IP Library Granted Patent US 12,262,097
Granted Patent B2
US 12,262,097 · App. 17/743,991 · Granted Mar 25, 2025

Unified end-to-end quality and latency measurement, optimization and management in multimedia communications

Inventors: Zhou Wang (Waterloo, CA); Abdul Rehman (Kitchener, CA); Christopher Kulbakas (Mississauga, CA); Kai Zeng (Kitchener, CA); Ahmed Badr (Waterloo, CA); Hojatollah Yeganeh (Waterloo, CA); Jiheng Wang (Waterloo, CA); Ian Wormsbecker (Baden, CA); Peter Olijnyk (Kitchener, CA)
Assignee: IMAX CORPORATION
H04N21/64738H04L65/61H04L65/612H04L65/70H04L65/75H04L65/756H04L65/765H04L65/80H04N21/4383
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,262,097
App. No.
17/743,991
Granted
Mar 25, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

Correlated quality-of-experience (QoE) and latency measures are generated at a plurality of monitoring points along a multimedia delivery chain including multiple video operations. At each of the plurality of monitoring points, an absolute QoE measure defined on a human perceptual quality scale for media content is computed, and one or more of content extraction or feature extraction on the media content are performed. To a common middleware from each of the plurality of monitoring points, the respective QoE measure and results of the one or more of content extraction or feature extraction are transmitted. Computing and updating an absolute QoE measure for each of the plurality of monitoring points is performed. Computing and updating latencies between multiple monitoring points at the middleware using the results from each of the plurality of monitoring points is also performed.

Claims (37)

1. A method for optimizing streaming over a multimedia delivery chain, comprising:

receiving per-segment per-profile Quality-of-Experience (QoE) measures by a common middleware, the common middleware being in communication with a plurality of viewer devices, the QoE measures being measured for a plurality of video profiles, the QoE measures being predictive of human perception of the quality of the media content if experienced at the respective viewer device, each profile having a different resolution and/or framerate;

receiving, from the plurality of viewer devices, viewer status information on a per-segment basis;

synchronizing the per-segment per-profile QoE measures with the viewer status information for each of the plurality of viewer devices; and

making adaptive streaming decisions on profile selections for one or more of the plurality of viewer devices by the common middleware on a per-segment basis.

2. The method of claim 1 , further comprising sending streaming update messages to one or more of the plurality of viewer devices according to the adaptive streaming decisions, to cause one or more of the plurality of viewer devices to fetch a best profile for a next segment to maximize QoE at the respective viewer devices or to optimize rate-distortion performance of the respective viewer devices.

3. The method of claim 1 , wherein the per-segment per-profile QoE measures received by the common middleware are aggregated in a manifest file.

4. The method of claim 1 , wherein viewer status includes one or more of: a manifest file, a video stream ID, a segment ID, a network bandwidth estimation, a buffer condition, a viewing device display type, or physical device parameters of a respective one of the plurality of viewer devices.

5. The method of claim 1 , further comprising optimizing resource allocation across the plurality of viewer devices to improve overall average QoE of the plurality of viewer devices.

6. The method of claim 1 , further comprising optimizing resource allocation across the plurality of viewer devices based on levels of services to which the plurality of viewer devices are subscribed.

7. The method of claim 1 , further comprising displaying a report of the QoE measures of the plurality of viewer devices as collected, the report indicating the QoE measures according to one or more of time span, geo-location, media asset, program, or asset type.

8. The method of claim 3 , wherein the manifest file is a Moving Picture Experts Group-Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over Hypertext Transfer Protocol (MPEG-DASH) media presentation description.

9. A system for optimizing streaming over a multimedia delivery chain, comprising:

a common middleware, in communication with a plurality of viewer devices, configured to

receive per-segment per-profile QoE measures, the QoE measures being measured for a plurality of video profiles, the QoE measures being predictive of human perception of the quality of the media content if experienced at the respective viewer device, each profile having a different resolution and/or framerate;

receive, from the plurality of viewer devices, viewer status information on a per-segment basis;

synchronize the per-segment per-profile QoE measures with the viewer status information for each of the plurality of viewer devices; and

make adaptive streaming decisions on profile selections for one or more of the plurality of viewer devices by the common middleware on a per-segment basis.

10. The system of claim 9 , wherein the common middleware is further configured to send streaming update messages to one or more of the plurality of viewer devices according to the adaptive streaming decisions, to cause one or more of the plurality of viewer devices to fetch a best profile for a next segment to maximize QoE at the respective viewer devices or to optimize rate-distortion performance of the respective viewer devices.

11. The system of claim 9 , wherein the per-segment per-profile QoE measures received by the common middleware are aggregated in a manifest file.

12. The system of claim 9 , wherein viewer status includes one or more of: a manifest file, a video stream ID, a segment ID, a network bandwidth estimation, a buffer condition, a viewing device display type, or physical device parameters of a respective one of the plurality of viewer devices.

13. The system of claim 9 , wherein the common middleware is further configured to optimize resource allocation across the plurality of viewer devices to improve overall average QoE of the plurality of viewer devices.

14. The system of claim 9 , wherein the common middleware is further configured to optimize resource allocation across the plurality of viewer devices based on levels of services to which the plurality of viewer devices are subscribed.

15. The system of claim 9 , wherein the common middleware is further configured to display a report of the QoE measures of the plurality of viewer devices as collected, the report indicating the QoE measures according to one or more of time span, geo-location, media asset, program, or asset type.

16. The system of claim 11 , wherein the manifest file is a Moving Picture Experts Group-Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over Hypertext Transfer Protocol (MPEG-DASH) media presentation description.

17. A non-transitory medium comprising instructions for optimizing streaming over a multimedia delivery chain that, when executed by a common middleware, in communication with a plurality of viewer devices, cause the common middleware to perform operations including to:

receive per-segment per-profile QoE measures, the QoE measures being measured for a plurality of video profiles, the QoE measures being predictive of human perception of the quality of the media content if experienced at the respective viewer device, each profile having a different resolution and/or framerate;

receive, from the plurality of viewer devices, viewer status information on a per-segment basis;

synchronize the per-segment per-profile QoE measures with the viewer status information for each of the plurality of viewer devices; and

make adaptive streaming decisions on profile selections for one or more of the plurality of viewer devices by the common middleware on a per-segment basis.

18. The medium of claim 17 , wherein the common middleware is further configured to send streaming update messages to one or more of the plurality of viewer devices according to the adaptive streaming decisions, to cause one or more of the plurality of viewer devices to fetch a best profile for a next segment to maximize QoE at the respective viewer devices or to optimize rate-distortion performance of the respective viewer devices.

19. The medium of claim 17 , wherein the per-segment per-profile QoE measures received by the common middleware are aggregated in a manifest file.

20. The medium of claim 17 , wherein viewer status includes one or more of: a manifest file, a video stream ID, a segment ID, a network bandwidth estimation, a buffer condition, a viewing device display type, or physical device parameters of a respective one of the plurality of viewer devices.

21. The medium of claim 17 , wherein the common middleware is further configured to optimize resource allocation across the plurality of viewer devices to improve overall average QoE of the plurality of viewer devices.

22. The medium of claim 17 , wherein the common middleware is further configured to optimize resource allocation across the plurality of viewer devices based on levels of services to which the plurality of viewer devices are subscribed.

23. The medium of claim 17 , wherein the common middleware is further configured to display a report of the QoE measures of the plurality of viewer devices as collected, the report indicating the QoE measures according to one or more of time span, geo-location, media asset, program, or asset type.

24. The medium of claim 19 , wherein the manifest file is a Moving Picture Experts Group-Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over Hypertext Transfer Protocol (MPEG-DASH) media presentation description.

Assignments (3)
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Jul 14, 2025
From: IMAX CORPORATION
To: WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT
Reel/Frame 071935/0813 →
MERGER Recorded Feb 29, 2024
From: SSIMWAVE INC.
To: IMAX CORPORATION
Reel/Frame 066597/0509 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded May 18, 2022
From: WANG, ZHOU; REHMAN, ABDUL; KULBAKAS, CHRISTOPHER; ZENG, KAI; BADR, AHMED; YEGANEH, HOJATOLLAH; WANG, JIHENG; WORMSBECKER, IAN; OLIJNYK, PETER
To: SSIMWAVE INC.
Reel/Frame 060105/0001 →
Continuity (3)
Continuation 16737558 · Jan 8, 2020
Provisional Application 62824125 · Mar 26, 2019
Related Publication 20220385717A1 · Dec 1, 2022
References Cited (32)
US 10298653B1 · Cheng · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 20120311126A1 · Jadallah et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20130051271A1 · Cao et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20150135245A1 · Dunne et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20160212432A1 · Wang et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160247383A1 · Kassab · 2016 [cited by examiner]
WO 2017152274A1 · 2017 [cited by applicant]
Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Methodology, 2015-2020 dated 2016. [cited by applicant]
Curtis et al., American Society of Cinematographers Technology Committee Progress Report 2016, SMPTE Motion Imaging Journal, vol. 125, No. 7, pp. 43-58, Sep. 2016. [cited by applicant]
Wang, New Quality-of-Experience Measurement Technologies: Streamlining How Videos are Delivered to Consumers, IEEE Signal Processing Society Blog, Jul. 2017. [cited by applicant]
Seufert et al., A Survey on Quality of Experience of HTTP Adaptive Streaming, pp. 469-492, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 17, No. 1, First Quarter 2015. [cited by applicant]
Oyman et al., Quality of Experience for HTTP Adaptive Streaming Services, pp. 20-27, IEEE Communications Magazine, Apr. 2012. [cited by applicant]
International Telecommunication Union Quality of Experience Recommendation, ITU-T P.10/G.100, Amendment 1: New Appendix I—Definition of Quality of Experience (QoE), Jan. 2007. [cited by applicant]
Wang et al., Mean Squared Error: Love It or Leave It? A New Look at Signal Fidelity Measures, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 98-117, Jan. 2009. [cited by applicant]
Wang et al., Image Quality Assessment: From Error Visibility to Structural Similarity, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 13, No. 4, Apr. 2004. [cited by applicant]
Wang et al., Video Quality Assessment Based on Structural Distortion Measurement, Signal Processing: Image Communication, vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 121-132, Feb. 2004. [cited by applicant]
Wang et al., Multi-Scale Structural Similarity for Image Quality Assessment, Proceedings of the 37th IEEE Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, Pacific Grove, CA, Nov. 9-12, 2003. [cited by applicant]
Pinson et al., A New Standardized Method for Objectively Measuring Video Quality, IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 312-322, Sep. 2004. [cited by applicant]
Seshadrinathan et al., Motion Tuned Spatio-Temporal Quality Assessment of Natural Videos, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 335-350, Feb. 2010. [cited by applicant]
Li et al., Toward A Practical Perceptual Video Quality Metric, Netflix Tech Blog, 2017. [cited by applicant]
Duanmu et al., A Quality-of-Experience Index for Streaming Video, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 154-166, Feb. 2017. [cited by applicant]
Rehman et al., Display Device-Adapted Video Quality-of-Experience Assessment, IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging: Human Vision & Electronic Imaging, Feb. 2015. [cited by applicant]
Rehman, SSIMPLUS: The Most Accurate Video Quality Measure, Science of Seeing, Jul. 18, 2017. [cited by applicant]
Zeng et al., From H.264 to HEVC: Coding Gain Predicted by Objective Video Quality Assessment Models, International Workshop on Video Processing and Quality Metrics for Consumer Electronics, Scottsdale, Arizona, Jan.-Feb… [cited by applicant]
Sheikh et al., A Statistical Evaluation of Recent Full Reference Image Quality Assessment Algorithms, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 15(11):3440-3451, Nov. 2006. [cited by applicant]
Sheikh et al., Image Information and Visual Quality, IEEE Transactions Image Processing, vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 430-444, Feb. 2006. [cited by applicant]
Zhang et al., FSIM: A Feature Similarity Index for Image Quality Assessment, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 20, Issue 8, 2378-2386, 2011. [cited by applicant]
Final Report From the Video Quality Experts Group on the Validation of Objective Models of Video Quality Assessment, Mar. 2000. [cited by applicant]
Joskowicz et al., Combining Full Reference and No Reference Models for Broadcast Digital TV Quality Monitoring in Real Time, IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, IEEE Service Center, Piscataway, NJ, US, vol. 62, No. 4, De… [cited by applicant]
Performance Monitoring Points for IPTV, ITU-T Draft; Study Period 2013-2016, International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, Switzerland, Nov. 13, 2015 , pp. 1-14. [cited by applicant]
Athar et al., Quality Assessment of Images Undergoing Multiple Distortion Stages, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), IEEE, Sep. 17, 2017, pp. 3175-3179. [cited by applicant]
Speech and Multimedia Transmission Quality (STQ); Multimedia Quality Measurement: End-to-End Quality Measurement Framework, ETSI Draft; 00113V005, European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), 650, Route Des L… [cited by applicant]
Cited By (1)
US 12,712,936