Title: Royalty Cost Based Optimization for Video Compression
1Royalty Cost Based Optimization for Video
Compression
- Emrah Akyol, Onur G. Guleryuz, and M. Reha
Civanlar - DoCoMo USA Labs,
- Palo Alto, CA
- USA
2Outline
- Setup and motivation
- Problem definition
- Our solution with some interesting simulation
results. - Conclusion
3Setup-1 Diverse set of terminals in media
delivery
Required quality/ effective bandwidth
Example terminals decoding the media
content licensing cost 1
Encoding 1
Cell phones
content licensing cost 2
PDAs
Encoding 2
Media
content licensing cost K
HDTVs
Encoding K
Increasing media quality/effective bandwidth
4Setup-2 Diverse set of tools
Compression tools, error correction tools,
transport tools,
Media data
Tool 1
Tool 3
Tools have different royalty/licensing costs.
Tool 2
Tool 4
Tool T
Decoded Media
(Media Consumer)
5Thought Experiment
- Many media delivery technologies available.
- One can transport media through a variety of
networks, using a vast range of tools that
correspond to vast ranges in efficiency in end to
end delivery. - Rather than restricting to rigid toolsets,
standard profiles, etc., can one be flexible and
allow all tools to contribute?
Why?
- Standardization process mostly allows a coarse
set of options. It mostly caters to the average
good. Many good tools and technologies get cut
out because they are not general enough.
Selection almost always involves compromises. - Standardization royalties may force simple tools
and sophisticated tools equal share of the
revenue. Impetus for alternative avenues for tool
deployment. - There is movement in this direction (software
decoders, MPEG RVC, ). - MPEG RVC (reconfigurable video coding)
- put many video compression tools (potentially
overlapping functionality) in one big library, - language syntax to specify which tools are
needed in decoding a given video stream.
6Media delivery cost surface
Media Quality
Royalty Cost
Effective Bandwidth
(content licensing tool licensing)
- Royalty cost of delivering media at a particular
quality and bandwidth. - Example surface defined by achievable quality,
bandwidth, royalty cost triplets. - All triplets below the surface are achievable.
7Cuts from the surface
Media Quality
h.264/AVC
Royalty Cost
Q
MPEG-1
Effective Bandwidth
8Complicated Royalty Costs
- My content costs 5 for cell phone terminals,
15 for HDTV terminals. - My compression tool is free of charge.
- My compression tool costs 0.001 per use.
- My tool costs 0.10 per movie, 0.15 for sports,
.... - My tool costs 0.10 except when combined with
all free tools, in which case it too becomes
free. - My tool is free for not-for-profit use.
-
9System Level Media Server
I will mostly talk about compression related tools
10System Level Media Delivery
Media Server
Registry
User
Certificate can be used to verify
with information from the user site (for each
media segment or periodically) to ensure the
legitimacy of the media.
11Rate - Distortion - Royalty Cost Optimization
Setup
- No reason to pay for the latest/greatest tools
- if plenty of bandwidth
- if simple/easy content
- if cheaper tools are available
-
Problem Definition For each of the M segments,
find the set of tools to use such that distortion
is minimized under total rate and total royalty
cost constraints, i.e.,
s.t.
,
This is a simplification. Optimization can get
elaborate.
12Optimization Example Using Compression Tools
- Case 1 Flat Rate, similar to todays
licensing. - Case 2 Fair Rate, each tool gets paid based
on its contribution
Table I Assigned cost of using each tool for two
different cases
Table II Rate and distortion changes with
different tools. The utilized tools are subpixel
accurate ME, loop filter, advanced entropy
coding, and multiple reference frames
respectively. The rate reduction is shown as
percentage with respect to the baseline along
with PSNR gain at QP25.
13Flat Rate
Quality
- concatenation of 10 clips
- Significant reduction in royalty costs with
small loss in efficiency - Inefficient tools get cut out (lobbying for
tools is useless). - Adaptive constant
- Constant toolset Optimized tools for the entire
duration of the content. - Adaptive toolset Optimized tools for each GOP
(toolset can change every GOP media segment)
14Fair Rate
Quality
- Adaptive better than constant.
- Significant reductions are difficult.
15Tool Usage
- Adaptive allows more tools to contribute (tools
that are good in niche situations get used).
Flat Rate
Fair Rate
16Conclusion
- A system that allows practical deployment of
royalty cost optimized media delivery. - Very interesting optimization problem with
sophisticated royalty costs. - Content adaptive.
- Increases efficiency. Allows non-standard tools
to contribute. - Much reduced royalties when plenty of
bandwidth/resources. - Flat rate significant reductions in royalty
cost possible. - Fair rate significant reductions difficult.
- Adaptive optimization allows each tool to
contribute when its niche comes. - Can allow other resources relevant to media
delivery into optimization (power consumption,
memory usage, etc.) - Going forward
- Optimization issues.
- More tools.
- Dependencies among tools.
- Addition of communication/networking related
tools.
- Fair rate
- Allow segment based licensing
17Going forward How should tools be priced?
- Combines game theory and economic concepts with
rate-distortion - How much are customers willing to pay to get
quality Q at bandwidth B? (Utilization curves). - Optimal costs based on utilization curves and
game theory. - What does todays licensing look like?
- Games
D,R not achievable
free region
Distortion
Free
T1 cost1(R)
T2 cost2(R)
T1 T2 cost3(R)
R
Rate