This application is the U.S. national phase of international application PCT/GB2004/001253 filed 23 Mar. 2004 which designated the U.S. and claims benefit of GB 0306973.9, dated 26 Mar. 2003, the entire content of which is hereby incorporated by reference.
The present invention is concerned with methods and apparatus for transmitting encoded video, audio or other material over a network.
According to one aspect of the present invention there is provided a method of transmitting an encoded sequence over a network to a terminal, comprising: storing a plurality of encoded versions of the same sequence, wherein each version comprises a plurality of discrete portions of data and each version corresponds to a respective different degree of compression; transmitting a current one of said versions; ascertaining the data rate permitted by the network; ascertaining the state of a receiving buffer at the terminal; for at least one candidate version, computing in respect of at least one discrete portion thereof as yet unsent the maximum value of a timing error that would occur were any number of portions starting with that portion to be sent at the currently ascertained permitted rate; comparing the determined maximum error values with the ascertained buffer state; selecting one of said versions for transmission, in dependence on the results of said comparisons; and transmitting the selected version.
In another aspect, the invention provides a method of transmitting an encoded sequence over a network to a terminal, comprising: storing a plurality of encoded versions of the same sequence, wherein each version comprises a plurality of discrete portions of data and each version corresponds to a respective different degree of compression; for each version and for each of a plurality of nominal transmitting rates, computing in respect of at least one discrete portion thereof the maximum value of a timing error that would occur were any number of portions starting with that portion to be sent at the respective nominal rate; storing said maximum error values; transmitting a current one of said versions; ascertaining the data rate permitted by the network; ascertaining the state of a receiving buffer at the terminal; for at least one candidate version, using the ascertained permitted data rate and the stored maximum error values to estimate a respective maximum error value corresponding to said ascertained permitted data rate; comparing the estimated maximum error values with the ascertained buffer state; selecting one of said versions for transmission, in dependence on the results of said comparisons; and transmitting the selected version.
Further aspects of the invention are set out in the claims
Some embodiments of the invention will now be described, by way of example, with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:
In
By “bit-rate” here is meant the bit-rate generated by the original encoder and consumed by the ultimate decoder; in general this is not the same as the rate at which the streamer actually transmits, which will be referred to as the transmitting bit-rate. It should also be noted that these files are generated at a variable bit-rate (VBR)—that is, the number of bits generated for any particular frame of the video depends on the picture content. Consequently, references above to low (etc.) bit-rate refer to the average bit-rate.
The server has a transmitter 12 which serves to output data via a network 2 to a terminal 3. The transmitter is conventional, perhaps operating with a well known protocol such as TCP/IP. A control unit 13 serves in conventional manner to receive requests from the terminal for delivery of a particular sequence, and to read packets of data from the store 11 for sending to the transmitter 12 as and when the transmitter is able to receive them. Here it is assumed that the data are read out as discrete packets, often one packet per frame of video, though the possibility of generating more than one packet for a single frame is not excluded. (Whilst is in principle possible for a single packet to contain data for more than one frame, this is not usually of much interest in practice).
Note that these packets are not necessarily related to any packet structure used on the network 2.
The terminal 3 has a receiver 31, a buffer 32, primarily for accommodating short-term fluctuations in network delay and throughput, and a decoder 33. In principle, the terminal is conventional, though to get full benefit from the use of the server, one might choose to use a terminal having a larger buffer 32 than is usual.
Some networks (including TCP/IP networks) have the characteristic that the available transmitting data rate fluctuates according to the degree of loading on the network. The reason for providing alternative versions V1, V2, V3 of one and the same video sequence is that one may choose a version that the network is currently able to support. Another function of the control unit 13, therefore, is to interrogate the transmitter 12 to ascertain the transmitting data rate that is currently available, and take a decision as to which version to send. Here, as in many such systems, this is a dynamic process: during the course of a transmission the available rate is continually monitored so that as conditions improve (or deteriorate) the server may switch to a higher (or lower) quality version. Sometimes (as in TCP/IP) the available transmitting rate is not known until after transmission has begun; one solution is always to begin by sending the lowest-rate version and switch up if and when it becomes apparent that a higher quality version can be accommodated.
Some systems employ additional versions of the video sequence representing transitional data which can be transmitted between the cessation of one version and the commencement of a different one, so as to bridge any incompatibility between the two versions. If required, this may be implemented, for example, in the manner described in our U.S. Pat. No. 6,002,440.
In this description we will concentrate on the actual decision on if and when to switch. Conventional systems compare the available transmitting bit-rate with the average bit-rates of the versions available for transmission. We have recognized, however, that this is unsatisfactory for VBR systems because it leaves open the possibility that at some time in the future the available transmitting bit-rate will be insufficient to accommodate short-term fluctuations in instantaneous bit-rate as the latter varies with picture content. Some theoretical discussion is in order at this point.
As shown in
In a simple case, each packet corresponds to one frame, and the time-stamps ti increase monotonically, that is, ti+1>ti for all i. If however a frame can give rise to two or more packets (each with the same ti) then ti+1≧ti. If frames can run out of capture-and-display sequence (as in MPEG) then the ti do not increase monotonically. Also, in practice, some frames may be dropped, so that there will be no frame for a particular value of ti.
These times are relative. Suppose the receiver has received packet 0 and starts decoding packet 0 at time tref+t0. At “time now” of tref+tg the receiver has received packet tg (and possibly more packets too) and has just started to decode packet g.
Packets g to h−1 are in the buffer. Note that (in the simple case) if h=g+1 then the buffer contains packet g only. At time tref+tj the decoder is required to start decoding packet j. Therefore, at that time tref+tj the decoder will need to have received all packets up to and including packet j.
The time available from now up to tref+tj is (tref+tj)−(tref+tg)=tj−tg. (1)
The data to be sent in that time are that for packets h to j, viz.
which at a transmitting rate R will require a transmission duration
This is possible only if this transmission duration is less than or equal to the time available, i.e. when the currently available transmitting rate R satisfies the inequality
Note that this is the condition for satisfactory reception and decoding of frame j: satisfactory transmission of the whole of the remaining sequence requires that this condition be satisfied for all j=h . . . N−1.
For reasons that will become apparent, we rewrite Equation (4) as:
Note that
Also, we define Δεi=(bi/R)−Δti
and TB=th−1−tg; note that TB is the difference between the time-stamp of the most recently received packet in the buffer and the time stamp of the least recently received packet in the buffer—i.e. the one that we have just started to decode. Thus, TB indicates the amount of buffered information that the client has at time tg.
Then the condition is
For a successful transmission up to the last packet N−1, this condition must be satisfied for any possible j, viz.
The left-hand side of Equation (7) represents the maximum timing error that may occur from the transmission of packet h up to the end of the sequence, and the condition states, in effect that this error must not exceed the ability of the receiver buffer to accommodate it, given its current contents. For convenience, we will label the left-hand side of Equation (7) as Th—i.e.
So that Equation (7) may be written as
Th≦TB (9)
In practice we prefer to allow switching only at certain defined “switching points” in the sequence (and naturally provide the transitional data mentioned earlier only for such points). In that case the test needs to be performed only at such points.
The switching decision at frame h may then proceed as follows:
Step 105: interrogate the transmitter 12 to determine the available transmitting rate R;
Step 106: ascertain the current value of TB: this may be calculated at the terminal and transmitted to the server, or may be calculated at the server (see below);
Step 107: compute (for each file V1, V2, V3) Th in accordance with Equation (8)—let these be called Th(1), Th(2), Th(3);
Step 108: determine the highest value of k for which Th(k)+Δ≦TB, where Δ is a fixed safety margin;
Step 109: select file Vk for transmission.
The original loop is then resumed with step 102 where the next frame is transmitted before, but possibly from a different one of the three files V1, V2, V3.
The calculation of TB at the server will depend on the exact method of streaming that is in use. Our preferred method is (as described our in international patent application no. PCT/GB 01/05246 [Agent's Ref. A26079]) to send, initially, video at the lowest quality, so that the terminal may immediately start decoding whilst at the same time the receiving buffer can be filling up because data is being sent at a higher rate than it is used. In this case the server can deduce current client session time (i.e. the timestamp of the packet currently being decoded at the terminal) without any feedback, and so
TB=latest sent packet time−current client session time.
If the system is arranged such that the terminal waits until some desired state of buffer fullness is reached before playing begins, then the situation is not quite so simple because there is an additional delay to take into account. If this delay is fixed, it can be included in the calculation. Similarly, if the terminal calculates when to start playing and both the algorithm used, and the parameters used by the algorithm, are known by the server, again this can be taken into account. If however the terminal is of unknown type, or controls its buffer on the basis of local conditions, feedback from the terminal will be needed.
Now, this procedure will work perfectly well, but does involve a considerable amount of processing that has to be carried out during the transmission process. In a modified implementation, therefore, we prefer to perform as much as possible of this computation in advance. In principle this involves the calculation of Th(k) for every packet that follows a switching point, and storing this value in the packet header. Unfortunately, this calculation (Equation (8) and the definition of Δεi) involves the value of R, which is of course unknown at the time of this pre-processing. Therefore we proceed by calculating Th(k) for a selection of possible values of R, for example (if RA is the average bit rate of the file in question)
R1=0.5RA
R2=0.7RA
R3=RA
R4=1.3RA
R5=2RA
So each packet h has these five precalculated values of Th stored in it. If required (for the purposes to be discussed below) one may also store the relative time position at which the maximum in Equation (8)) occurs, that is,
Δth max=tj max−th where tj max is the value of j in Equation 8 for which Th is obtained.
In this case the switching decision at frame h proceeds as follows:
interrogate the transmitter 12 to determine the available transmitting rate R;
ascertain the current value of TB, as before;
EITHER—in the event that R corresponds to one of the rates for which Th has been precalculated—read this value from the store (for each file V1, V2, V3);
OR—in the event that R does not so correspond, read from the store the value of Th (and, if required, th max) that correspond to the highest one (R−) of the rates R1 . . . R5 that is less than the actual value of R, and estimate Th from it (again, for each file V1, V2, V3);
determine the highest value of k for which Th(k)+Δ≦TB, where Δ is a fixed safety margin;
select file Vk for transmission.
The estimate of Th could be performed simply by using the value Th− associated with R−; this would work, but since it would overestimate Th it would result, at times, in a switch to a higher quality stream being judged impossible even though it were possible. Another option would be by linear (or other) interpolation between the values of Th stored for the two values of R1 . . . R5 each side of the actual value R. However, our preferred approach is to calculate an estimate according to:
Where R− is the highest one of the rates R1 . . . R5 that is less than the actual value of R, Ti− is the precalculated Th for this rate, Δti max− is the time from ti at which Ti− is obtained (i.e. is the accompanying value of Δth max−. In the event that this method returns a negative value, we set it to zero.
Note that this is only an estimate, as Th is a nonlinear function of rate. However with this method Ti′ is always higher than the true value and automatically provides a safety margin (so that the margin Δ shown above may be omitted.
Note that these equations are valid for the situation where the encoding process generates two or more packets (with equal ti) for one frame, and for the situation encountered in MPEG with bidirectional prediction where the frames are transmitted in the order in which they need to be decoded, rather than in order of ascending ti.
The above description assumes that the test represented by Equation (7) is performed for all versions of the stored video. Although preferred, this is not essential. If large jumps in picture quality are not expected (for example because frequent switching points are provided) then the test could be performed only for the current version and one or more versions corresponding to adjacent compression rates. For example, when transmitting version V1, it might be considered sufficient to perform the test only for the current version V1 and for the nearest candidate version V2. Also, in the case of a server that interfaces with different networks, one might choose to test only those versions with data rate requirements that lie within the expected range of capability of the particular network in use.
Although the example given is for encoded video, the same method can be applied to encoded audio or indeed any other material that is to be played in real time.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
0306973.9 | Mar 2003 | GB | national |
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/GB2004/001253 | 3/23/2004 | WO | 00 | 9/20/2005 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2004/086721 | 10/7/2004 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4419699 | Christopher et al. | Dec 1983 | A |
5025458 | Casper et al. | Jun 1991 | A |
5430485 | Lankford et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
5534937 | Zhu et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5598352 | Rosenau et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5768527 | Zhu et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5874997 | Haigh | Feb 1999 | A |
5923655 | Veschi et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5949410 | Fung | Sep 1999 | A |
5953350 | Higgins | Sep 1999 | A |
6014694 | Aharoni et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6016307 | Kaplan et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6085221 | Graf | Jul 2000 | A |
6101221 | Varanasi et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6130987 | Tanaka | Oct 2000 | A |
6148135 | Suzuki | Nov 2000 | A |
6169843 | Lenihan et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6195368 | Gratacap | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6223211 | Hamilton et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6332157 | Mighdoll et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6366614 | Pian et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6397251 | Graf | May 2002 | B1 |
6438317 | Imahashi et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6452922 | Ho | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6453112 | Imahashi et al. | Sep 2002 | B2 |
6502125 | Kenner et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6560334 | Mullaney et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6678332 | Faibish et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6704288 | Dziekan et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6771703 | Oguz et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6792047 | Bixby et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6931071 | Haddad et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6976208 | Kim et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
7016970 | Harumoto et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7096481 | Forecast et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7111061 | Leighton et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7251833 | Feig et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7333721 | Maehashi et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7340505 | Lisiecki et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7471874 | Kanemaru et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7558869 | Leon et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7620137 | Lottis et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
20020031120 | Rakib | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020100052 | Daniels | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020102978 | Yahagi | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020136205 | Sasaki | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20030002482 | Kubler et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030053416 | Ribas-Corbera et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030145007 | Kenner et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030169777 | Fuse | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030233666 | Onomatsu et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040141731 | Ishioka et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20050071876 | van Beek | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050117891 | Suzuki | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20080025340 | Alvarez-Arevalo | Jan 2008 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1426235 | Jun 2003 | CN |
10125017 | Dec 2002 | DE |
0817488 | Jan 1998 | EP |
0868084 | Sep 1998 | EP |
0966175 | Dec 1999 | EP |
WO 9522233 | Aug 1995 | WO |
WO 9965026 | Dec 1999 | WO |
WO 0189142 | Nov 2001 | WO |
WO 0249343 | Jun 2002 | WO |
WO 02095637 | Nov 2002 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20060195612 A1 | Aug 2006 | US |