Next Article in Journal
Gaze-Swin: Enhancing Gaze Estimation with a Hybrid CNN-Transformer Network and Dropkey Mechanism
Next Article in Special Issue
Quality of Experience That Matters in Gaming Graphics: How to Blend Image Processing and Virtual Reality
Previous Article in Journal
DMCNet-Pro: A Model-Driven Multi-Pilot Convolution Neural Network for MIMO-OFDM Receivers
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

QoE-Based Performance Comparison of AVC, HEVC, and VP9 on Mobile Devices with Additional Influencing Factors

Department of Technology and Aesthetics, Blekinge Tekniska Högskola, 37179 Karlskrona, Sweden
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Electronics 2024, 13(2), 329; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13020329
Submission received: 24 November 2023 / Revised: 6 January 2024 / Accepted: 9 January 2024 / Published: 12 January 2024

Abstract

While current video quality assessment research predominantly revolves around resolutions of 4 K and beyond, targeted at ultra high-definition (UHD) displays, effective video quality for mobile video streaming remains primarily within the range of 480 p to 1080 p. In this study, we conducted a comparative analysis of the quality of experience (QoE) for widely implemented video codecs on mobile devices, specifically Advanced Video Coding (AVC), its successor High-Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC), and Google’s VP9. Our choice of 720 p video sequences from a newly developed database, all with identical bitrates, aimed to maintain a manageable subjective assessment duration, capped at 35–40 min. To mimic real-time network conditions, we generated stimuli by streaming original video clips over a controlled emulated setup, subjecting them to eight different packet-loss scenarios. We evaluated the quality and structural similarity of the distorted video clips using objective metrics, including the Video Quality Metric (VQM), Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio (PSNR), Video Multi-Method Assessment Fusion (VMAF), and Multi-Scale Structural Similarity Index (MS-SSIM). Subsequently, we collected subjective ratings through a custom mobile application developed for Android devices. Our findings revealed that VMAF accurately represented the degradation in video quality compared to other metrics. Moreover, in most cases, HEVC exhibited an advantage over both AVC and VP9 under low packet-loss scenarios. However, it is noteworthy that in our test cases, AVC outperformed HEVC and VP9 in scenarios with high packet loss, based on both subjective and objective assessments. Our observations further indicate that user preferences for the presented content contributed to video quality ratings, emphasizing the importance of additional factors that influence the perceived video quality of end users.
Keywords: QoE metrics; video quality assessments; HEVC and AVC comparison; mobile codecs efficiency; multimedia streaming; QoE IFs QoE metrics; video quality assessments; HEVC and AVC comparison; mobile codecs efficiency; multimedia streaming; QoE IFs

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nawaz, O.; Fiedler, M.; Khatibi, S. QoE-Based Performance Comparison of AVC, HEVC, and VP9 on Mobile Devices with Additional Influencing Factors. Electronics 2024, 13, 329. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13020329

AMA Style

Nawaz O, Fiedler M, Khatibi S. QoE-Based Performance Comparison of AVC, HEVC, and VP9 on Mobile Devices with Additional Influencing Factors. Electronics. 2024; 13(2):329. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13020329

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nawaz, Omer, Markus Fiedler, and Siamak Khatibi. 2024. "QoE-Based Performance Comparison of AVC, HEVC, and VP9 on Mobile Devices with Additional Influencing Factors" Electronics 13, no. 2: 329. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13020329

APA Style

Nawaz, O., Fiedler, M., & Khatibi, S. (2024). QoE-Based Performance Comparison of AVC, HEVC, and VP9 on Mobile Devices with Additional Influencing Factors. Electronics, 13(2), 329. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13020329

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop