Smart Streaming of Panoramic Videos

ABSTRACT

The streaming of panoramic videos comes with a new challenge: adapting the streamed content to user attention. In this paper, by making some abstraction we study the key issues of the problem: (1) online content switching strategies, and (2) offline segmentation in preparation for adaptive streaming. Our work demonstrates how the problem depends fundamentally on user behavior, represented by user attention trajectories. Although we only relied on a typical real-world measured trajectory and two artificially generated benchmark trajectories, we point out how more knowledge of user attention can help optimize both the online and offline strategies.

References

1. X Corbillon, A Devlic, G Simon, and J Chakareski. 2017. Optimal Set of 360-Degree Videos for Viewport-Adaptive Streaming. In ACM Multimedia.
2. D Wu et al. 2001. Streaming video over the Internet: approaches and directions. 11 (2001), 282--300. Issue 3.
3. K Misra et al. 2013. An overview of tiles in HEVC. IEEE Journal of selected topics in signal processing 7, 6 (2013), 969--977.
4. L Xie et al. 2017. 360ProbDASH: Improving QoE of 360 Video Streaming Using Tile-based HTTP Adaptive Streaming. In ACM Multimedia.
5. TY Huang et al. 2014. A Buffer-based Approach to Rate Adaptation: Evidence from a Large Video Streaming Service. In ACM Sigcomm.
6. J Le Feuvre and C Concolato. 2016. Tiled-based adaptive streaming using mpegdash. In ACM MMSys.
7. A Ghosh, V Aggarwal, and F Qian. 2017. A Rate Adaptation Algorithm for Tile-based 360-degree Video Streaming. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.08215 (2017).
8. E Kuzyakov, S Chen, and R Peng. 2016. Enhancing high-resolution 360 streaming with view prediction. (2016). https://code.facebook.com/posts/1126354007399553/next-generation-video-encoding-techniques-for-360-video-and-vr/.
9. H Mao, R Netravali, and M Alizadeh. 2017. Neural Adaptive Video Streaming with Pensieve. In ACM Sigcomm.
10. S Petrangeli, V Swaminathan, M Hosseini, and F De Turck. 2017. An HTTP/2-based adaptive streaming framework for 360 virtual reality videos. In ACM Multimedia.
11. Pixvana. 2017. An Intro to FOVAS: Field of View Adaptive Streaming for Virtual Reality. (2017). http://blog.pixvana.com/intro-to-field-of-view-adaptive-streaming-for-vr/.
12. K Spiteri, R Urgaonkar, and RK Sitaraman. 2016. Near-Optimal Bitrate Adaptation for Online Videos. In IEEE Infocom.
13. T Stockhammer. 2011. Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP: standards and design principles. In ACM MMSys. 133--144.
14. A Taghavinasrabadi, A Mahzari, J Beshay, and R Prakash. 2017. Adaptive 360-degree video streaming using layered video coding. In Virtual Reality.
15. M Xiao, C Zhou, Y Liu, and S Chen. 2017. OpTile: Toward Optimal Tiling in 360-degree Video Streaming. In ACM Multimedia.
16. X Yin, A Jindal, V Sekar, and B Sinopoli. 2015. A Control-Theoretic Approach for Dynamic Adaptive Video Streaming over HTTP. In ACM Sigcomm.
17. A Zare, A Aminlou, M Hannuksela, and M Gabbouj. 2016. HEVC-compliant tile-based streaming of panoramic video for virtual reality applications. In ACM Multimedia.
18. C Zhou, Z Li, and Y Liu. 2017. A Measurement Study of Oculus 360 Degree Video Streaming. In ACM MMSys.

Index Terms

• Networks

  • Network performance evaluation

    • Network performance analysis

  • Network protocols

    • Application layer protocols