Image analysis – Image compression or coding – Interframe coding
Reexamination Certificate
1996-10-25
2001-08-07
Tran, Phuoc (Department: 2721)
Image analysis
Image compression or coding
Interframe coding
C382S243000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06272253
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The invention relates to electronic video methods and devices, and, more particularly, to digital communication and storage systems with compressed video.
Video communication (television, teleconferencing, and so forth) typically transmits a stream of video frames (images) along with audio over a transmission channel for real time viewing and listening by a receiver. However, transmission channels frequently add corrupting noise and have limited bandwidth (e.g., television channels limited to 6 MHz). Consequently, digital video transmission with compression enjoys widespread use. In particular, various standards for compression of digital video have emerged and include H.261, MPEG-1, and MPEG-2, with more to follow, including in development H.263 and MPEG-4. There are similar audio compression methods such as CELP and MELP.
Tekalp, Digital Video Processing (Prentice Hall 1995), Clarke, Digital Compression of Still Images and Video (Academic Press 1995), and Schafer et al, Digital Video Coding Standards and Their Role in Video Communications, 83 Proc. IEEE 907 (1995), include summaries of various compression methods, including descriptions of the H.261, MPEG-1, and MPEG-2 standards plus the H.263 recommendations and indications of the desired functionalities of MPEG-4. These references and all other references cited are hereby incorporated by reference.
H.261 compression uses interframe prediction to reduce temporal redundancy and discrete cosine transform (DCT) on a block level together with high spatial frequency cutoff to reduce spatial redundancy. H.261 is recommended for use with transmission rates in multiples of 64 Kbps (kilobits per second) to 2 Mbps (megabits per second).
The H.263 recommendation is analogous to H.261 but for bitrates of about 22 Kbps (twisted pair telephone wire compatible) and with motion estimation at half-pixel accuracy (which eliminates the need for loop filtering available in H.261) and overlapped motion compensation to obtain a denser motion field (set of motion vectors) at the expense of more computation and adaptive switching between motion compensation with 16 by 16 macroblock and 8 by 8 blocks.
MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 also use temporal prediction followed by two dimensional DCT transformation on a block level as H261, but they make further use of various combinations of motion-compensated prediction, interpolation, and intraframe coding. MPEG-1 aims at video CDs and works well at rates about 1-1.5 Mbps for frames of about 360 pixels by 240 lines and 24-30 frames per second. MPEG-1 defines I, P, and B frames with I frames intraframe, P frames coded using motion-compensation prediction from previous I or P frames, and B frames using motion-compensated bi-directional prediction/interpolation from adjacent I and P frames.
MPEG-2 aims at digital television (720 pixels by 480 lines) and uses bitrates up to about 10 Mbps with MPEG-1 type motion compensation with I, P, and B frames plus adds scalability (a lower bitrate may be extracted to transmit a lower resolution image).
However, the foregoing MPEG compression methods result in a number of unacceptable artifacts such as blockiness and unnatural object motion when operated at very-low-bit-rates. Because these techniques use only the statistical dependencies in the signal at a block level and do not consider the semantic content of the video stream, artifacts are introduced at the block boundaries under very-low-bit-rates (high quantization factors). Usually these bloclk boundaries do not correspond to physical boundaries of the moving objects and hence visually annoying artifacts result. Unnatural motion arises when the limited bandwidth forces the frame rate to fall below that required for smooth motion.
MPEG-4 is to apply to transmission bitrates of 10 Kbps to 1 Mbps and is to use a content-based coding approach with functionalities such as scalability, content-based manipulations, robustness in error prone environments, multimedia data access tools, improved coding efficiency, ability to encode both graphics and video, and improved random access. A video coding scheme is considered content scalable if the number and/or quality of simultaneous objects coded can be varied. Object scalability refers to controlling the number of simultaneous objects coded and quality scalability refers to controlling the spatial and/or temporal resolutions of the coded objects. Scalability is an important feature for video coding methods operating across transmission channels of limited bandwidth and also channels where the bandwidth is dynamic. For example, a content-scalable video coder has the ability to optimize the performance in the face of limited bandwidth by encoding and transmitting only the important objects in the scene at a high quality. It can then choose to either drop the remaining objects or code them at a much lower quality. When the bandwidth of the channel increases, the coder can then transmit additional bits to improve the quality of the poorly coded objects or restore the missing objects.
Musmann et al, Object-Oriented Analysis-Synthesis Coding of Moving Images, 1 Sig. Proc.: Image Comm. 117 (1989), illustrates hierarchical moving object detection using source models. Tekalp, chapters 23-24 also discusses object-based coding.
Medioni et al, Comer Detection and Curvature Representation Using Cubic B-Splines, 39 Comp.Vis.Grph.Image Processing, 267 (1987), shows encoding of curves with B-Splines. Similarly, Foley et al, Computer Graphics (Addison-Wesley 2d Ed.), pages 491-495 and 504-507, discusses cubic B-splines and Catmull-Rom splines (which are constrained to pass through the control points).
In order to achieve efficient transmission of video, a system must utilize compression schemes that are bandwidth efficient. The compressed video data is then transmitted over communication channels which are prone to errors. For video coding schemes which exploit temporal correlation in the video data, channel errors result in the decoder losing synchronization with the encoder. Unless suitably dealt with, this can result in noticeable degradation of the picture quality. To maintain satisfactory video quality or quality of service, it is desirable to use schemes to protect the data from these channel errors. However, error protection schemes come with the price of an increased bitrate. Moreover, it is not possible to correct all possible errors using a given error-control code. Hence, it becomes necessary to resort to some other techniques in addition to error control to effectively remove annoying and visually disturbing artifacts introduced by these channel induced errors.
In fact, a typical channel, such as a wireless channel, over which compressed video is transmitted is characterized by high random bit error rates (BER) and multiple burst errors. The random bit errors occur with a probability of around 0.001 and the burst errors have a duration that usually lasts up to 24 milliseconds (msec).
Error correcting codes such as the Reed-Solomon (RS) codes correct random errors up to a designed number per block of code symbols. Problems arise when codes are used over channels prone to burst errors because the errors tend to be clustered in a small number of received symbols. The commercial digital music compact disc (CD) uses interleaved codewords so that channel bursts may be spread out over multiple codewords upon decoding. In particular, the CD error control encoder uses two shortened RS codes with 8-bit symbols from the code alphabet GF(256). Thus 16-bit sound samples each talke two information symbols. First, the samples are encoded twelve at a time (thus 24 symbols) by a (28,24) RS code, then the 28-symbol codewords pass a 28-branch interleaver with delay increments of 28 symbols between branches. Thus 28 successive 28-symbol codewords are interleaved symbol by symbol. After the interleaving, the 28-symbol blocks are encoded with a (32,28) RS coder to output 32-symbol codewords for transmission. The decoder is a mirror image: a (32,28) RS decoder, 28-branch deinterleaver wi
Bannon Thomas J.
Talluri Rajendra K.
Brady W. James
Hoel Carlton H.
Telecky , Jr. Frederick J.
Texas Instruments Incorporated
Tran Phuoc
LandOfFree
Content-based video compression does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Content-based video compression, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Content-based video compression will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2472108