Optimized client side rate control and indexed file layout for streaming media

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 9571550
  • Patent Number
    9,571,550
  • Date Filed
    Monday, January 7, 2013
    12 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, February 14, 2017
    7 years ago
Abstract
An indexed file layout, comprising index information, is defined for segmented streaming of multimedia content. The index information can comprise program description information and streaming segment index information. In addition, the layout can comprise files 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. Optimized client-side rate control of streaming content can be provided by defining a plurality of states, selecting available paths based on constraint conditions, and selecting a best path through the states (e.g., based on a distortion measure). In one client-side rate control solution states correspond to a specific bitrate of a specific streaming segment, and in another client-side rate control solution states correspond to a measure of client buffer fullness.
Description
BACKGROUND

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.


SUMMARY

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.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a system for segmented streaming of multimedia content using an indexed file layout.



FIG. 2 is a block diagram depicting an indexed file layout for segmented streaming.



FIG. 3 depicts an example diagram of streaming segments.



FIG. 4 depicts an example block diagram of file segments.



FIG. 5 depicts an example block diagram of an indexed file layout.



FIG. 6 depicts example rate control states.



FIG. 7 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a computing environment that can be used to implement any of the technologies described herein.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION

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.


DISCUSSION OF TERMS

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:






    • every video encoding used for streaming contains a closed Group of Pictures (GOP) boundary (key frame) at every streaming segment boundary

    • each streaming segment touches (but does not overlap with) one or two other streaming segments

    • all streaming segments combine to exactly cover the presentation time range of the entire program (i.e., streaming segments represent a complete non-overlapping segmentation of the program presentation time range)





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:

    • each file segment touches (but does not overlap with) one or two other file segments
    • all file segments combine to exactly cover the presentation time range of the entire program
    • the presentation time range corresponding to any given streaming segment is fully contained within the time range corresponding to some single file segment (i.e., no streaming segment may span multiple file segments)


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).



FIG. 1 depicts a generalized block diagram 100 of a system for segmented streaming of multimedia content using an indexed file layout. In the diagram 100, a server 110 (e.g., a server computer system such as a standard HTTP server) provides multimedia content to a client 120 (e.g., a client computer system, such as a laptop or desktop computer, or another type of computing device, such as a PDA or mobile phone) via a network 130 (e.g., the Internet). In the diagram 100, the server 110 stores programs in an indexed file layout. The client 120 comprises client-side rate control software and/or hardware.


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.).



FIG. 2 is a block diagram 200 depicting an indexed file layout for segmented streaming. In the diagram 200, one or more files contain index information 210 and one or more files contain streaming segments 220. The index information 210 includes program description information, file-level index information, and streaming segment index information. In some implementations, some of the listed index information may not be present and/or other types of index information may be present in addition to the listed information. The streaming segments 220 are content files for streaming segments of a program (streaming segments of encoded audio and/or video tracks).



FIG. 3 is a block diagram 300 depicting the organization of streaming segments. At 300, a program (e.g., a multimedia program with a number of audio and/or video tracks) is divided into streaming segments 1 through N for each track of the program. In general, a program can be divided into an arbitrary number of streaming segments. Each streaming segment includes the bitrate encodings for its audio or video tracks of the program for the period of the streaming segment. Each streaming segment can be encoded at a different number of bitrates, where each streaming segment encoded at a specific bitrate is a different streaming segment encoding. For example, streaming segment 1 of track 1 can be encoded at 128 Kb/sec (one available streaming segment encoding for streaming segment 1 of track 1). Streaming segment 1 of track 2 can be encoded at 96 Kb/sec and 192 Kb/sec (two available streaming segment encodings for streaming segment 1 of track 2).


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 FIG. 3, streaming segment 2 of audio tracks 1 and 2 are closely (but not exactly) aligned with streaming segment 2 of track 3 (the video track).



FIG. 4 is a block diagram 400 depicting file segments. In a specific implementation, the streaming segments of a program are organized by file segment. Each file segment contains one or more consecutive streaming segments for one or more tracks. All file segments of a program combine to cover the entire program.


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).



FIG. 5 is a block diagram 500 depicting an example indexed file layout. In general, the example layout 500 includes index information (510, 520, 530, and 540) describing the program, and encoded program content (streaming segments) 550 and 560.


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:












TABLE 1







File Name
Description









main.dat
Program description information




510



index.dat
File-level index information 520



index0.idx
Streaming segment index for file




segments (530)



index1.idx
Streaming segment index for file




segments (540)



file0.aud
Audio bitrate 1 for file segment




(550)



file0.vid
Video bitrates 1-3 for file segment




(550)



file1.aud
Audio bitrate 1 for file segment




(560)



file1.vid
Video bitrates 1-4 for file segment




(560)










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.

    • 1. A single Program Description file (for a given program) containing:
      • 1.1 Overall program description information includes information such as full duration and what kind of data the file contains (audio, video, what kind of audio—stereo, multichannel, how many languages, which streams are encoded using multiple bitrates, etc).
      • 1.2 For each high-level (user-exposed, such as audio or video) track, information about whether the Main Program Index for that track is contained in the program description file or in a separate file (in which case a partial file name is also specified, enabling the client to derive the full path to the main index file).
      • 1.3 Optionally, the Main Program Index(es) (unless 1.2 indicates that it is in a separate file). If present, this follows the same format as 2 below.
    • 2. Optionally (depending on 1.2), a separate file containing the Main Program Index containing:
      • 2.1 Optionally, a File Level index.
      • 2.2 Optionally a Streaming Segment Index describing all of the Streaming Segment encodings and bitrates available within the entire Program.
        • Note: At least one of {2.1, 2.2} must be present.
    • 3. Optionally, a number of Streaming Segment Index files (one for each File Segment) describing, for each File Segment, all of the Streaming Segment encodings and bitrates available within that File Segment. The filename of each Streaming Segment Index files must be derivable in some predictable fashion and contain the index (number) of the File Segment.
      • Note: Either 3 or 2.2 must be present.
    • 4. A number of Multimedia Data files containing compressed multimedia data. The filename of each Multimedia Data file must be derivable in some predictable fashion and contain the index (number) of the File Segment, as well as the index (number) of the bitrate contained in the file.


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.

    • 2.2.1 Start presentation time (or, equivalently, duration) of the Streaming


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.

    • 2.2.2 (Applicable to 2.2 only—n/a for 3) in a Streaming Segment index covering the entire program, the index (number) of the File Segment to which this Streaming Segment corresponds.
    • 2.2.3 The number of different bitrate encodings available for the streaming segment.
    • 2.2.4 For each bitrate encoding of a Streaming Segment, the following additional information:
      • 2.2.4.1 Some (possibly lossily compressed, approximate) representation of the size in bytes of that encoding.
      • 2.2.4.2 For video, the coded screen resolution (dimensions) used in that encoding.
      • 2.2.4.3 Some measure of the coded quality. This may be a scalar or a vector depending on whether “quality” is a single number appropriate for all use scenarios or a function of some parameters of the use scenario such as actual playback device screen resolution.
      • 2.2.2.4 Optionally, some measure of the decoding complexity (e.g., millions of instructions) of the encoding.
      • 2.2.2.5 File offset (into the audio or video data file) of the data corresponding to this Streaming Segment. This field may be omitted if the File Segment to Streaming Segment mapping is 1-to-1.


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:









D
=




i
=
0


M
-
1





d


[


u


[
i
]


,
i

]


.






Equation





1








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:

    • 1. Time to download first unit is less than or equal to T0
    • 2. Time to download first two units is less than or equal to T0+t[0]
    • 3. Time to download first three units is less than or equal to T0+t[0]+t[1]
    • 4. And so on . . . .


      The cumulative value of the durations is also referred to as the “timestamp” of a given chunk which is often present in streams. That is Σi=0n-1 t[i] is often called the timestamp of chunk n and is stored in the packet payload headers. This can be stated as:











T
0

+




i
=
0


n
-
1




t


[
i
]









i
=
0

n




s


[


u


[
i
]


,
i

]


.






Equation





2








This constraint has to be satisfied for all n, which can alternatively be written in terms of decoder buffer fullness given by:









f
d



[
n
]


=



T
0

+




i
=
0

n



t


[

i
-
1

]



-

s


[


u


[
i
]


,
i

]




0


,





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:












g
d



[
n
]


=



f
d



[

n
-
1

]


+

t


[

n
-
1

]


-

s


[


u


[
n
]


,
n

]











f
d



[
n
]


=

{







-







if







g
d



[
n
]



<

-


T
g



[
n
]











0





if





-


T
g



[
n
]






g
d



[
n
]



0









g
d



[
n
]







if







g
d



[
n
]



>
0




.






Equation





3








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:

    • 1 Let D[c,n] be the minimum distortion which can be achieved without glitches such that u[n]=c. If no such solution exists, let D[c,n] be the minimum distortion that can be achieved while minimizing the total glitch time.
    • 2 Let g[c,n] be the total glitch time achieved when doing 1.
    • 3 Let fd.c[c,n] be the decoder buffer fullness when doing 1.
    • 4 Let uc[c,n] be the set of optimal encodings chosen when doing 1.
    • 5 Let C[n] be the number of rates available at time n.
    • 6 Let t[n] be the duration of unit n.
    • 7 Let d[c,n] be the distortion of the c'th unit n.
    • 8 Let s[c,n] be the estimated download time of the c'th unit n.


      Then it can try to make an optimal decision as to which units to download up to the N0+M unit. Then, by definition, since the distortion is additive, we can write










D


[

c
,
n

]


=

{






min

l


γ


[

c
,
n

]






(

D


[

l
,

n
-
1


]


)


+

d


[

c
,
n

]







if








γ


[

c
,
n

]






1








min

l


σ


[

c
,
n

]






(

D


[

l
,

n
-
1


]


)


+

d


[

c
,
n

]







if








γ


[

c
,
n

]





=

0











Equation





4








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:










γ


[

c
,
n

]


=


{



l
|
l

=
0

,
1
,





,




C


[

n
-
1

]


-
1



f

d
.
c




[

l
,

n
-
1


]


+

t


[

n
-
1

]


-

s


[

c
,
n

]






-


T
g



[
n
]





g


[

l
,

n
-
1


]




=
0


}

.





Equation





5








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:











σ


[

c
,
n

]


=



{



l
|
l

=
0

,
1
,





,



C


[

n
-
1

]


-
1


(



T
g



[
n
]


-

min


(




f

d
.
c




[

l
,

n
-
1


]


+

t


[

n
-
1

]


-

s


[

c
,
n

]



,

-


T
g



[
n
]




)


+

g


[

l
,

n
-
1


]



)


=

g
min







}





.








Where



:











Equation





6








g
min



[

c
,
n

]


=



min


l
=
0

,
1
,









C


[

n
-
1

]



-
1






T
g



[
n
]



-




min


(




f

d
.
c




[

l
,

n
-
1


]


+

t


[

n
-
1

]


-

s


[

c
,
n

]



,

-


T
g



[
n
]




)


+


g


[

l
,

n
-
1


]











Let






:









Equation





7








l
min



[

c
,
n

]


=

{







arg





min


l


γ


[

c
,
n

]






(

D


[

l
,

n
-
1


]


)


+

d


[

c
,
n

]







if








γ


[

c
,
n

]






1









arg





min


l


σ


[

c
,
n

]






(

D


[

l
,

n
-
1


]


)


+

d


[

c
,
n

]







if








γ


[

c
,
n

]





=
0









Equation





8








Then, the updates for Equations 2, 3, and 4 can be done using:















g


[

c
,
n

]


=

{







0





if








γ


[

c
,
n

]






1









g
min



[

c
,
n

]







if








γ


[

c
,
n

]





=
0











f

d
,
c




[

c
,
n

]



=



max


(




f

d
.
c




[



l
min



[

c
,
n

]


,

n
-
1


]


+

t


[

n
-
1

]


-

s


[

c
,
n

]



,
0

)













u
c



[

c
,
n

]



=

{



u
c



[



l
min



[

c
,
n

]


,

n
-
1


]


,
c

}









Equation





9








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:









D
=

{





min

c

γ




D


[

c
,
M

]







if







γ




1







min

l

σ




D


[

c
,
M

]







if







γ



=
0









Equation





11








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.









σ
=



{



c
|
c

=
0

,
1
,





,



C


[

M
-
1

]


-
1


g


[

c
,
M

]



=

g
min



}

.








Where



:






Equation





13












g
min

=


min


c
=
0

,
1
,









C


[

M
-
1

]



-
1







g


[

c
,
M

]


.








Let



:








Equation





14












c
min

=

{






arg





min


c

γ




D


[

c
,
M

]







if







γ




1








arg





min


l

σ




D


[

c
,
M

]







if







γ



=
0










Equation





15








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.

















Set initial conditions as defined above in Equation 10



For n=1 to M



  For c=0 to C[n] − 1



    Find optimal solution ending in state c at unit n using



      Equations 4-8 by looping over 1



    Update variables for state (c,n) using Equation 9



  End



End



Find optimal solution ending in state M using Equations 11-16.










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.


Example

Consider the following simple example. Suppose we have 4 streaming segments, with the following distortions, durations, and estimated download times.














T0 = initial latency = 5


Durations = t[1] t[2] t[3] t[4] = 1 1 2 2


Number of bitrates available = C[1] C[2] C[3] C[4] = 3 3 4 2


Distortion for each streaming segment (first row gives distortion for


each of 3 bitrates for first segment)


d[i,j] =


3 2 1


3 2 1


4 3 2 1


3 1


Estimated download time for each steaming segment (first row gives


distortion for each of 3 bitrates for first segment)


s[i,j]=


1 2 3


1 2 3


1 2 3 4


2 3


Total distortion for each state at time n = 1,2,3,4


D[c,1]=


3


2


1


D[c,2]=


4


3


2


D[c,3]=


6


6


6


5


D[c,4]=


9


7


Total glitch time for each state at time n = 1,2,3,4


g[c,1]=


0


0


0


g[c,2]=


0


0


0


g[c,3]=


0


0


0


1


g[c,4]=


0


1


Decoder buffer fullness


f_d[c,1]=


4


3


2


f_d[c,2]=


2


1


0


f_d[c,3]=


0


0


0


0


f_d[c,4]=


0


0


Optimal path ending in state c


u[c,1]=


0


1


2


u[c,2]=


2 0


2 1


2 2


u[c,3]=


2 2 0


2 1 1


2 0 2


2 0 3


u[c,4]=


2 2 0 0


2 2 0 1









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).



















f_d[p,1]=




2




3




4




f_d[p,2]=




0




1




2




3




4




f_d[p,3]=




0




1




2




3




4




f_d[p,4]=




0




1




2




3




4




Total distortion




D[p,1]=




1




2




3




D[p,2] =




2




3




4




5




6




D[p,3]=




6




7




8




9




10




D[p,4]=




8




9




10




11




13




Optimal path (state here refers to buffer fullness state)




u[p,1]=




0




1




2




u[p,2]=




0 0




0 1




0 2




1 3




2 4




u[p,3]=




0 0 0




0 1 1




0 2 2




1 3 3




2 4 4




u[p,4]=




0 1 1 0




0 2 2 1




1 3 3 2




2 4 4 3




2 4 4 4










The two algorithms can be shown using the diagrams depicted in FIG. 6, where each dot represents a state, and the “optimal” state transitions are shown by solid lines. Some non-optimal paths are also shown as dashed lines. In the first case 610 (representing the first algorithm described above), there will always be a path from all states at n−1 to all states at n since the states represent possible bitrates. With the second algorithm 620, this will not be the case since there will not be possible path from all buffer states at n−1 to buffer states at n. The first dot in the first column represents “n=0” and is only used for initialization. Similarly, the single dot in the last column is choosing of the optimal path. On the diagrams, “t=duration”, “s=estimated time to download”, “T0=initial delay”, and “f=decoder buffer fullness”.


III. Example Computing Environment



FIG. 7 illustrates a generalized example of a suitable computing environment 700 in which described embodiments, techniques, and technologies may be implemented. The computing environment 700 is not intended to suggest any limitation as to scope of use or functionality of the technology, as the technology may be implemented in diverse general-purpose or special-purpose computing environments. For example, the disclosed technology may be implemented with other computer system configurations, including hand held devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, and the like. The disclosed technology may also be practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network. In a distributed computing environment, program modules may be located in both local and remote memory storage devices.


With reference to FIG. 7, the computing environment 700 includes at least one central processing unit 710 and memory 720. In FIG. 7, this most basic configuration 730 is included within a dashed line. The central processing unit 710 executes computer-executable instructions and may be a real or a virtual processor. In a multi-processing system, multiple processing units execute computer-executable instructions to increase processing power and as such, multiple processors can be running simultaneously. The memory 720 may be volatile memory (e.g., registers, cache, RAM), non-volatile memory (e.g., ROM, EEPROM, flash memory, etc.), or some combination of the two. The memory 720 stores software 780 that can, for example, implement the technologies described herein. A computing environment may have additional features. For example, the computing environment 700 includes storage 740, one or more input devices 750, one or more output devices 760, and one or more communication connections 770. An interconnection mechanism (not shown) such as a bus, a controller, or a network, interconnects the components of the computing environment 700. Typically, operating system software (not shown) provides an operating environment for other software executing in the computing environment 700, and coordinates activities of the components of the computing environment 700.


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.

Claims
  • 1. A method for optimizing client-side rate control of streaming content, the method comprising: receiving, by the client from a server, index information for a program of encoded audio and/or video content;for each of a plurality of states representing bitrate encodings of streaming segments of the program, performing, entirely by a client, client-side rate control operations comprising: 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, wherein the best path has the lowest distortion amongst the one or more available paths; andeliminating, as available paths, all of the one or more available paths other than the best path; anddownloading, by the client from the server, one or more streaming segments encoded at bitrates corresponding to the best path to an ending state through the plurality of states, wherein each of the plurality of states corresponds to a specific bitrate encoding of a specific streaming segment;wherein the index information is used by the client to identify the plurality of states, select the one or more available paths, and select the best path.
  • 2. The method of claim 1 wherein the constraint condition is satisfied when a sum of time it takes to download all streaming segments up to a current position is less than or equal to initial startup delay plus cumulative playback time up to the current position.
  • 3. The method of claim 1 wherein the constraint condition is defined by the following equation:
  • 4. The method of claim 1 further comprising: displaying, by the client, the decoded streaming segments corresponding to the best path.
  • 5. The method of claim 1 wherein the index information for the program comprises: streaming segment index information describing each streaming segment of the program, wherein the streaming segment index information comprises, for each streaming segment: a start position of the streaming segment; andan indication of bitrates for each available streaming segment encoding of the streaming segment, wherein a plurality of different bitrates are available for at least one streaming segment.
  • 6. A method for optimizing client-side rate control of streaming content, the method comprising: receiving, by the client from a server, index information for a program of encoded audio and/or video content;for each of a plurality of states representing bitrate encodings of streaming segments of the program, performing, entirely by a client, client-side rate control operations comprising: 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; andretaining the one or more available paths as possible paths to be included in a best end-to-end path;performing an end-to-end analysis of the possible paths to determine the best end-to-end path, wherein the best end-to-end path has the lowest overall distortion; anddownloading, by the client from the server, one or more streaming segments encoded at bitrates corresponding to the best end-to-end path through the plurality of states, wherein each of the plurality of states corresponds to a measure of client buffer fullness for a specific bitrate encoding of a specific streaming segment;wherein the index information is used by the client to identify the plurality of states and select the one or more available paths.
  • 7. The method of claim 6 wherein the constraint condition is satisfied when a sum of time it takes to download all streaming segments up to a current position is less than or equal to initial startup delay plus cumulative playback time up to the current position.
  • 8. The method of claim 6 wherein the constraint condition is defined by the following equation:
  • 9. The method of claim 6 further comprising: displaying, by the client, the decoded streaming segments corresponding to the best end-to-end path.
  • 10. The method of claim 6 wherein the plurality of states are organized into a trellis.
  • 11. A computing device comprising: a processing unit;a communication connection; andat least one of memory and storage media storing instructions for causing the computing device to perform operations for optimizing client-side rate control of streaming content, the operations comprising: receiving, by the computing device via the communication connection, index information for a program of encoded audio and/or video content;for each of a plurality of states representing bitrate encodings of streaming segments of the program, performing, entirely by the computing device, client-side rate control operations comprising: 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, wherein the best path has the lowest distortion amongst the one or more available paths; andeliminating, as available paths, all of the one or more available paths other than the best path; anddownloading, by the computing device via the communication connection, one or more streaming segments encoded at bitrates corresponding to the best path to an ending state through the plurality of states, wherein each of the plurality of states corresponds to a specific bitrate encoding of a specific streaming segment;wherein the index information is used by the computing device to identify the plurality of states, select the one or more available paths, and select the best path.
  • 12. The computing device of claim 11 wherein the constraint condition is satisfied when a sum of time it takes to download all streaming segments up to a current position is less than or equal to initial startup delay plus cumulative playback time up to the current position.
  • 13. The computing device of claim 11 wherein the constraint condition is defined by the following equation:
  • 14. The computing device of claim 11, the operations further comprising: displaying, by the computing device via a display of the computing device, the decoded streaming segments corresponding to the best path.
US Referenced Citations (434)
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
Foreign Referenced Citations (3)
Number Date Country
1931148 Jun 2008 EP
2008-523687 Jul 2008 JP
WO 2007058515 May 2007 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (70)
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).
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20130124697 A1 May 2013 US
Divisions (1)
Number Date Country
Parent 12119364 May 2008 US
Child 13735945 US