MPEG-4 Design Team Report. 2 Proposals draft-ietf-avt-rtp-mpeg4-02.txt draft-guillemot-genrtp-01.txt draft-jnb-mpeg4av-rtp-00.txt FlexMux packetization.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
International Telecommunication Union Workshop on Standardization in E-health Geneva, May 2003 MPEG-4 video transmission for ambulatory application.
Advertisements

Introduction to H.264 / AVC Video Coding Standard Multimedia Systems Sharif University of Technology November 2008.
© NP 1999 MPEG-1 Multiplexing Nimrod Peleg Update: Nov
4/1/98Common Generic RTP Payload Format 1 Common Generic RTP Payload Format Anders Klemets.
MPEG: A Video Compression Standard for Multimedia Applications Didler Le Gall.
CS294-9 :: Fall 2003 ALF and RTP Ketan Mayer-Patel.
CSCI 4550/8556 Computer Networks Comer, Chapter 7: Packets, Frames, And Error Detection.
Rate-Distortion Optimized Layered Coding with Unequal Error Protection for Robust Internet Video Michael Gallant, Member, IEEE, and Faouzi Kossentini,
CS294-9 :: Fall 2003 vic and NAÏVE K. Mayer-Patel.
Video Streaming: An FEC-Based Novel Approach Jianfei Cai, Chang Wen Chen Electrical and Computer Engineering, Canadian Conference on.
The OSI Model A layered framework for the design of network systems that allows communication across all types of computer systems regardless of their.
MPEG-2 Transport streams tMyn1 MPEG-2 Transport streams The MPEG-2 Systems Standard specifies two methods for multiplexing the audio, video and other data.
RTP payload format for MPEG-4 Audio/Visual streams Yoshihiro Kikuchi - Toshiba Toshiyuki Nomura - NEC Shigeru Fukunaga - Oki Yoshinori Matsui - Matsushita.
Over-the-Air (OTA) Bit Management David Felland Milwaukee Public Television.
Moving PicturestMyn1 Moving Pictures MPEG, Motion Picture Experts Group MPEG is a set of standards designed to support ”Coding of Moving Pictures and Associated.
MPEG-4 RTP transport Philippe Gentric Philips Digital Networks 49th IETF Conference San Diego, 14 December 2000.
1 RTP Payload Format for DV Format Video draft-kobayashi-dv-video-00.txt Akimichi Ogawa Keio University.
Daniel Johnson. Playing a media file stored on a remote server on a local client.
1 Extensions to CRTP RTP Multiplexing using Tunnels Bruce Thompson Tmima Koren Cisco Systems Inc.
Additional requirements of DRA audio codec identified by IEC
Introduction to Networks CS587x Lecture 1 Department of Computer Science Iowa State University.
1 Hybrid Bit-stream Models. 2 Hybrid bit-stream model: Type 1  Pros: Simple. All we need are open-source codecs.  Cons: May lose some available information.
Audio/Video Transport Working Group 44th IETF, Minneapolis March 1999 Stephen Casner -- Cisco Systems Colin Perkins -- UCL Mailing list:
The OSI Model.
Audio/Video Transport Working Group 49th IETF, San Diego December 2000 Stephen Casner -- Packet Colin Perkins -- ISI,
ON DATACASTING OF H.264/AVC OVER DVB-H Multimedia Signal Processing, 2005 IEEE 7th Workshop on Publication Date: Oct Nov Reporter: 陳志明.
HDTV Video and AC-3 Payload Formats Ladan Gharai Allison Mankin USC/ISI.
An RTP Payload Format for EVRC Speech draft-3gpp2-avt-evrc-01.txt by Lucent, Nokia, Qualcomm, Samsung and UCLA (alphabetic ordered)
1 RTP Multiplexing using Tunnels (TCRTP) Bruce Thompson Tmima Koren Cisco Systems Inc.
� MPEG-4 on IP Framework draft-singer-mpeg4-ip-00 MPEG M6150 Joint IETF/MPEG submission, IETF to ‘standardize’ David Singer Apple Computer,
RUS Projects Communication Systems BeWü Development 1 Payload for MPEG-4 with Flexible Error Resiliency RTP Payload for MPEG-4 with Flexible Error Resiliency.
Chapter 7 - Packets, Frames and Error Detection 1. Concepts of Packets 2. Motivation for Packet Switching 3. Framing 4. Frame Formats 5. Transmission Errors.
1 RaptorG Forward Error Correction Scheme for Object Delivery draft-luby-rmt-bb-fec-raptorg-object-00 (update to this to be officially submitted soon)
AIMS’99 Workshop Heidelberg, May 1999 Management of QoS using MPEG4 DMIF standard Amaro Sousa, Institute of Telecommunications, PT Guido Franceschini,
1 Hybrid Bit-stream Models. 2 Hybrid bit-stream model: Type 1  Pros: Simple. All we need are open-source codecs.  Cons: May lose some available information.
MPEG-4 Audio/Visual RTP format I/D Update and Interoperability Test Toshiba, Matsushita, NEC, Oki, NTT MPEG NoordwijkerhoutIETF Adelaide.
IETF#64 – 7-11 November 2005 fecframe BOF Chair:Mark Watson Mailing List:
MPEG-4 streams Comp- ress Comp- ress Comp- ress Comp- ress D E L I V E R Y I N T E R F A C E (DAI) Comp- ress Scene Des. decomp- ress decomp- ress decomp-
The ISO/MPEG standardization process Requirements Call for proposals Evaluation Core experiments Draft specification National bodies agree.
RUS Projects Communication Systems BeWü Development 1 Payload for MPEG-4 with Scaleable and Flexible Error Resiliency RTP Payload for MPEG-4 with Scaleable.
Digital Video File Formats an overview. Introduction Digital Video & Audio files are also known as container formats. These “containers” are digital files.
Impulse Radio April 8, 2004 ISDWG April 8, 2004 Data Service Multiplex.
3GPP2 Evolution Workshop Multimedia Codecs and Protocols 3GPP2 TSG-C SWG1.2.
1 Extend FEC BB to RTP streaming? Michael Luby Digital Fountain.
IETF WG Presentation1 Urooj Rab Audio/Video Transport.
RTP Functionalities for RTCWEB A combined view from the authors of draft-cbran-rtcweb-media-00 draft-cbran-rtcweb-media-00 draft-perkins-rtcweb-rtp-usage-02.
Doc.: IEEE /0764r0 Submission July 2008 Alex Ashley, NDS LtdSlide 1 Using packet drop precedence for graceful degradation Date: Authors:
Lucent Technologies Bell Labs Innovations 1 3GPP2 ALLIP By Chung Liu, Enrique Hernandez-Valencia, and Mike Dolan IP to BTS Performance Analysis.
1 Hybrid Bit-stream Models. 2 Hybrid bit-stream model: Type 1  Pros: Simple. All we need are open-source codecs.  Cons: May lose some available information.
HEPiX Virtualisation working group Andrea Chierici INFN-CNAF Workshop CCR 2010.
Introduction to H.264 / AVC Video Coding Standard Multimedia Systems Sharif University of Technology November 2008.
MPEG-4 SL Payload Format
Codec Control for RTCWEB
Consultation with CE manufacturers re new DTV technologies
Models for adaptive-streaming-aware CDNI - Content Acquisition and Content Collections draft-brandenburg-cdni-has-01, section 3.2 CDNI Extended Design.
IETF#67 – 5-10 November 2006 FECFRAME requirements (draft-ietf-fecframe-req-01) Mark Watson.
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
RBridge Channel Tunnel Protocol
May 2018 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Discussion on Suitable Parameters for SCHC]
MPEG-4 & Wireless Multimedia Streaming
Error recovery for Packet Audio and Video
September 2011 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: A Reed-Solomon Erasure Correction Based.
May 2018 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Static Context Header Compression] Date Submitted:
Replies to Q&A following 10/0788r2
Standards Presentation ECE 8873 – Data Compression and Modeling
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
September 2011 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: A Reed-Solomon Erasure Correction Based.
September 2011 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: A Reed-Solomon Erasure Correction Based.
May 2018 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Discussion on Suitable Parameters for SCHC]
May 2018 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Static Context Header Compression] Date Submitted:
Presentation transcript:

MPEG-4 Design Team Report

2 Proposals draft-ietf-avt-rtp-mpeg4-02.txt draft-guillemot-genrtp-01.txt draft-jnb-mpeg4av-rtp-00.txt FlexMux packetization

3 Issues Use of MPEG-4 systems vs elementary streams Multiplexing multiple streams Grouping Fragmentation Error protection Timing model Byte alignment

4 Systems vs elementary streams MPEG-4 has a complete system model –some applications need the entire framework –others just desire to use the codecs We accept that we need to generate payload formats for both cases, even though this has the potential for interoperability problems later –compare issues with MPEG-2

5 Systems vs elementary streams MPEG-4 encompasses codecs which may have an existing RTP payload format –This does not preclude the use of MPEG-4 specific packetization in those cases For error resilience, it is desirable to packetize in a media aware manner –This does not imply a choice between systems or elementary streams

6 Multiplexing multiple streams Five multiplexing options were identified –GeRM –FlexMux –“PPP Mux” and CRTP –Don’t multiplex –Don’t multiplex, but compress headers We may need a FlexMux format, but nothing else requires special consideration

7 Grouping within a stream Why group? –to amortize header overhead –to aid error resilience duplicate and group picture headers with each packet group FEC with media data Disagreement over the importance of grouping, and the mechanism to be used

8 Grouping within a stream draft-guillemot-genrtp-01.txt has support for grouping access units (ie: ADUs) and for sub- access units (eg: unequal FEC) –eg: group a repeated picture header with the next frame other proposals perform no additional grouping –assuming anything needed will be done in the encoder need more experimental testing

9 Fragmentation It is necessary to fragment a codec bit-stream in a media aware manner to achieve error resilience We believe that the choice of fragmentation is a matter for the encoder, and that MPEG-4 should be able to fragment accordingly –a payload format should be able to transport oversize fragments, but this need not be efficient

10 Error protection We considered two forms of error protection within the payload across packets

11 Error protection - within payload draft-guillemot-genrtp-01.txt uses unequal FEC within the payload –uses a “typed segment” abstraction for genericity –this abstraction doesn’t exist in MPEG, although the information is available in an ES specific manner other proposals assume the MPEG bitstream is robust enough “as is” need more experimental testing

12 Error protection - across packets May also apply any of the existing error protection mechanisms across packets –parity FEC, for example draft-guillemot-genrtp-01.txt also duplicates these functions as part of its unequal FEC scheme

13 Error Protection Some MPEG-4 elementary streams MUST be reliably delivered –Control streams –Streaming media such as Java class files No conclusion on how we do this - have focused on audio and video to date

14 Timing model MPEG-4 and RTP have different timing models If it is desired to synchronize MPEG-4 data with data using a native RTP packetization we must align the models –capture time vs composition time Believe text in draft-ietf-avt-rtp-mpeg4-02.txt is correct, but needs edits for clarity –see Andrea’s presentation...

15 Byte alignment MPEG-4 systems has the potential to produce not byte aligned bit-streams –audio and video codecs do not –others may? May have to include padding bits to compensate –SL packets include these –mostly affects ES packetization

16 Presentations of drafts...

17 Future directions MPEG-4 codecs can be packetized as any other codec, with standards track payload formats –Adopt draft-jnb-mpeg4av-rtp-00.txt as an AVT work item, for eventual submission on the standards track Multiplexed MPEG-4 media is to be treated in a similar manner to earlier bundled MPEG transport –We will consider a FlexMux payload format, if one is submitted

18 Future directions We do not believe we fully understand the issues involved in the transport of the complete MPEG-4 system over RTP Submit such payload formats for publication as experimental RFCs, whilst we gain implementation experience –draft-ietf-avt-rtp-mpeg4-02.txt –draft-guillemot-genrtp-01.txt