An analysis modeling of frame-level forward error correction for H.264/AVC over burst-loss channels

Abstract

Unequal error protection (UEP) on streaming media broadcasting is a widely used technique over wireless environment. Forward error protection (FEC) with UEP is a prevailing scheme to improve the quality of video streaming over lossy channels. Frame-level FEC have been proposed for video streaming due to the priorities of video frames within transmission constraint on Bernoulli channels. However, in current Internet architecture, various communication and storage systems are prone to corrupt as burst of noises occurs. The corrupted data pieces may exceed the error correction capacity of FEC, and therefore degrade the efficacy of FEC. To address this problem, we proposed a model to evaluate the perceived quality of H.264/AVC video streaming over burst channels. The experiment results indicate that the proposed scheme is able to evaluate the video streaming quality in perspective of decodable frame rate (DFR) with lower complexity than alternative methods.Keywords-Forward error correction, video streaming, burst loss channels, decodable frame rate.

Error Control Mechanism Based on Reed-Solomon Code for Wireless Networks

“…As indicated in [8], in burst loss transmission channels, a receiver may not accumulate a sufficient number of packets in the FEC-encoded blocks, so it will be unable to reconstruct the complete original data, which yields to ineffective transmission in the FEC mechanism.…”

Error Control Mechanism Based on Reed-Solomon Code for Wireless Networks

“…The flowchart of the FEC error control mechanism is shown in Figure 3. As indicated in [8], in burst loss transmission channels, a receiver may not accumulate a sufficient number of packets in the FEC-encoded blocks, so it will be unable to reconstruct the complete original data, which yields to ineffective transmission in the FEC mechanism. Taghikhaki et al [9] proposed a reliable data transmission protocol (RAFEC*), which can evaluate the link quality by counting the numbers of failures and successes in a certain period.…”

“…The subsequent checking processes of Case 2 after successful self-check of packet i is shown in Figure 14. If the checking process is successful, then only the message of packet (i + 2) will be stored in the receiver buffer, it is set that i = i + 3 (8) and the retransmission process returns to the transmission process; otherwise, the sender side retransmits packet (i + 2), and the receiver side checks it. However, if packet (i + 1) cannot be checked successfully with the help of packet i, the sender side retransmits packet (i + 1).…”