1Mbps is enough: video quality and individual idiosyncrasies in multiparty HD video-conferencing

Most video platforms deliver HD video in high bitrate encoding. Modern video-conferencing systems are capable of handling HD streams, but using multiparty conferencing, average internet connections in the home are on their bandwidth limit. For properly managing the encoding bitrate in videoconferencing, we must know what is the minimum bitrate requirement to provide users an acceptable experience, and what is the bitrate level after which QoE saturates?. Most available subjective studies in this area used rather dated technologies. We report on a multiparty study on video quality with HD resolution. We tested different encoding bitrates (256kbs, 1024kbs and 4096kbs) and packet loss rates (0, 0.5%) in groups of 4 participants with a

Immersion and togetherness: How live visualization of audience engagement can enhance music events

This paper evaluates the influence of an additional visual aesthetic layer on the experience of concert goers during a live event. The additional visual layer incorporates musical features as well as bio-sensing data collected during the concert, which is coordinated by our audience engagement monitoring technology. This technology was used during a real Jazz concert. The collected measurements were used in an experiment with 32 participants, where two different forms of visualization were compared: one factoring in music amplitude, audience engagement collected by the sensors and the dynamic atmosphere of the event, the other one purely relying on the beat of the music. The findings indicate that the visual layer could add value to the experience if used during a live concert, providing a higher level of immersion and feeling of togetherness among the audience

Terrace Standard, March, 23, 1994

Crowdsourcing enables new possibilities for QoE evaluation by moving the evaluation task from the traditional laboratory environment into the Internet, allowing researchers to easily access a global pool of workers for the evaluation task. This makes it not only possible to include a more diverse population and real-life environments into the evaluation, but also reduces the turn-around time and increases the number of subjects participating in an evaluation campaign significantly, thereby circumventing bottle-necks in traditional laboratory setups. In order to utilise these advantages, the differences between laboratory-based and crowd-based QoE evaluation are discussed in this chapter.publishe

The club of the future: Participatory clubbing experiences

Copyrigh