Abstract

This work presents a detailed study, characterization, and measurement of video latency in a real‐time video streaming application. The target application consists of an automatic control system in the form of a control station and the mini Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) equipped with a camera, which is controllable over local area network (LAN) and the Internet. Control signal transmission and feedback measurements to the operator usually impose real‐time constraints on the network channel. Similarly, the video stream, which is required for the normal system control and maneuvering, imposes further strict requirements on the network in terms of bandwidth and latency. Based on these requirements, controlling the system in real time through a standard Internet connection is a challenging task. The measurement of important network parameters like availability, bandwidth, and latency has become mandatory for remotely controlling the system in real time. It is necessary to establish a methodology for the measurement of video and network latency to improve the real‐time controllability and safety of the system as such measurement is not possible using existing solutions due to the following reasons: insufficient accuracy, relying on the Internet resources such as generic Network Time Protocol (NTP) servers, inability to obtain one‐way delay measurement, and many solutions only having support for web cameras. Here, an efficient, reliable, and cost‐effective methodology for the measurement of latency of a video stream over a LAN and the Internet is proposed. A dedicated stratum‐1 NTP server is used and the necessary software needed for acquiring and measuring the latency of a video stream from a generic IP camera as well as integration into the existing ROV control software was developed. Here, by using the software and dedicated clock synchronization equipment (NTP server), it was found that normal video latencies in a LAN were in the range of 488ms – 850ms, while latencies over the Internet were measured to be in the range of 558ms – 1211ms. It is important to note that the values were obtained by using a generic (off‐the‐shelf) IP camera and they represent the actual latencies which might be experienced during control over long range and across international territory borders.

Highlights

  • Low latency demanding applications [1,2,3,4] have always been an important consideration in telecom networks for voice, video, and data communication

  • The number of applications which involve real-time video acquisition and broadcasting over the Internet has increased in recent years [7] and the Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing specific nature and often low-latency requirements of these applications has led to the establishment of a special branch of the Internet of Things (IoT) called the Internet of Video Things (IoVT) [8, 9]

  • By measuring round-trip time (RTT) only, it is not possible to identify the direction of the path which is causing major delays

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Low latency demanding applications [1,2,3,4] have always been an important consideration in telecom networks for voice, video, and data communication. The requirements, which are imposed on the network link, must comply with the constraints for near-real-time control of a marine ROV system used as a remote tool for Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance (IRM) operations on offshore oil and gas subsea structures. The importance of a highquality and low-latency video stream is more evident when one knows that almost all pilot decisions, when controlling the remote ROV, are based on video feedback This fact is one of the major decisions for implementing the video and the network latency methodology discussed here. By measuring round-trip time (RTT) only, it is not possible to identify the direction of the path which is causing major delays (if such paths are in the system) This is important information in the case where the application depends on performance in one direction. The paper ends with a conclusion in which the results and recommendations are discussed

Related Works
Proposed Video Latency Measurement Methodology
Latency Measurement NTP Client B
Results and Discussion
Group I
Group II
Group III
Group IV
Conclusions

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.