We consider the problem of predicting packet loss visibility in MPEG-2 video. We use two modeling approaches: CART and GLM. The former classifies each packet loss as visible or not; the latter predicts the probability that a packet loss is visible. For each modeling approach, we develop three methods, which differ in the amount of information available to them. A reduced reference method has access to limited information based on the video at the encoder's side and has access to the video at the decoder's side. A no-reference pixel-based method has access to the video at the decoder's side but lacks access to information at the encoder's side. A no-reference bitstream-based method does not have access to the decoded video either; it has access only to the compressed video bitstream, potentially affected by packet losses. We design our models using the results of a subjective test based on 1080 packet losses in 72 minutes of video.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kanumuri et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: