"... In PAGE 10: ... x List of Tables Table4 -1 - Video Sequences Used for Evaluation of Motion Estimation .... In PAGE 10: ...able 4-1 - Video Sequences Used for Evaluation of Motion Estimation ............................. 55 Table4 -2 - Evaluated Motion Estimation Algorithms .... In PAGE 10: ...able 4-2 - Evaluated Motion Estimation Algorithms ........................................................... 55 Table4 -3 - Implemental Properties of Evaluated Motion Estimation Algorithms.... In PAGE 64: ...7.2 Test Video Sequences A set of six video sequences is used for evaluating the performance of the proposed motion estimation algorithm ( Table4 -1). These video sequences are all commonly used for evaluation of video compression tools and are publicly available through Video Quality Experts Group (VQEG).... In PAGE 64: ...5, was used. Table4 -2 lists the motion estimation algorithms used and the total number of positions used for each search. In order to ... In PAGE 65: ... 55 search windows were chosen so that each method would use a similar total number of search positions. Table4 -1 - Video Sequences Used for Evaluation of Motion Estimation ... In PAGE 65: ...Table 4-2 - Evaluated Motion Estimation Algorithms Table4 -3 shows the implemental properties, discussed in section 4.2, of each of the motion estimation algorithms to be evaluated in the experiments.... In PAGE 66: ...5 CSOME_4_11 253 3952 1714.8 Table4 -3 - Implemental Properties of Evaluated Motion Estimation Algorithms 4.7.... In PAGE 70: ...lgorithm is 1.1 % less efficient than this algorithm, and is only 4.0% worse than the benchmark JVT_128 motion estimator. Referring to Table4 -3, the local reference memory requirement of the JVT_16 method is about 25% less than that of the CSOME_2 algorithm. However, the JVT_16 method requires more than twice the number of consecutive search positions and more than 40 times the reference memory bandwidth per macroblock than the CSOME_2 algorithm.... ..."

"... In PAGE 20: ...Table 2: Absolute category rating for subjective quality of video Rating Impairment Quality 5 Imperceptible Excellent 4 Perceptible Good 3 Slightly annoying Fair 2 Annoying Poor 1 Very annoying Bad Table3 lists the subjective assessment of the video quality for 20 viewers from each receiver group. The quality perceived by viewers varies slightly for each video sequence, however, on average, reconstructed videos at receivers from Group 1 show subjective video qualities between good and excellent, while the most congested receivers, receivers from Group 4, ex- perienced video qualities between poor and fair.... In PAGE 20: ... Despite the difference in signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) between the objective quality delivered to receiv- ers from Groups 1 and 2, shown in Figure 8, the subjective quality perceived by receivers from Group 2 is only slightly lower than the quality perceived from receivers from Group 1. Nevertheless, consistent with the objective SNR results from Figure 8, as shown in Table3 , the subjective quality of video obtained by a receiver is determined by the amount of bandwidth available to it. Table 3: Average Subjective Video Quality from 20 viewers from each group ... ..."

"... In PAGE 20: ... Nevertheless, consistent with the objective SNR results from Figure 8, as shown in Table 3, the subjective quality of video obtained by a receiver is determined by the amount of bandwidth available to it. Table3 : Average Subjective Video Quality from 20 viewers from each group Video sequence Wallace amp; Grommit Star Wars Return of the Jedi Group 1 4.05 4.... ..."

"... In PAGE 33: ...evels of quality. The training videos are presented in random order to the physicians. For completeness, one of these videos is the original uncompressed video. Clinicians complete an evaluation whose format is shown in Table3 , which in this example is specific to pediatric respiratory distress. ... In PAGE 34: ...In Table3 , each sample number represents a video at a particular TBR. The physician expert lists whichever features he/she can identify in the video at that particular bitrate.... In PAGE 54: ... They were then evaluated by 2 medical experts from MCG. Tables 7, 8, 9, and 10 (identical to the template in Table3 ) list the evaluations of er08, er15, er17, and er19, respectively, by one of the medical experts. They are representative of the overall results, and evaluations other videos at all the TBRs by each expert are available in the appendix.... ..."

"... In PAGE 16: ...Table3 compare latency, jitter, reso- lution, and frame-rate of the received video, respectively. Table 3 shows that HyARM increases the resolution and frame video of QoS-enabled applications, but decreases the resolution and frame rate of best effort applications.... In PAGE 16: ...lution, and frame-rate of the received video, respectively. Table3 shows that HyARM increases the resolution and frame video of QoS-enabled applications, but decreases the resolution and frame rate of best effort applications. Resolution and frame rate of lower priority applications are reduced to adapt to fluctuations in application work load and... ..."