2008 15th International Conference on Systems, Signals and Image Processing 2008
DOI: 10.1109/iwssip.2008.4604379
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Advanced interactive television services require content synchronization

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
51
0
4

Year Published

2011
2011
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(55 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
51
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…As in an M/S Scheme, each receiver can only estimate the playout asynchrony regarding the master destination and, according to the studies in [11], an overall asynchrony of 100 ms can already be perceivable and annoying in some use cases in which IDMS is needed, the value of τ max (maximum allowable asynchrony threshold) was set to 50 ms. This way, the overall playout asynchrony should always be kept below 100 ms, since the worst case would occur when the playout point of two specific receivers are extremely lagged and advanced, respectively, regarding the one of the master destination (without considering possible extreme congestion situations).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As in an M/S Scheme, each receiver can only estimate the playout asynchrony regarding the master destination and, according to the studies in [11], an overall asynchrony of 100 ms can already be perceivable and annoying in some use cases in which IDMS is needed, the value of τ max (maximum allowable asynchrony threshold) was set to 50 ms. This way, the overall playout asynchrony should always be kept below 100 ms, since the worst case would occur when the playout point of two specific receivers are extremely lagged and advanced, respectively, regarding the one of the master destination (without considering possible extreme congestion situations).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…background traffic load, trans-coding or format conversion, fragmentation and re-assembly of packets, dynamic routing strategies, improper queueing policies, etc. ), processing, depacketization, decoding, decryption, buffering, rendering and presentation delays, or packet losses, which can seriously disturb the original media timing at the receiver side, and result in different (and time-variant) end-to-end delays when multicasting one (or several) flows of information from one (or more) media sources to one (or multiple) destinations, possibly over different delivery chains (network architectures, cross-domain On the one hand, the experiments in [11] and [12] showed that delays of up to five seconds can occur in television and Internet/Web technologies when using different types of end-terminals. On the other hand, the studies in those works pointed that the allowable asynchrony levels (i.e.…”
Section: Idms Challengesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In [Dev08], delay measurements in different content delivery scenarios were performed. A worst-case analysis was made, whose results are in Table 2.1.…”
Section: Magnitudes Of Delays and Delay Differences In Real Scenariosmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, no discussion about tolerable asynchrony thresholds was provided. In [Dev08], it was concluded that the bounds on delay differences between receivers to enable interactive video services may range between 15 and 500 ms, depending on the usage scenario. Moreover, controlled experimental setups have analyzed the effect of de-synchronization on the QoE in Social TV scenarios ([Gee11] and [Mek12]).…”
Section: Human Perception On Delay Differencesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation