Re: [xrblock] Loss-Type concealment vs Buffer adjustment type concealment

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Tue, 23 October 2012 07:01 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A31E1F0C54 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 00:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.755
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.755 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oDJcQGiUr6Qa for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 00:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 721551F0C51 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 00:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ALZ11622; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:01:12 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 08:00:58 +0100
Received: from SZXEML409-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.136) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 08:01:03 +0100
Received: from w53375 (10.138.41.149) by szxeml409-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.136) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:00:58 +0800
Message-ID: <9D53E19D24074A6FABEA8B28CCEC805B@china.huawei.com>
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Alan Clark <alan.d.clark@telchemy.com>
References: <CCA6BDFD.4B2BF%alan.d.clark@telchemy.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:00:58 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0B29_01CDB12F.356604B0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.149]
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: xrblock@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [xrblock] Loss-Type concealment vs Buffer adjustment type concealment
X-BeenThere: xrblock@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework working group discussion list <xrblock.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xrblock>, <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xrblock>
List-Post: <mailto:xrblock@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock>, <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:01:15 -0000

Re: [xrblock] Loss-Type concealment vs Buffer adjustment type concealmentMake sense to me. Thank for your clarification!

Regards!
-Qin
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Alan Clark 
  To: Qin Wu 
  Cc: xrblock@ietf.org 
  Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 8:21 PM
  Subject: Re: [xrblock] Loss-Type concealment vs Buffer adjustment type concealment


  Hi Qin

  There is an equivalent buffer adjustment behavior in video systems.  If there is some need to increase or decrease the playout buffer size this can be accommodated by either temporarily adjusting the frame rate or freezing/ skipping frames.  The extreme case of this is in a video streaming system which can pause playout for 10-30 seconds if a buffer outage occurs - typically the client will increase the playout buffer to allow for more variability in network or server induced delays.

  Best Regards

  Alan


  On 10/19/12 3:59 AM, "Qin Wu" <bill.wu@huawei.com> wrote:


    Hi,Alan:
    one follow up question is:
    Is Buffer adjustment type concealment applicable to video application?
    It seems Buffer Adjustment-type concealment is usually applied to audio.
     
    Regards!
    -Qin


      ----- Original Message ----- 
       
      From:  Alan Clark <mailto:alan.d.clark@telchemy.com>  
       
      To: Qin Wu <mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com>  
       
      Cc: xrblock@ietf.org 
       
      Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:20  PM
       
      Subject: Re: [xrblock] Loss-Type concealment  vs Buffer adjustment type concealment
       

      Also - we should note that with video it is possible  to use RTP based retransmission and also FEC (e.g. COP3) - typically these  would only be used with IPTV as this is less delay sensitive than interactive  services. 

      Alan


      On 10/10/12 5:02 AM, "Alan Clark" <alan.d.clark@telchemy.com>  wrote:

       

        Qin

        The wording in  draft-ietf-xrblock-xr-consec-.. is definitely related to audio. Video does  have loss concealment and there are a range of methods used, for  example:

        (i) Frame freeze
        In this case the impaired video frame is  not displayed and the previously displayed frame is hence "frozen" for the  duration of the loss even

        (ii) Inter-frame extrapolation
        If an  area of the video frame is damaged by loss, the same area from the previous  frame(s) can be used to estimate what the missing pixels would have been.   This can work well in a scene with no motion but can be very  noticeable if there is significant movement from one frame to another.   Simple decoders may simply re-use the pixels that were in the missing  are, more complex decoders may try to use several frames to do a more  complex extrapolation

        (iii) Interpolation
        A decoder may use the  undamaged pixels in the image to estimate what the missing block of image  should have

        (iv) Noise insertion
        A decoder may insert random pixel  values - which would generally be less noticeable than a blank rectangle in  the image

        Alan

        On 10/10/12 3:41 AM, "Qin Wu" <bill.wu@huawei.com>  wrote:

         

          Hi,
          In  draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-concsec,concealment is splitted into two type  of concealments.
          One is Loss-Type concealment and the other is Buffer  adjustment type concealment.
          So the question is are these two type of  concealments applied to video? If the answer is yes,
          how to take video  loss concealment into account? Since in the current draft, when we  define
          Loss-type concealment and buffer adjustment type concealment,  only audio loss concealment 
          is considered. See section 2.2 of  draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-concsec below for defintions of loss-type  concealment
          and buffer adjustment type concealment:
          "     
               Loss-type concealment  is reactive insertion or deletion of  samples
                in the audio playout stream  due to effective frame loss at  the
                audio decoder.  "Effective  frame loss" is the event in which  a
                frame of coded audio is simply  not present at the audio  decoder
                when required.  In  this case, substitute audio samples  are
                generally formed, at the  decoder or elsewhere, to reduce  audible
                impairment.

              Buffer  Adjustment-type concealment is proactive or  controlled
                insertion or deletion of  samples in the audio playout stream  due
                to jitter buffer adaptation,  re-sizing or re-centering  decisions
                within the endpoint.  Because this insertion is controlled, rather than  occurring
                randomly in response to  losses, it is typically less audible  than
                loss-type concealment.   For example, jitter buffer  adaptation
                events may be  constrained to occur during periods of  talker
                silence, in which case only  silence duration is affected,  or
                sophisticated time-stretching  methods for  insertion/deletion
                during favorable  periods in active speech may be employed.   For
                these reasons, buffer  adjustment-type concealment MAY be  exempted
                from inclusion in  calculations of Concealed Seconds and  Severely
                Concealed  Seconds.
          "

          Regards!
          -Qin 

           

----------------------------------------------------------------------
          _______________________________________________
          xrblock  mailing list
          xrblock@ietf.org
          https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock


         

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        _______________________________________________
        xrblock  mailing list
        xrblock@ietf.org
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock



       

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


      _______________________________________________
      xrblock mailing  list
      xrblock@ietf.org
      https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  xrblock mailing list
  xrblock@ietf.org
  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock