. Using file segment 1 depicted in 400, the following physical files would be used to store the streaming segments:
file1_aud.seg (contains both streaming segments of audio bitrate 1)
file1_vid.seg (contains both streaming segments of video bitrates 1 and 2)
In yet another implementation, a separate physical file is used to store each set of streaming segments of the file segments for more than one track (e.g., for all tracks of the program). Using file segment 1 depicted in 400, the following physical files would be used to store the streaming segments:
file1.seg (contains both streaming segments of audio bitrate 1 and video bitrates 1 and 2)
In some implementations, streaming segments are aligned across all audio and/or video tracks of a program. Aligning streaming segments allows for switching between available bitrates at segment boundaries. In general, video segment boundaries occur such that video segments are self-contained (e.g., boundaries occur at group-of-frame (GOP) boundaries).
In other implementations, streaming segments for audio and video can differ. For example, an audio track could be encoded at a single bitrate for the duration of a program (or for the duration of a file segment), while a video track could be encoded at multiple bitrates for the duration of the program (or for the duration of the file segment). For example, file segment 1 depicted in 400 could contain one streaming segment for the audio track (instead of the two depicted), and file segment 2 could contain and two streaming segments for the video track (as depicted).
The example file layout includes program description information 510 (e.g., general program information such as duration and track information). The example file layout includes file-level index information 520, describing the file segments of the program. The example file layout includes streaming segment indexes for the file segments of the program. In the example, two sets of streaming segment indexes are depicted, 530 and 540, for each of two sets of file segments. The example file layout also includes two sets of file segments 550 and 560.
In the example file layout 500, a first set of three streaming segments (550) is grouped into two file segments: one file segment covering an audio track at one bitrate and another file segment covering a video track at three bitrates. A second set of four streaming segments (560) is grouped into two file segments: one file segment covering the audio track at one bitrate and another file segment covering the video track at four bitrates.
The example indexed file layout 500 can be organized into files in various ways. For example, the program description information 510 and file-level index information 520 can be stored in a single file, or in two separate files. The streaming segment index information 530 and 540 can be stored in two separate files, or they can be stored in the same file as the file-level index information 520. Listed below in Table 1 is one way of storing the index information and program content:
As depicted in the file segments 550 and 560, not all segment encodings must be present (those with hash marks have not been encoded and thus are not available to a client). For example, the second segment of video bitrate 3 (550) has not been encoded. One reason for not encoding the second segment of video at bitrate 3 could be that such an encoding would offer little improvement in quality over the encoding at bitrate 2 (e.g., the segment may cover a transition, such as a fade-in or fade-out). The fact that some encodings are not available can be indicated in the streaming segment indexes (530 and 540) so that the client will know that such bitrates are not available.
Example File Layout
In a specific implementation, the indexed file layout allows up to four types of files, as described below.
In this specific implementation, the File-Level Index (2.1) is a simple mapping of presentation time to File Segment. It is an array of start presentation times (or, equivalently, presentation durations) for each File Segment. In the event that all File Segments have equal durations, File-Level Index can be special-cased using a single value specifying the fixed File Segment Duration.
In the specific implementation, the Streaming Segment Index (2.2 or 3) contains the following information for each Streaming Segment. All fields are equally applicable in the context of 2.2 as well as in the context of 3, unless otherwise noted.
Segment. If presentation time, the base (frame of reference) for this presentation time is different depending on where the streaming-segment-level index is found. For a complete streaming-segment-level index found in a main program index file (2.2), the presentation time is relative to the beginning of the entire program. For a streaming-segment-level index found in File Segment index files (3), the presentation time is relative to the beginning of that File Segment.
Both types of index files can be compressed to reduce index file sizes. At the very least, timestamps (if stored as presentation times as opposed to durations) and file offsets (2.2.2.5) should undergo differential coding. Some other fields (likely 2.2.4.2 and 2.2.4.3) should be coded using type-specific techniques (e.g., as enums) taking into account the set of possible values. All fields could further undergo entropy coding.
In alternative implementations, it may be advantageous to organize the index files differently (or store slightly different information) for different target client platforms, e.g., PC clients vs. portable devices. The Multimedia Data files do not have to be stored separately in such a case—i.e., multiple (independent) sets of Program Description and Index files could point to the same underlying set of Multimedia Data files. To make this possible, some portion of the Multimedia Data file naming scheme could be stored in the Program Description or Index files.
II. Client Side Rate Control
This section describes client side rate control (e.g., optimal client side rate control) techniques and solutions that can be applied to streaming of multimedia content (e.g., programs or pieces of programs). Client side rate control can be performed using the indexed file layout techniques and solutions described herein. For example, a client system (e.g., computer or other type of computing device) can download indexed information from a server and use the downloaded indexed information to select which bitrate to download for each segment. Using the techniques and solutions described in this section enables pure client-side bitrate selection without any special logic required at the server-side (other than standard file-serving capabilities, such as found on an HTTP server). More details regarding client side rate control techniques and solutions are described below.
Suppose we have M units of compressed data, each taking b[c,n] bits where c=0, 1, . . . , C[n]−1, where C [n] is the number of possible rates available for the n'th unit, and n=0, 1, . . . , M−1. Suppose for each of these units of compressed data, we also have a distortion function that we wish to minimize and that the distortion function is additive, given by d[c,n]. Suppose each unit of compressed data corresponds to t[n] units of time and suppose that the average bitrate that can be transmitted across the channel over this time period is given by R[c,n] bits/second which will be a function of network conditions, the amount of time, and also a function of the bitrate being requested. In many cases, we can assume the channel rate to not be a function of c, that is R[c,n]=R[n] for all c. However, there may be certain cases where this is not true. For example in a content delivery network (CDN), some bitrate versions of the units may be cached closer to the client in which case the bitrate between client and server can be a function of not only network conditions, but also a function of the content. In the most general case, we can assume it to be a function of the content. Corresponding to this rate we can compute the approximate time that it takes to download each unit. Let s[c,n]=b[c,n]/R[c,n] be the time it takes to download the unit c'th unit at time n.
Suppose a client chooses to download unit u[n] for the n'th unit. Then the cumulative distortion that the client will have is given by:
The goal of an optimal rate control algorithm is to minimize D subject to the constraints that the decoder buffer never glitches for more than the desired time period given the start-up latency and network conditions. Suppose the maximum start up latency is given by T0 seconds, and that the maximum glitch time is given by Tg seconds. If Tg=0, then the constraints essentially can be stated as:
This constraint has to be satisfied for all n, which can alternatively be written in terms of decoder buffer fullness given by:
which has to be satisfied for all n≧0. The first unit constraint is for n=0, where t[−1]=0. An alternative representation for the decoder buffer fullness is given by the following recursive equation:
fd[n]=fd[n−1]+t[n−1]−s[u[n],n],
with the initial condition:
fd[−1]=T0.
If the n'th unit is allowed to glitch for Tg[n] seconds, then we can write the constraint in a recursive way using the following decoder buffer fullness:
The client has to choose u[n] to satisfy fd[n]≧0 while minimizing D.
Also, the actual buffer fullness that the decoder has may be different simply because the decoder only knows the estimated download time for each chunk and does not know the actual download time. Suppose at any given instant the decoder knows the actual buffer fullness. Then, based upon the estimates for download time for each component it can make a decision into the future as to which units to download.
The problem of minimizing D subject to the buffer constraint fd[n]≧0 for all n can be solved using dynamic programming. Suppose we find the minimum distortion possible that satisfies the buffer constraint and such that u[M−1]=c for all possible c=0, 1, . . . , C[M−1]−1. The minimum distortion will be the minimum of all such distortions. Now the problem becomes finding the minimum possible distortion with the buffer constraint and with an additional constraint that u[n]=c. Such a minimization problem can be solved using a trellis to store relevant information needed in the optimization.
Since the distortion being minimized is assumed to be additive, a solution to find the optimal path can be done using a trellis. Suppose the decoder has a buffer fullness of fd[N0] after downloading some number of units. In addition, suppose it knows distortion d[c,n] and an estimate of the download time s[c,n] for all c for n=N0+1, N0+2, . . . , N0+M. Without loss of generality assume N0=0. Define the following:
where γn is the set of l from l=0, 1, . . . , C[n−1]−1 which satisfy the buffer constraint and which contain no glitches. That is:
If no such set exists, i.e. cardinality of it is 0, then we take the minimum over those l which satisfy the minimum glitch above the allowed glitches, that is:
Then, the updates for Equations 2, 3, and 4 can be done using:
For the initial condition, we can assume:
C[0]=1
D[0,0]=0
g[0,0]=0
fd,c[0,0]=fd[N0]
u[0,0]={0} Equation 10
Once the algorithm updates are run from n=1, . . . , M, the optimal distortion can be found using:
where γ is the set of c from c=0, 1, . . . , C[M−1]−1 which satisfy the buffer constraint without any glitches.
γ={c|c=0,1, . . . ,C[M−1]−1∩g[c,M]=0}. Equation 12
If the cardinality of this set is 0 (i.e. no glitchless solution exists), then the minimum distortion solution us chosen which achieve the minimum glitch.
Then, the optimal selection of rates is given by:
u={u[n]|n=0, . . . ,M},
where:
u=uc[cmin,M]
u[n]=uc[cmin,M][n] Equation 16
Note that in the equations above we could simply use the definition of σ for the set γ since if |γ|≧1, then the minimum glitch by definition will be 0, which would simplify the equations a bit. However, since different definitions for the “optimal” solution could be used when there is a glitch such as minimizing the number of glitches or minimizing the maximum glitch time, we have left the two sets as separate.
Pseudocode for the algorithm can be the following if for purposes of simplicity we assume N0=0.
Using the above pseudocode, the optimal path can be found. If there are changes in decoder buffer fullness due to differences in the estimated time it takes to download a unit vs. the actual time it takes to download a unit, or if there are updates to the estimates themselves, the algorithm can be rerun with the current state.
Several other modifications could be done. If the player speed is different than the actual time, i.e. in trick play modes such as fast forward or fast play, then the time axis can be easily scaled when running the algorithm to compensate for this. For example, when playing at 2×, a 5 second decoder buffer can be thought of as only being 2.5 seconds, and a 10 second unit duration can be thought of as only being 5 seconds.
Also, since download times are usually only estimates, we can come up with a probability distribution on the download time, that is treat s[u[n], n] as a random variable with some probability distribution. In the trellis, instead of choosing whether the decoder will definitely starve or not, we can simply change the buffer constraint to be something like the following,
Probability(fd[n]≧0)>1−ε,
where ε is some small value.
This basically means that we will likely choose the worst case estimate for download time which would force the client to make very conservative decisions when the buffer is small but allow larger bitrates to be downloaded as the buffer grows. In the pseudocode, the only thing that would change is that
Fullness>=−Tg[n]
Would be replaced by
Probability(Fullness>=−Tg[n]>1−epsilon.
This is essentially the same as choosing a value S for s[c,n] such that:
Probability(s[c,n]>S)<ε
when running the trellis. However, based upon the actual value for s[c,n], the decoder buffer should be correctly adjusted before making future decisions so as to not let the worst case estimate affect future decisions.
For the distortion metric, various metrics could be chosen such as mean square error. Simpler metrics such as lost bit throughput could also be used for the distortion metric.
Optimality of Solution
The distortion metric chosen can determine the optimality of the solution arrived at by using the dynamic programming approach described above. If the distortion d[c,n] of units across bitrates c=0, 1, . . . , C[n]−1, is different by orders of magnitude, then the algorithm is likely to yield the optimal solution under practical conditions. If the distortions are not different by orders of magnitude, then the algorithm could yield a sub-optimal solution, because of the nature of the trellis.
In Equation 4, since γ is a function of c (i.e. the units in stage n that are available for download, depend on the buffer fullness fd,c[c, n−1] after downloading unit c in stage n−1), it is possible that a unit with low distortion in stage n becomes un-available to satisfy the no-glitch condition. This precludes this unit from being a part of the solution.
A potential solution to this problem is to not use just the distortion as a cost function at each stage, and instead use a function of the distortion and buffer fullness as the cost function. Such a cost function, and its impact on the optimal solution under practical network conditions is to be determined.
Practical Considerations
In practical implementations, network conditions are bound to keep varying as units of compressed data are downloaded. This means that the estimated time, s[c,n], taken to download the c'th unit n, will keep varying as new estimates of the network bandwidth are computed. Thus the optimal path needs to be re-computed using the algorithm described above each time a new network bandwidth estimate is computed. In order to reduce the computation required, the loop in the above algorithm, need not be run from n=1 . . . M, and instead can be stopped at stage n=nend on equation 8, when it is found that
lmin[c,n]=k, where {c|c=0,1, . . . ,C[n]−1} and n=nend and k is a constant.
In other words the dynamic programming loop should be run until only one of the candidate paths survives. Once the surviving path is identified, uc[cmin, 0], identifies the first unit to be downloaded.
Alternative Solution
As an alternate solution to solve the optimality issue raised in the above algorithm, with slightly increased complexity, the definition of a state is changed. Instead of defining the states to be the various bitrates available for a given streaming segment, define the states to the various levels of decoder buffer fullness at a given time instant. Define θn be the set of P[n] quantized decoder buffer fullness states available at time n. For example, θn[0]=[0,0.1) is the state where the decoder buffer fullness is between 0 and 0.1 seconds. Let d[p, n] be the minimum distortion possible at time n when the decoder buffer fullness is contained in θn[p]. Let fd[p, n] be the actual decoder buffer fullness corresponding to this. To run the optimization algorithm we can simply do:
D[p,n]=min(D[l,n−1]+d[c,n])
Where (l,c)εγp,n, where:
γp,n={(l,c)|l=0,1, . . . ,P[n−1]−1,c=0,1, . . . C[n]−1,fd[l,n−1]+t[n−1]−s[c,n]εθn[p]}.
Let:
(lmin[p,n],cmin[p,n])=argmin(D[l,n−1]+d[c,n]).
Then the decoder buffer fullness is updated according to:
fd[p,n]=fd[lmin[p,n],n−1]+t[n−1]−s[cmin[p,n],n].
The optimal decoder path is updated according to:
uc[p,n]={uc[lmin[p,n],n−1],c}.
As before, we do end up eliminating possible paths which satisfy the constraint due to taking the minimum distortion path into each state. However, if the quantization of the buffer states is done fine enough, the suboptimality is reduced. For example, if we did not quantize the set of possible buffer states, the algorithm would be optimal since we truly minimize the distortion for the given buffer constraints.
In addition, since smaller buffer states are more likely important in determining an optimal path (since if the buffer is large, the optimal thing to do is to try to simply take the largest bitrate, smallest distortion choice), it is recommended that the buffer states in this algorithm be unequally spaced. For example, the first buffer state can be [0,0.1), the second could be [0.1, 0.3), the third could be [0.3, 0.7), and so on, so that larger buffer states have larger quantization width.
Consider the following simple example. Suppose we have 4 streaming segments, with the following distortions, durations, and estimated download times.
Total minimum distortion by the algorithm is 9 since that is the minimum glitch free distortion returned. A full exhaustive search shows that the minimum distortion is 8 which can be found using the second solution.
Using the second solution, assume P[n]=3, 5, 5, 5 is the number of decoder buffer fullness states available.
Decoder buffer fullness and set of possible buffer fullness states θn (no buffer fullness quantization is done).
The two algorithms can be shown using the diagrams depicted in
III. Example Computing Environment
With reference to
The storage 740 may be removable or non-removable, and includes magnetic disks, magnetic tapes or cassettes, CD-ROMs, CD-RWs, DVDs, or any other medium which can be used to store information and which can be accessed within the computing environment 700. The storage 740 stores instructions for the software 780, which can implement technologies described herein.
The input device(s) 750 may be a touch input device, such as a keyboard, keypad, mouse, pen, or trackball, a voice input device, a scanning device, or another device, that provides input to the computing environment 700. For audio, the input device(s) 750 may be a sound card or similar device that accepts audio input in analog or digital form, or a CD-ROM reader that provides audio samples to the computing environment 700. The output device(s) 760 may be a display, printer, speaker, CD-writer, or another device that provides output from the computing environment 700.
The communication connection(s) 770 enable communication over a communication medium (e.g., a connecting network) to another computing entity. The communication medium conveys information such as computer-executable instructions, compressed graphics information, or other data in a modulated data signal.
Computer-readable media are any available media that can be accessed within a computing environment 700. By way of example, and not limitation, with the computing environment 700, computer-readable media include memory 720, storage 740, communication media (not shown), and combinations of any of the above.
The indexed file layout and client side rate control techniques and solutions described in this application can be used in various combinations to provide more efficient organization and streaming of multimedia content. For example, a program can be divided into streaming segments, each streaming segment independently encoded at one or more bitrates (e.g., for each of one or more audio and/or video tracks of the program). Index information describing the program and available bitrates for the streaming segments can be stored. A client can download the index information and use it for client side rate control (e.g., to determine an efficient or optimal sequence of bitrates to download for each streaming segment).
Any of the methods described herein can be performed via one or more computer-readable media (e.g., storage or other tangible media) comprising (e.g., having or storing) computer-executable instructions for performing (e.g., causing a computing device, audio and/or video processing device, or computer to perform) such methods. Operation can be fully automatic, semi-automatic, or involve manual intervention.
Having described and illustrated the principles of our innovations in the detailed description and accompanying drawings, it will be recognized that the various embodiments can be modified in arrangement and detail without departing from such principles. It should be understood that the programs, processes, or methods described herein are not related or limited to any particular type of computing environment, unless indicated otherwise. Various types of general purpose or specialized computing environments may be used with or perform operations in accordance with the teachings described herein. Elements of embodiments shown in software may be implemented in hardware and vice versa.
In view of the many possible embodiments to which the principles of our invention may be applied, we claim as our invention all such embodiments as may come within the scope and spirit of the following claims and equivalents thereto.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4051470 | Esteban et al. | Sep 1977 | A |
4454546 | Mori | Jun 1984 | A |
4493091 | Gundry | Jan 1985 | A |
4706260 | Fedele et al. | Nov 1987 | A |
4748626 | Wong | May 1988 | A |
4802224 | Shiraki et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
4954892 | Asai et al. | Sep 1990 | A |
5043919 | Callaway et al. | Aug 1991 | A |
5089889 | Sugiyama | Feb 1992 | A |
5136377 | Johnston et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
5216519 | Daggett | Jun 1993 | A |
5235618 | Sakai et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5262964 | Bonsall et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5266941 | Akeley et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5317672 | Crossman et al. | May 1994 | A |
5394170 | Akeley et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
5398069 | Huang et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5400371 | Natarajan | Mar 1995 | A |
5414796 | Jacobs et al. | May 1995 | A |
5448297 | Alattar et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5454014 | Blaker | Sep 1995 | A |
5457495 | Hartung | Oct 1995 | A |
5467134 | Laney et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
5471500 | Blaker | Nov 1995 | A |
5533052 | Bhaskar | Jul 1996 | A |
5570363 | Holm | Oct 1996 | A |
5579430 | Grill et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5586200 | Devaney et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5602959 | Bergstrom et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5623424 | Azadegan et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5627938 | Johnston | May 1997 | A |
5650860 | Uz | Jul 1997 | A |
5654760 | Ohtsuki | Aug 1997 | A |
5661755 | Van De Kerkhof et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5666161 | Kohiyama et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5666464 | Serizawa | Sep 1997 | A |
5686964 | Tabatabai et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5689499 | Hullett et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5724453 | Ratnakar et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5742735 | Eberlein et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5754974 | Griffin et al. | May 1998 | A |
5787203 | Lee et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5802213 | Gardos | Sep 1998 | A |
5819215 | Dobson et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5825310 | Tsutsui | Oct 1998 | A |
5835149 | Astle | Nov 1998 | A |
5835495 | Ferriere | Nov 1998 | A |
5845243 | Smart et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5867230 | Wang et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5878060 | Wakamatsu | Mar 1999 | A |
5884039 | Ludwig et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5886276 | Levine et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5903892 | Hoffert et al. | May 1999 | A |
5917830 | Chen et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5926226 | Proctor et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5933451 | Ozkan et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5952943 | Walsh et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5982305 | Taylor | Nov 1999 | A |
5986712 | Peterson et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5987376 | Olson et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5990945 | Sinha et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5995151 | Naveen et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6000053 | Levine et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6002439 | Murakami et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6006241 | Purnaveja et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6014706 | Cannon et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6029126 | Malvar | Feb 2000 | A |
6041345 | Levi et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6049630 | Wang et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6058362 | Malvar | May 2000 | A |
6072831 | Chen | Jun 2000 | A |
6073153 | Malvar | Jun 2000 | A |
6075768 | Mishra | Jun 2000 | A |
6081554 | Lee et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6088333 | Yang et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6088392 | Rosenberg | Jul 2000 | A |
6108382 | Gringeri et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6111914 | Bist | Aug 2000 | A |
6115689 | Malvar | Sep 2000 | A |
6141053 | Saukkonen | Oct 2000 | A |
6160846 | Chiang et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6167162 | Jacquin et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6182034 | Malvar | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6192075 | Jeng | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6212232 | Reed et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6215820 | Bagni et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6223162 | Chen et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6226407 | Zabih et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6240380 | Malvar | May 2001 | B1 |
6243497 | Chiang et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6259739 | Kondo | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6266701 | Sridhar | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6278735 | Mohsenian | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6311209 | Olson et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6320825 | Bruekers et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6339794 | Bolosky et al. | Jan 2002 | B2 |
6343314 | Ludwig et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6351226 | Saunders et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6370502 | Wu et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6381267 | Abdelilah et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6421738 | Ratan et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6421739 | Holiday | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6433795 | MacNaughton et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6441754 | Wang et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6466987 | Bolosky et al. | Oct 2002 | B2 |
6473409 | Malvar | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6490554 | Endo et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6493388 | Wang | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6501797 | Van der Schaar et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6501798 | Sivan | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6522693 | Lu et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6539124 | Sethuraman et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6560636 | Cohen et al. | May 2003 | B2 |
6573915 | Sivan et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6574593 | Gao et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6625321 | Li et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6628712 | Le Maguet | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6646195 | Puryear | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6654417 | Hui | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6654419 | Sriram et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6654790 | Ogle et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6675199 | Mohammed et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6697072 | Russell et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6704813 | Smirnov et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6728317 | Demos | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6732071 | Lopez-Estrada et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6745364 | Bhatt et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6754715 | Cannon et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6760482 | Taubman | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6760598 | Kurjenniemi | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6763374 | Levi et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6789123 | Li et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6792449 | Colville et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6801947 | Li | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6810083 | Chen et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6836791 | Levi et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6876703 | Ismaeil et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6885471 | Minowa et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6895050 | Lee | May 2005 | B2 |
6909746 | Trovato | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6934677 | Chen et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6937770 | Oguz et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6961631 | Puryear | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6968364 | Wong et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6974901 | Puryear | Dec 2005 | B2 |
6980695 | Mehrotra | Dec 2005 | B2 |
6980955 | Okutani et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
6985959 | Lee | Jan 2006 | B1 |
7003458 | Feng et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7016409 | Unger | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7023915 | Pian | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7027982 | Chen et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7031700 | Weaver et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7046805 | Fitzhardinge et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7054365 | Kim et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7054774 | Batterberry et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7072973 | Newson et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7107606 | Lee | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7111044 | Lee | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7124164 | Chemtob | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7143030 | Chen et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7146313 | Chen et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7149247 | Sullivan | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7151749 | Vega-Garcia et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7162533 | Klemets | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7174384 | Cheung | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7174385 | Li | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7176957 | Ivashin et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7177642 | Sanchez Herrero et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7184959 | Gibbon | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7185082 | Del Val et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7190670 | Varsa et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7206809 | Ludwig et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7206822 | Levi et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7206854 | Kauffman et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7248740 | Sullivan | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7257628 | Liskov et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7260525 | Chen et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7263482 | Chen et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7266613 | Brown et al. | Sep 2007 | B1 |
7283881 | Puryear | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7283966 | Zhang et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7286748 | Srinivasan et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7289435 | Yehuda et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7296063 | Levi et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7302490 | Gupta et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7313236 | Amini et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7313755 | Rahman et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7336617 | Liu | Feb 2008 | B1 |
7342924 | Levi et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7343291 | Thumpudi et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7346007 | Curcio et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7348483 | Puryear | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7359955 | Menon et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7360230 | Paz et al. | Apr 2008 | B1 |
7365752 | Xie | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7383180 | Thumpudi et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7391717 | Klemets et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7392316 | Klemets et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7401221 | Adent et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7409145 | Antoun et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7424730 | Chou | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7433746 | Puryear | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7444373 | Ludwig et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7444419 | Green | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7451229 | Klemets et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7466721 | Levi et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7471827 | Xie et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7472198 | Gupta et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7480382 | Dunbar et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7483532 | Alkove et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7492769 | Klemets | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7493644 | Tanskanen | Feb 2009 | B1 |
7505485 | Sullivan et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7528314 | Puryear | May 2009 | B2 |
7529541 | Cho et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7536469 | Chou et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7538267 | Puryear | May 2009 | B2 |
7552227 | Wang | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7554922 | Vega-Garcia et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7555464 | Candelore | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7558472 | Locket et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7565429 | Fernandez | Jul 2009 | B1 |
7581255 | Alkove et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7603387 | Gates et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7616569 | Saito | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7631015 | Gupta et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7631039 | Eisenberg | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7633005 | Puryear | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7644172 | Stewart et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7663049 | Puryear | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7667121 | Puryear | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7672240 | Johnson et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7672743 | Messer et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7673306 | Puryear | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7673315 | Wong et al. | Mar 2010 | B1 |
7676495 | Qian | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7684566 | Oliveira et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7720908 | Newson et al. | May 2010 | B1 |
7725557 | Klemets et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7761609 | Srinivasan et al. | Jul 2010 | B1 |
7769880 | Paka et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7774388 | Runchey | Aug 2010 | B1 |
7783772 | Klemets | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7783773 | Wu et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7797720 | Gopalakrishnan et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7809851 | Klemets | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7826346 | Seki et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7839895 | Sullivan et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7860996 | Musayev et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7873040 | Karlsgodt | Jan 2011 | B2 |
8542591 | Saito | Sep 2013 | B2 |
20020073084 | Kauffman et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020080786 | Roberts | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020087634 | Ogle et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020095332 | Doherty et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020106033 | Uesugi | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020118809 | Eisenberg | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020122491 | Karcewicz et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020124051 | Ludwig et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020133547 | Lin et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020136406 | Fitzhardinge et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020138619 | Ramaley et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020141497 | Trovato | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020143556 | Kadatch | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020146102 | Lang | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020154693 | Demos | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020176624 | Kostrzewski et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020178138 | Ender et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020184391 | Phillips | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020194608 | Goldhor | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030005139 | Colville et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030007464 | Balani | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030037103 | Salmi et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030055995 | Ala-Honkola | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030061607 | Hunter et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030072370 | Girod et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030078972 | Tapissier et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030093530 | Syed | May 2003 | A1 |
20030110236 | Yang et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030110464 | Davidson et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030115041 | Chen | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030115042 | Chen | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030115050 | Chen | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030115051 | Chen | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030115052 | Chen | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030125932 | Wang et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030135362 | Feng et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030158901 | Ludwig et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030172131 | Ao | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030187919 | Nakamura et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030220972 | Montet et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030225832 | Ludwig | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030233641 | Hank | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030236905 | Choi et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030236906 | Klemets et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040098748 | Bo | May 2004 | A1 |
20040107255 | Ludwig et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040117427 | Allen et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040131340 | Antoun et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040172478 | Jacobs | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040225744 | Frossard et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040268397 | Dunbar et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050002453 | Chang et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050009520 | Herrero et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050015259 | Thumpudi et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050015528 | Du | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050016363 | Puryear | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050024487 | Chen | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050047503 | Han et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050050152 | Penner et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050066063 | Grigorovitch | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050076039 | Ludwig et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050076136 | Cho | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050084015 | Han et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050084166 | Boneh et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050105815 | Zhang et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050117641 | Xu et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050123058 | Greenbaum | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050135484 | Lee | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050157784 | Tanizawa et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050204385 | Sull et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050207734 | Howell | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050234731 | Sirivara et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050234858 | Torii et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050246384 | Foehr et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050254508 | Aksu et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050267994 | Wong et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050268245 | Gipps et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060015637 | Chung | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060020789 | Gipps et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060026294 | Virdi | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060029065 | Fellman | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060041616 | Ludwig et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060047779 | Deshpande | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060059266 | Ludwig et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060062302 | Yin et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060088094 | Cieplinski | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060114813 | Seki et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060126713 | Chou et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060136597 | Shabtai | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060156363 | Wu et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060165166 | Chou | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060168104 | Shimizu et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060184697 | Virdi | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060206623 | Gipps et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060218264 | Ogawa et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060235883 | Krebs | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060242080 | Van Dyke et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060242315 | Nichols | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060248570 | Witwer | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060270404 | Tuohino et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060282540 | Tanimoto | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060282566 | Virdi et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060288099 | Jefferson et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070006064 | Colle | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070037599 | Tillet et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070038873 | Oliveira et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070047650 | Vilei et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070058926 | Virdi | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070061274 | Gipps et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070078768 | Dawson | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070078933 | Ludwig et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070081586 | Raveendran et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070083593 | Ludwig et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070083595 | Ludwig et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070083886 | Kauffman et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070097816 | Van Gassel | May 2007 | A1 |
20070100891 | Nee | May 2007 | A1 |
20070130325 | Lesser | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070160133 | Bao et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070177632 | Oz et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070192789 | Medford | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070198931 | Ono et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070201374 | Qing et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070204321 | Shen et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070237152 | Zhu | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070274383 | Yu et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070276954 | Chan | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080008098 | Saito | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080022005 | Wu | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080037954 | Lee | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080046939 | Lu et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080060029 | Park et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080086570 | Dey et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080091838 | Miceli | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080107041 | Liu | May 2008 | A1 |
20080126279 | Keeton et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080172441 | Speicher | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080195743 | Brueck et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080195744 | Bowra | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080195761 | Jabri et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080201386 | Maharajh et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080211901 | Civanlar et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080215390 | Gipps et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080256085 | Lee et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080312923 | Crinon et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090006538 | Risney et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090007171 | Casey et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090043657 | Swift et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090043906 | Hurst et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090049186 | Agnihotri et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090055417 | Hannuksela | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090076904 | Serena | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090089401 | Zhang et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090132356 | Booth et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090132599 | Soroushian et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090132721 | Soroushian et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090168679 | Benjamim et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090199236 | Barrett et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090254672 | Zhang | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090279605 | Holcomb et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090282162 | Mehrotra | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090282475 | George et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090297123 | Virdi et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090300145 | Musayev et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090300203 | Virdi et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090300204 | Zhang et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090319681 | Freelander et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090327424 | Bernstein et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090328124 | Khouzam et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100011119 | Knowlton et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100058061 | Folta et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100080290 | Mehrotra | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100114921 | Bocharov et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100135636 | Zhang et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100153988 | Takai et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100158101 | Wu et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100180011 | Sood et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100189183 | Gu et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100191974 | Dubhashi et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100235472 | Sood et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100235528 | Bocharov et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20130039448 | Kelin et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1931148 | Jun 2008 | EP |
2008-523687 | Jul 2008 | JP |
WO 2007058515 | May 2007 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Agarwal et al., “Optimal Buffering Policy for Downloading Music in Heterogeneous Wireless Networks,” Wireless Communications and Networking Conference, vol. 1, pp. 337-341, Mar. 17-21, 2002. |
Barker et al., “Dynamic Programming Based Smoothing of VBR Video Traffic,” 10 pp. (document marked Mar. 6, 2002). |
Caetano et al., “Rate Control Strategy for Embedded Wavelet Video Coders,” Electronic Letters, pp. 1815-1817 (Oct. 14, 1999). |
Chang et al., “BubbleUp: Low Latency Fast-Scan for Media Servers,” Fifth ACM International Conference on Multimedia 1997, Nov. 1997, 12 pages. |
Chavez et al., “Monitoring-Based Adaptive Overlay Streaming Media,” printed from http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Programs/ugrad/superb/papers2003/Brian%20Chavez.pdf on Aug. 12, 2008. |
Cheung et al., “A Comparison of Scalar Quantization Strategies for Noisy Data Channel Data Transmission,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 43, No. 2/3/4, pp. 738-742 (Apr. 1995). |
Crisafulli et al., “Adaptive Quantization: Solution via Nonadaptive Linear Control,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 41, pp. 741-748 (May 1993). |
Dai, “Rate-Distortion Analysis and Traffic Modeling of Scalable Video Coders,” Dissertation, Texas A&M University, 172 pp. (Dec. 2004). |
Dalgic et al., “Characterization of Quality and Traffic for Various Video Encoding Schemes and Various Encoder Control Schemes,” Technical Report No. CSL-TR-96-701 (Aug. 1996). |
Dolby Laboratories, “AAC Technology,” 4 pp. [Downloaded from the web site aac-audio.com on World Wide Web on Nov. 21, 2001]. |
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, “MPEG Audio Layer-3,” 4 pp. [Downloaded from the World Wide Web on Oct. 24, 2001]. |
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, “MPEG-2 AAC,” 3 pp. [Downloaded from the World Wide Web on Oct. 24, 2001]. |
Gill et al., “Creating High-Quality Content with Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7,” 4 pp. (2000). [Downloaded from the World Wide Web on May 1, 2002.]. |
Girod et al., “Advances in channel-adaptive video streaming,” <http://www.stanford.edu/˜bgirod/pdfs/GirodWCMC2002.pdf>, 24 pages (2002). |
Guo et al., “P2Cast: Peer-to-peer Patching Scheme for VoD Service,” Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on World Wide Web, 2003, 9 pages. |
Guo et al., “Practical Wyner-Ziv switching scheme for multiple bit-rate video streaming,” <http://research.microsoft.com/˜fengwu/papers/switching—icip—2006.pdf>, 249-252, 2006. |
He et al., “A Unified Rate-Distortion Analysis Framework for Transform Coding,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 11, No. 12, pp. 1221-1236 (Dec. 2001). |
Hsu et al., “Joint Selection of Source and Channel Rate for VBR Video Transmission Under ATM Policing Constraints,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 1016-1028 (Aug. 1997). |
Hsu et al., “Rate Control for Robust Video Transmission over Burst-Error Wireless Channels,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas of Communication, vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 756-773 (May 1999). |
Huang et al., “Adaptive Live Video Streaming by Priority Drop,” Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Advanced Video and Signal Based Surveillance, pp. 342-347, Jul. 21-22, 2003. |
Huang et al., “Optimal Coding Rate Control of Scalable and Multi Bit Rate Streaming Media,” Microsoft Research Technical Report, MSR-TR-2005-47, 26 pp. (Apr. 2005). |
Huang et al., “Optimal control of multiple bit rates for streaming media,” <http://nisl.wayne.edu/Papers/Tech/HuangCK04c.pdf>, Picture Coding Symposium, San Francisco, CA, 4 pages (Dec. 2004). |
Jafarkhani et al., “Entropy-Constrained Successively Refinable Scalar Quantization,” IEEE Data Compression Conference, pp. 337-346 (1997). |
Jayant et al., “Digital Coding of Waveforms, Principles and Applications to Speech and Video,” Prentice Hall, pp. 428-445 (1984). |
Jenkac et al., “On Video Streaming over Variable Bit-rate and Wireless Channels,” presented at Packet Video 2003, Nantes, France, Apr. 28-29, 2003, 11 pp. |
Johansen, “Rate-Distortion Optimization for Video Communication in Resource Constrained IP Networks,” Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 161 pp. (Dec. 2007). |
Kalman et al., “Rate-distortion optimized video streaming with adaptive playout,” <http://www.standford.edu/˜bgirod/pdfs/KalmanICIP2002.pdf>, 4 pages (2002). |
Kammin et al., “Video multiplexing for the MPEG-2 VBR encoder using a deterministic method,” <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ie15/4041313/4041314/04041354.pdf?isnumber=4041314&prod=CNF&arnumber=4041354&arSt=221&ared=228&arAuthor=Jasman+Kammin%3B+Kazuo+Ohzeki&htry=1>, 8 pages (Dec. 2006). |
Li et al., “Optimal Linear Interpolation Coding for Server-Based Computing,” Proc. IEEE Int'l Conf. on Communications, 5 pp. (2002). |
Microsoft TechNet, “Streaming Media Services Role,” Jan. 2008, 3 pages. |
Mook, “Next-Gen Windows Media Player Leaks to the Web,” BetaNews, 17 pp. (Jul. 19, 2002) [Downloaded from the World Wide Web on Aug. 8, 2003]. |
Naveen et al., “Subband Finite State Scalar Quantization,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 150-155 (Jan. 1996). |
Ortega et al., “Adaptive Scalar Quantization Without Side Information,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 665-676 (May 1997). |
Ortega, “Optimal bit allocation under multiple rate constraints,” Proc. of the Data Compression Conf., 10 pp. (Apr. 1996). |
Ortega et al., “Optimal Buffer-Constrained Source Quantization and Fast Approximation,” IEEE, pp. 192-195 (1992). |
Ortega et al., “Optimal Trellis-based Buffered Compression and Fast Approximation,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 26-40 (Jan. 1994). |
Pao, “Encoding Stored Video for Streaming Applications,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 199-209 (Feb. 2001). |
Qazzaz et al., “Providing Interactive Video on Demand Services in Distributed Architecture,” 29th Proceedings of the Euromicro Conference, pp. 215-222, Sep. 1-6, 2003. |
Ramchandran et al., “Bit Allocation for Dependent Quantization with Applications to MPEG Video Coders,” IEEE, pp. v-381-v-384 (1993). |
Ratnakar et al., “RD-OPT: An Efficient Algorithm for Optimization DCT Quantization Tables,” 11 pp. |
Reader, “History of MPEG Video Compression—Ver. 4.0,” 99 pp. (document marked Dec. 16, 2003). |
Reed et al., “Constrained Bit-Rate Control for Very Low Bit-Rate Streaming-Video Applications,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 11, No. 7, pp. 882-889 (Jul. 2001). |
Reibman et al., “Constraints on Variable Bit-rate Video for ATM Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, No. 4, pp. 361-372 (1992). |
Reibman et al., “Video Quality Estimation for Internet Streaming,” downloaded from http://www.www2005.org/cdrom/docs/p1168.pdf on Aug. 22, 2008. |
Rexford et al., “Online Smoothing of Live, Variable-Bit-Rate Video,” IEEE, pp. 235-243 (May 1997). |
Ribas Corbera et al., “Rate Control in DCT Video Coding for Low-Delay Communications,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 172-185 (Feb. 1999). |
Ronda et al., “Rate Control and Bit Allocation for MPEG-4,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, pp. 1243-1258 (1999). |
Schulzrinne, “Operating System Issues for Continuous Media,” ACM Multimedia Systems, vol. 4, No. 5, 13 pp. (Mar. 1996). |
Schuster et al., “A Theory for the Optimal Bit Allocation Between Displacement Vector Field and Displaced Frame Difference,” IEEE J. on Selected Areas in Comm., vol. 15, No. 9, pp. 1739-1751 (Dec. 1997). |
Sheu et al., “A Buffer Allocation Mechanism for VBR Video Playback,” Communication Tech. Proc. 2000, WCC-ICCT 2000, vol. 2, pp. 1641-1644 (2000). |
Sidiropoulos, “Optimal Adaptive Scalar Quantization and image Compression,” ICIP, pp. 574-578 (1998). |
Srinivasan et al., “High-Quality Audio Compression Using an Adaptive Wavelet Packet Decomposition and Psychoacoustic Modeling,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 1085-1093 (Apr. 1998). |
Srinivasan et al., “Windows Media Video 9: Overview and Applications,” Signal Processing: Image Communication, vol. 19, pp. 851-875, Oct. 2004. |
Sullivan, “Optimal Entropy Constrained Scalar Quantization for Exponential and Laplacian Random Variables,” ICASSP, pp. V-265-V-268 (1994). |
Sullivan et al., “Rate-Distortion Optimization for Video Compression,”IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, pp. 74-90 (Nov. 1998). |
Sullivan et al., “The H.264/AVC Advanced Video Coding Standard: Overview and Introduction to the Fidelity Range Extensions,” 21 pp. (Aug. 2004). |
Sun et al., “Seamless Switching of Scalable Video Bitstreams for Efficient Streaming,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 291-303 (Apr. 2004). |
Tao et al., “Adaptive Model-driven Bit Allocation for MPEG Video Coding,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Tech., vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 147-157 (Feb. 2000). |
Trushkin, “On the Design on an Optimal Quantizer,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 1180-1194 (Jul. 1993). |
Tsang et al., “Fuzzy based rate control for real-time MPEG video,” 12 pp. (1998). |
Walpole et al., “A Player for Adaptive MPEG Video Streaming over the Internet,” Proc. SPIE, vol. 3240, pp. 270-281 (1998). |
Westerink et al., “Two-pass MPEG-2 Variable-bit-rate Encoding,” IBM J. Res. Develop., vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 471-488 (1999). |
Wong, “Progressively Adaptive Scalar Quantization,” ICIP, pp. 357-360 (1996). |
Wu et al., “Entropy-Constrained Scalar Quantization and Minimum Entropy with Error Bound by Discrete Wavelet Transforms in Image Compression,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 48, No. 4, pp. 1133-1143 (Apr. 2000). |
Wu et al., “SMART: An Efficient, Scalable and Robust Streaming Video System,” EURASIP on Applied Signal Processing, vol. 2, 39 pp. (Feb. 2004). |
Wu et al., “Quantizer Monotonicities and Globally Optimally Scalar Quantizer Design,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 1049-1053 (May 1993). |
Yang et al., “Rate Control for Videophone Using Local Perceptual Cues,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Tech., vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 496-507 (Apr. 2005). |
Zhang et al., “Seamless Bit-Stream Switching in Multirate-Based Video Streaming Systems,” EURASIP Journal on Applied Signal Processing, vol. 2006, No. 18, p. 1-11, 2006. |
Zheng et al., “Multimedia Over High Speed Networks: Reducing Network Requirements with Fast Buffer Fillup,” IEEE Globecom-98, Nov. 1998, 6 pages. |
Hefeeda et al., “Rate-Distortion Optimized Streaming of Fine-Grained Scalable Video Sequences,” ACM Trans. on Multimedia Computing Communications and Applications, vol. 4, No. 1, 28 pp. (Jan. 2008). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130124697 A1 | May 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12119364 | May 2008 | US |
Child | 13735945 | US |