a standardization effort with the primary goal of videotelephony over the public switched telephone network (PSTN). (conventional analog telephone lines), ...
Special Issue Published in International Journal of Trend in Research and Development (IJTRD), ISSN: 2394-9333, www.ijtrd.com
Compression Techniques and Security Issues in Video Streaming 1
1,2
Farooq Sunar Mahammad and 1P.Bhaskar, Assistant Professor, Department of CSE, Santhiram Engineering College, Nandyal, India
Abstract: Video has been an important media for communications and entertainment for many decades. Streaming enables to watch the video without download the complete video file at the client side or end user. For better quality of the video, it requires high bandwidth, when high bandwidth is not available the video must be compressed to fit the available bandwidth. This paper presents the recent video compression techniques along with the security issues in the video streaming.
a standardization effort with the primary goal of videotelephony over the public switched telephone network (PSTN) (conventional analog telephone lines), where the total available data rate is only about 33.6 kb/s. The video compression portion of the standard is H.263 and its first phase was adopted in 1996 [2]. An enhanced H.263, H.263 Version 2 (V2), was finalized in 1997, and a completely new algorithm, originally referred to as H.26L, is currently being finalized as H.264/AVC
Keywords- H.261, H.263, Compression, Security
The Moving Pictures Expert Group (MPEG) was established by the ISO in 1988 to develop a standard for compressing moving pictures (video) and associated audio on digital storage media (CD-ROM). The resulting standard, commonly known as MPEG-1, was finalized in 1991 and achieves approximately VHS quality video and audio at about 1.5 Mb/s [3]. The second phase of their work, commonly known as MPEG-2, was an extension of MPEG-1 developed for application toward digital television and for higher bit rates [4]. A third standard, to be called MPEG-3, was originally envisioned for higher bit rate applications such as HDTV, but it was recognized that those applications could also be addressed within the context of MPEG-2; hence those goals were wrapped into MPEG-2 (consequently, there is no MPEG-3 standard). Currently, the video portion of digital television (DTV) and high definition television (HDTV) standards for large portions of North America, Europe, and Asia is based on MPEG-2. The third phase of work, known as MPEG-4, was designed to provide improved compression efficiency and error resilience features, as well as increased functionality, including object-based processing, integration of both natural and synthetic (computer generated) content, content-based interactivity [5]. Table.1 shows current and emerging video compression standards[6]
H.2664/AVC,
H.265,
HEVC,
I. INTRODUCTION Video has been an important media for communications and entertainment for many decades. In the past several years there has been a consistent increase in the amount of network traffic carrying video content results in a scope for research in video streaming. Streaming is nothing but the video contents are streamed and watched before it is downloaded completely at the client side. The video is streamed directly from the servers and accessed at client side using various electronic devices. A high-quality video requires high bandwidth, If the bandwidth is low, it results in the poor quality video at the end user side. In such cases, video compression along with the transrating is used to fit the available bandwidth. Transrating is the process by which video files are converted to a reduced bit rate while still maintaining the original media format. Securing the video content in streaming is another challenge required by applications like Video Conferencing, Video on Demand and pay-tv. In every application, the authentication must be proved to access the video content. high security is required in video conferencing whereas in VOD and pay-tv the user has to prove himself as an authenticated user to access. In the next sections, we discuss video streaming compression techniques and security issues in video streaming.
Video Coding Standard H.261
II. VIDEO COMPRESSION STANDARDS Currently, there are two families of video compression standards, performed under the auspices of the International Telecommunications Union Telecommunications (ITU-T, formerly the International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee, CCITT) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The first video compression standard to gain widespread acceptance was the ITU H.261 [1], which was designed for video conferencing over the integrated services digital network (ISDN). H.261 was adopted as a standard in 1990. It was designed to operate at p = 1,2, ..., 30 multiples of the baseline ISDN data rate, or p x 64 kb/s. The H.261 coding algorithm was designed to operate at video bitrates between 40kpbs and 2mbps. H.261 supports two video sizes CIF and QCIF using 4:2:0 sampling scheme . In 1993, the ITU-T initiated
MPEG-1 MPEG-2 H.263
MPEG-4 H.264/MPEG-4 Part 10 (AVC)
Applications Video telephony and teleconferencing over ISDN Video on digital storage media (CDROM) 1 Digital Television Video telephony over PSTN Object-based coding, synthetic content, interactivity, video streaming Improved video compression
Bitrate p x 64 kb/s
1.5 Mb/s 2-20 Mb/s 33.6 kb/s and up
Variable 10’s to 100’s of kb/s
National Conference on Recent Innovations in Engineering and Technology (RIET -2017) organized by G Pullaiah College of Engineering & Technology, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh on 15 th & 16th Dec-17 168 | P a g e
Special Issue Published in International Journal of Trend in Research and Development (IJTRD), ISSN: 2394-9333, www.ijtrd.com III. H.265 SYSTEM/HEVC HEVC provides around two-fold of compression of data which extend up to a comparative video quality level or improves video quality fundamentally at a comparable piece rate. Also, it manages to support the resolutions up to 8192×4320, which include 8K UHD. Table 2 shows the Detailed comparison between H.264 and H.265. Table.2 shows the comparison between H.264 and H.265[6]. H.264/AVC
Names
Advanced Video Coding, MPEG 4 Part 10
Approved date
2003
Progression
Successor to MPEG-2 Part as known as H.222/H.262
Key improvement
* The decline in bit rate compared with MPEG-2 Part is 40%50% * Available to deliver High Definition sources for Online and transmit
Support up to 8k Support up to 300 fps
No. It Support up to 4K only No. It supports up to 59.94 fps only.
H.265/HEVC MPEG-H, HighEfficiency Video Coding, Part 2 2013 Successor to H.264/AVC or MPEG4-part 10 * 40-50% decline in bit rate at the same visual quality compared with H.264 * It is expected to implement Ultra High Definition, 2K, 4K for Online and Broadcast (OTT) Yes Yes
IV. SECURITY ISSUES The goals of securing a digital video stream, whether it is transmitted over the Internet or not, are generally the following: conditional access, authentication, copy control, and content tracking [7] Conditional Access is a mechanism for enforcing the end users that a video stream is viewed under the rules specified by the content owner. Authentication is the verification of the integrity of the video stream, the identity of the source and the identity of the receiver. Copy control is a mechanism for controlling the number of copies of a video stream a user is allowed to create, and content tracking is the embedding of a signature or serial number into the video stream for subsequent identification. The tools that are used for securing a digital video stream include cryptography [8], digital signatures [9], and video watermarking [10]. It is generally accepted that no single technology can provide a complete solution for securing digital video streams
and that cryptography, digital signatures, and watermarking each have a role in security applications. The advantage of using cryptography is that the encrypted video stream cannot be viewed nor interpreted unless the receiver knows the decryption key. However, encryption is not a cure-all solution for security since the security of the encryption system is solely dependent on protecting the decryption keys. This vulnerability was demonstrated recently when the encryption system used for protecting DVD video was broken [11]. Digital video watermarking [10, 12] has also been proposed for securing a digital video stream. A watermark is a signal that is embedded into a video stream in such a way that the visual distortion introduced into the video by the watermark is minimized CONCLUSION In this paper, we have concluded the basic different techniques available for video compression and the latest technique (H.264/AVC and H.265/HEVC) available for video compression is also included. And discuss some of the security issues in streaming video over the Internet. We feel that the solution to the security issues given will be the biggest technical barrier to the delivery of high quality digital video over the internet. References [1] “Video codec for audiovisual services at px64 kbits/s”, ITU-T Recommendation H.261, Inter. Telecommunication Union, 1993. [2] “Video coding for low bit rate communication”, ITU-T Rec. H.263, Inter. Telecommunication Union, version 1, 1996; version 2, 1997. [3] ISO/IEC 11172, “Coding of moving pictures and associated audio for digital storage media at up to about 1.5 Mbits/s.” International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 1993. [4] ISO/IEC 13818. “Generic coding of moving pictures and associated audio information.” International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 1996. [5] ISO/IEC 14496. “Coding of audio-visual objects.” International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 1999. [6] Farooq Sunar Mahammad, VM Viswanatham,” A Study On H.26x Family Of Video Streaming Compression Techniques”International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics vol.117,no.10,pp-63-66, Nov 2017. [7] Lin, Eugene T., et al. "An overview of security issues in streaming video." Information Technology: Coding and Computing, 2001. Proceedings. International Conference on. IEEE, 2001. [8] J. Bloom, I. Cox, T. Kalker, J. Linnartz, M. Miller, and C. Traw, “Copy protection for DVD video,” Proceedangs of the IEEE, vol. 87, no. 7, pp. 1267-1276, July 1999 [9] D. R. Stinson, Cryptography: Theory and Pruc- tice. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 1995 [10] R. Wolfgang, C. Podilchuk, and E. Delp, “Per- ceptual watermarks for digital image and video,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 87, no. 7, pp. 1108- 1126, July 1999 [11] Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., DVD Encryption Press Releases, 2000. http://www.mpaa.org/Press/. [12] F. Hartung and M. Kutter, “Multimedia water- marking techniques,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 87, no. 7, pp. 1079-1107, July 1999.
National Conference on Recent Innovations in Engineering and Technology (RIET -2017) organized by G Pullaiah College of Engineering & Technology, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh on 15 th & 16th Dec-17 169 | P a g e
