| Literature DB >> 31022897 |
Xiantao Jiang1, Jie Feng2, Tian Song3, Takafumi Katayama4.
Abstract
Real-time video streaming over vehicular ad-hoc networks (VANETs) has been considered as a critical challenge for road safety applications. The purpose of this paper is to reduce the computation complexity of high efficiency video coding (HEVC) encoder for VANETs. Based on a novel spatiotemporal neighborhood set, firstly the coding tree unit depth decision algorithm is presented by controlling the depth search range. Secondly, a Bayesian classifier is used for the prediction unit decision for inter-prediction, and prior probability value is calculated by Gibbs Random Field model. Simulation results show that the overall algorithm can significantly reduce encoding time with a reasonably low loss in encoding efficiency. Compared to HEVC reference software HM16.0, the encoding time is reduced by up to 63.96%, while the Bjontegaard delta bit-rate is increased by only 0.76-0.80% on average. Moreover, the proposed HEVC encoder is low-complexity and hardware-friendly for video codecs that reside on mobile vehicles for VANETs.Entities:
Keywords: hardware friendly; high efficiency video coding; low complexity; vehicular ad-hoc networks
Year: 2019 PMID: 31022897 PMCID: PMC6514845 DOI: 10.3390/s19081927
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The structure of high efficiency video coding (HEVC, or H.265) encoder.
Figure 2Coding tree unit (CTU) partitioning and coding tree block (CTB) structure.
Figure 3PU modes in H.265/HEVC inter-prediction.
Figure 4Spatiotemporal neighborhood set.
The CTU depth range.
| CTU Type | The CTU Depth Range | |
|---|---|---|
|
| [0, 1, 2] | |
|
| 1.5 < | [1, 2, 3] |
|
| 2.5 < | [2, 3] |
Figure 5The statistical parameters are estimated with online learning.
Figure 6Flowchart of the proposed CTU depth decision.
Figure 7Flowchart of the proposed prediction unit (PU) mode decision.
Figure 8Mode decision process.
The simulation environments.
| Items | Descriptions |
|---|---|
| Software | HM16.0 |
| Video Size | |
| Configurations | random access (RA), low delay (LD) |
| Quantization Parameter (QP) | 22, 27, 32, 37 |
| Maximum CTU size |
|
Figure 9Traffic scenario.
Performance comparison of different parts of the proposed method (random access (RA)).
| CTU Depth Decision | PU Mode Decision | Overall (Proposed) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Size | Sequence | BDBR(%) | TS(%) | BDBR(%) | TS(%) | BDBR(%) | TS(%) |
|
| Traffic | 0.19 | 12.46 | 1.15 | 58.03 | 1.00 | 52.31 |
| SteamLocomotive | 0.12 | 13.79 | 0.82 | 56.32 | 0.72 | 52.65 | |
|
| ParkScene | 0.14 | 12.83 | 1.03 | 56.93 | 0.83 | 51.76 |
| Cactus | 0.13 | 12.25 | 1.34 | 52.57 | 1.19 | 47.31 | |
| BQTerrace | 0.02 | 14.18 | 0.84 | 57.54 | 0.69 | 54.09 | |
|
| BasketballDrill | −0.13 | 14.11 | 0.73 | 51.55 | 0.50 | 46.10 |
| BQMall | 0.18 | 15.97 | 0.92 | 56.76 | 0.73 | 51.37 | |
| PartyScene | 0.06 | 17.34 | 0.75 | 50.09 | 0.61 | 44.96 | |
| RaceHorses | 0.02 | 13.59 | 1.31 | 44.27 | 1.08 | 37.10 | |
|
| BasketballPass | 0.26 | 7.09 | 0.90 | 54.73 | 0.60 | 46.40 |
| BQSquare | 0.05 | 14.37 | 0.57 | 54.08 | 0.44 | 45.93 | |
| BlowingBubbles | 0.17 | 8.54 | 1.26 | 48.12 | 1.09 | 39.53 | |
|
| Vidyo1 | 0.11 | 16.19 | 1.18 | 66.60 | 0.77 | 63.30 |
| Vidyo3 | 0.11 | 14.81 | 0.57 | 63.90 | 0.75 | 61.74 | |
| Vidyo4 | 0.20 | 16.29 | 1.04 | 65.36 | 1.04 | 63.96 | |
| Average | 0.11 | 13.59 | 0.96 | 55.79 | 0.80 | 50.96 | |
Performance comparison of different parts of the proposed method (low delay (LD)).
| CTU Depth Decision | PU Mode Decision | Overall (Proposed) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Size | Sequence | BDBR(%) | TS(%) | BDBR(%) | TS(%) | BDBR(%) | TS(%) |
|
| Traffic | 0.12 | 9.34 | 0.92 | 54.54 | 0.89 | 54.81 |
| SteamLocomotive | −0.19 | 11.65 | 0.33 | 51.62 | 0.29 | 51.84 | |
|
| ParkScene | 0.11 | 10.15 | 1.07 | 52.66 | 1.08 | 53.02 |
| Cactus | 0.06 | 10.19 | 1.03 | 47.47 | 0.85 | 47.82 | |
| BQTerrace | 0.01 | 12.83 | 0.58 | 54.33 | 0.62 | 54.46 | |
|
| BasketballDrill | 0.18 | 10.75 | 0.71 | 43.95 | 0.79 | 44.22 |
| BQMall | 0.42 | 8.09 | 0.93 | 51.06 | 0.86 | 49.39 | |
| PartyScene | 0.22 | 9.16 | 0.58 | 40.92 | 0.55 | 41.29 | |
| RaceHorses | 0.02 | 6.73 | 0.79 | 37.04 | 0.89 | 37.03 | |
|
| BasketballPass | 0.94 | 6.99 | 0.91 | 51.21 | 0.91 | 51.80 |
| BQSquare | 0.10 | 4.33 | 0.54 | 44.85 | 0.36 | 42.24 | |
| BlowingBubbles | 0.24 | 3.92 | 1.16 | 40.16 | 1.15 | 40.57 | |
|
| Vidyo1 | 0.18 | 20.30 | 0.68 | 64.11 | 0.70 | 64.13 |
| Vidyo3 | 0.25 | 12.33 | 1.04 | 58.55 | 1.01 | 58.95 | |
| Vidyo4 | −0.37 | 14.03 | 0.55 | 61.67 | 0.48 | 61.95 | |
| Average | 0.15 | 14.05 | 0.79 | 50.28 | 0.76 | 50.23 | |
Performance comparison of different .
| (BDBR, TS) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Random Access | (1.01, 55.25) | (0.80, 50.96) | (0.98, 51.83) |
| Low Delay | (0.86, 50.63) | (0.76, 50.23) | (0.82, 50.55) |
Figure 10Rate–distortion (R–D) curve of the proposed method for “Cactus” and “BlowingBubbles”.
Figure 11Time savings of the proposed method for “Cactus” and “BlowingBubbles”.
Performance comparison of the proposed method compared to previous works.
| Method | (BDBR, TS) | |
|---|---|---|
| RA | Proposed | (0.80, 50.96) |
| Zhang’s [ | (1.19, 54.93) | |
| Zhu’s [ | (3.67, 65.60) | |
| Ahn’s [ | (1.40, 49.60) | |
| Goswami’s [ | (1.11, 51.68) | |
| Tai’s [ | (1.41, 45.70) | |
| Xiong’s [ | (2.00, 58.40) | |
| LD | Proposed | (0.76, 50.23) |
| Zhu’s [ | (3.84, 67.30) | |
| Ahn’s [ | (1.00, 42.70) | |
| Tai’s [ | (0.75, 37.90) | |
| Xiong’s [ | (1.61, 52.00) |