Chapter 5

JOINT SOURCE CHANNEL CODES IN MULTIMEDIA

APPLICATIONS

This chapter is based on the following research papers:

1. Bhudev Sharma and Richa Gupta, Directions in Optimal Error Correction Coding:
Variable Length Error Coding, a class of Distances and Reversible Variable Length
Codes, Proceedings of the National Symposium on Mathematical Methods and
Applications 2009, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, pp 1-12, 2009.

88

2. Richa Gupta and Bhudev Sharma, Construction of Symmetrical Reversible Variable

Length Codes for a Markovian Source, International Journal of Information Science
and Computer Mathematics, vol. 2, pp 75-86, 2010.
3. Richa Gupta and Bhudev Sharma, Reversible Variable Length Codes in Video
Coding Standards, International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and
Development, ISSN NO: 2249-6149, Issue 2, Vol. 3, April-2012, pp 33 - 43.

5.1.

INTRODUCTION

Variable length codes (VLCs) are widely used in multimedia applications, like in the
transmission of image files, video files or speech files, such as in JPEG, H.261, H.263,
MPEG-1, MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 image and video coding standards [112] [113] [114] [115]
[116] [117] [118]. VLCs are used to convert multimedia data into binary bit-stream which is
suitable for the transmission over the channel.
Huffman code is traditionally the optimal code for source coding. Almost all the image
coding standards, viz. the JPEG (still image coding standard), the ITU series of H.261 and
H.263 (video coding standards), and the ISO series of MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 standards, use
Huffman code as an entropy encoder. It is the best code for noiseless channel. But VLCs are
very sensitive to errors in noisy environments due to their variable length nature. In the
presence of noise and errors, unique decodability of VLCs may create a serious problem. For
any VLC-involved application, even one single bit error may induce the problem of error
propagation, because the data received after the bit error position will become useless and
may results in a total disruption. This may be overcome by using what are called as error
resilient codes. A class of such codes is Reversible Variable Length Codes (RVLCs) [37].
We undertake their study in this chapter and discuss their role in multimedia applications.
Nowadays, in industrial research, we use RVLCs in different multimedia coding standards
[37] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125], such as H.263++ video coder [36] [88] [125]
and MPEG-4 video coder [35] [126].

89

In earlier chapters, we have explored the area of VLECs in the terms of: the mathematical
results (combinatorial results), construction algorithms and decoding algorithms. In practical
channel, with number of errors introduced by the channel is more than one, RVLCs are also
unsuccessful in correctly decoding the bit-stream. In this chapter, we propose to use VLEC as
an entropy encoder in the image compression, instead of Huffman code or RVLC, to get
correctly decoded image at the receiver in a noisy environment.
This chapter discusses the performance of entropy encoders in two multimedia applications:
1. Image compression;
2. Video compression.
In JPEG image compression, three different entropy encoders have been taken- Huffman
codes, RVLCs and VLECs. After evaluating the performance of image compression with
these entropy encoders in the JPEG image compression, we propose to use VLECs in place of
Huffman codes in case of the noisy environments.
We also propose that in H.263++ video coding standard, improved performance can be
achieved by replacing conventional RVLCs (Golomb and Rice RVLCs) by Yan RVLCs [86].
This improvement in performance is achieved in terms of reduction in average codeword
length, maximum codeword length and total of encoded bits (for a file) with all other
perceptual parameters remaining the same as with the use of conventional RVLCs.
This chapter is divided into sections. Section 5.1 is introductory. Section 5.2 discusses
RVLCs and their construction algorithms. This section also reports simulation analysis and
results in the form of comparative analysis of the RVLC construction algorithms on the basis
of their average codeword length and the value of maximum codeword length. Section 5.3
describes performance measures which are used to evaluate the performance of a
compression algorithm. Section 5.4 presents the simulation results and analysis of image
compression with three entropy encoders: Huffman codes, RVLCs and VLECs. The scope of
improvement in H.263++ video compression is discussed in Section 5.5 while Section 5.6
concludes the chapter.

90

5.2. REVERSIBLE VARIABLE LENGTH CODES AND THEIR

CONSTRUCTION ALGORITHMS
Reversible Variable Length Codes (RVLCs) were introduced by Takishima in 1995 [37].
RVLCs must satisfy prefix and the suffix conditions for instantaneous bi-directional
decoding. However, in the case of the symmetrical RVLCs, only prefix condition is sufficient
to be satisfied due to symmetry of the codewords.

Some Relevant Definitions

Some definitions relevant for RVLCs were given in chapter 1. A couple of them are defined
below.

Definition 5.1-Bit Length Vector: The bit length vector of a code C, is defined as the
vector with the number of codewords of length

= 1,2,

) where,

is the maximum length of the codewords in the code.

For example, for a code C = (00, 11, 010, 101, 0110), bit length vector will be
(0, 2, 2,1 , as it has no codeword of length 1, 2 codewords of length 2, 2 codewords
of length 3 and 1 codeword of length 4.

Definition 5.2-Maximum Symmetrical Suffix Length (MSSL): It is defined as the

maximum number of bits which are symmetrical when read from the suffix excluding
the 1st prefix bit [84] [127].
For example, for binary vector 00101, the MSSL is 3 as after excluding the fist zero
as the first prefix, we will be having with 0101 and if we see from the suffix, it has
101 as symmetric word which is of length 3.

Definition 5.3-Affix Index: The affix index of a set at a given level gives an exact
number of the symmetrical codewords available for use at higher levels after the
elimination process considering the prefix and the suffix condition [128].
For example if, in the construction of a code, the codewords 00, 010, 101, 111 have
been already selected, then affix index at level 4 will be 2 which clearly indicates that

91

2 codewords (0110 and 1001) are available at level 4 satisfying both the prefix and
the suffix criteria.

5.2.1. CONSTRUCTION ALGORITHMS FOR RVLCs

We have chosen seven RVLC construction algorithms for implementation on MATLAB. Out
of these, five are Huffman dependent. In the Huffman dependent algorithms, the first step is
to generate Huffman codewords and then replace the Huffman codewords by identical length
codewords that satisfy both the prefix and the suffix conditions. If the number of valid
codewords is insufficient, longer codewords have to be assigned, resulting in increased
redundancy. By contrast, if there are more candidate codewords than necessary, different
codeword selection mechanisms may be applied. From the point of view of hardware
capacity, Huffman independent construction algorithm is not desirable because at the initial
stage, the encoders have to first generate Huffman codes and then RVLCs are generated
based on Huffman codes. To resolve this problem and to improve the coding efficiency, Yan
[86] proposed a method to generate Huffman independent RVLCs i.e. no prior generation of
Huffman codes was needed. Golomb and Rice algorithm is also a Huffman independent
algorithm and is presently being used in H.263++ video coding standard. All these algorithms
are discussed in the sub-sections below. The algorithms that implemented for the comparative
analysis are:
1. Takishima algorithm to generate Symmetrical RVLCs [37]
2. Tsai algorithm to generate Symmetrical RVLCs [84]
3. Jeong algorithm to generate Symmetrical RVLCs [85]
4. Yan algorithm to generate Symmetrical RVLCs [86]
5. Takishima algorithm to generate Asymmetrical RVLCs [37]
6. Tsai algorithm to generate Asymmetrical RVLCs [84]
7. Golomb and Rice Code-algorithm [87]
The details of the algorithms are given in Appendix A. Construction techniques are briefly
discussed below.

92

 Takishima symmetric RVLC construction algorithm is the first algorithm to generate

symmetric RVLCs proposed by Takishima in 1995 [37]. This is a Huffman dependent
algorithm and has a problem of bit variation which is encountered while selecting the
codewords.
Tsai symmetric RVLC construction algorithm [84] is a modified version of the
Takishima symmetrical RVLC algorithm and is also Huffman dependent. It solves the
variation problem in Takishima algorithm and generates a more efficient symmetrical
RVLC.
As compared to Takishima Symmetric RVLC algorithm and Tsai Symmetric RVLC
algorithm, Jeong symmetric RVLC construction algorithm [85] is a somewhat
simplified algorithm and reduces the complexity of the search method. The algorithm
is based on the concept of generating half the number of the required codewords on a
half binary tree and then applying bit inversion to get the next set of remaining
symmetrical codewords. It is also Huffman dependent.
Takishima asymmetric RVLC construction algorithm [37] is Huffman based algorithm
to generate asymmetric RVLCs. This was the first algorithm to generate asymmetric
RVLCs, proposed by Takishima.
Tsai algorithm to generate asymmetric RVLC [127] is an improved version of
Takishima asymmetric RVLC construction algorithm and is also an Huffman
dependent algorithm. This algorithm has different criteria to add 0s and 1s in the
codewords to satisfy the suffix conditions. It differs from the Takishima asymmetric
algorithm in the way that it replaces the VLC obtained codeword by a shorter length
available vector to satisfy suffix condition.
Golomb and Rice algorithm [53] is being used nowadays in the H.263++ video
coding standard [88]. It is Huffman independent algorithm and is optimal for coding
of exponentially distributed non-negative integers. The problem with Golomb and
Rice algorithm is the exponential increase in the codeword lengths with the number of
codewords required.

93

 An elegant algorithm- Yan algorithm: Yan symmetric RVLC construction algorithm

is a Huffman independent algorithm. It is a well defined, pipeline based algorithm
which is easier to construct, and gives more efficient codewords as compared to other
algorithms for the construction of symmetric RVLCs. The Yan algorithm has several

advantages over the other symmetrical RVLC construction methods. The advantages
are:
i. The earlier methods took longer time in the computation of symmetrical
codewords at every level.
ii. It is independent of Huffman code; as such it reduces the complexity in storing
the candidate words as only the derived codes of the asymmetrical codewords
are being pushed into the queue and not all the possible codewords.
iii. The average codeword length is minimized due to the users choice of the
minimum length,

. In the earlier methods the value of minimum

codeword length of RVLCs was equal to that of the shortest codeword of the
given Huffman code.
iv. In this algorithm, the value of minimum codeword length depends on the
source probabilities.
v. The described algorithm simplifies the codeword selection mechanism and is
easier to realize practically.
We used Yan construction algorithm to generate symmetric RVLCs. The generated
codewords are subsequently used in multimedia applications to evaluate the performance.

Probability distributions considered for the analysis of construction

algorithms
As given in Section 3.4, the same probability distributions of 26 English characters are used
in this chapter to analyze different construction algorithms to generate RVLCs.

5.2.2. A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE CONSTRUCTION

ALGORTIHMS

94

For comparative analysis of different RVLC construction algorithms, we first generate

codewords, using all construction algorithms, for each probability distribution. Then average
codeword length and maximum codeword length are computed using the obtained
codewords. Maximum codeword length is an important criterion as it decides the maximum
length of the buffer to be used in designing any RVLC based system and average codeword
length indicates the average number of bits to represent a symbol. Table 5.1 illustrates the
reversible variable length codewords generated by applying different RVLC generating
algorithms on Buttigieg probability distribution [28].

SYMBO
LS

POBABILITI
ES

HUFFMA
NCODE

TAKISHI
MA
(SYMM
RVLC)

YAN
ALGORITH
M(SYMM
RVLC)

TSAI
ALGORITH
M(SYMM
RVLC)

Jeong
(SYMM
RVLC)

GOLOMBRICE
CODE
(ASYMM
RVLC)

TAKISHIM
A
(ASYMM
RVLC)

000

TSAI
ALGORITH
M
(ASYMM
RVLC)
000

0.127

001

000

000

010

01

010

0.0906

110

111

010

101

111

111

00

101

0.0817

0000

110

101

110

010

0101

111

0110

0.0751

0100

1001

111

1001

101

1010

110

1001

0.0697

0101

100

0110

0110

0110

0010

1011

0000

0.0674

0110

1010

1001

1111

1001

1101

1010

1111

0.0633

1000

1110

00100

01110

00100

0100

10011

01110

0.0609

1001

10001

01110

10001

11011

1011

10010

10001

0.0599

1010

10101

10001

00100

01110

0110

100011

00100

0.0425

00010

11011

11011

11011

10001

11001

100010

11011

0.0403

00011

1100

001100

011110

001100

10011

1000011

011110

0.0278

10110

10010

011110

100001

110011

01110

1000010

100001

0.0276

10111

11110

100001

001100

011110

10001

10000011

001100

0.0241

11100

100001

110011

110111

100001

001100

10000010

110011

0.0236

11110

101101

0010100

0111110

0010100

011110

100000011

0111110

0.0223

11111

110011

011100

1000001

1101011

100001

100000010

1000001

0.0202

011100

10100

0111110

0010100

0011100

1001001

1000000011

0010100

0.0197

011101

11100

1000001

0011100

1100011

0011100

1000000010

1101011

0.0193

011110

100010

1100011

1100011

0111110

1100011

10000000011

0011100

0.0149

011111

111110

1101011

1101011

1000001

0111110

10000000010

1100011

0.0098

111011

1000001

00111100

0001000

1000001

0.0077

1110100

1011101

01111110

1110111

0.0015

11101011

1011010

10000001

01000000

10000000001
1
10000000001
0
10000000000

0001000

0011110
0
1100001
1
0111111

95

00111100
11000011

1110111
01111110

0
X

0.0015

0.001

0.0006

Averagecodeword
length

11101010
1
11101010
00
11101010
01
4.2045

1111110
0
1000000
10
1001100
10
4.2046

11000011
00101010
0
00110110
0
4.7799

10

11

01001100
10
01100001
10
01110011
10
4.5418

1000000
1
0111111
10
1000000
01
4.6841

10010100
1
00111010
01
10010111
00
4.3662

10000000000
10
10000000000
011
10000000000
010
5.0394

011111110
011111111
0
100000000
01
4.6848

Table 5.1: RVLCs generated using different RVLC construction algorithms on Buttigieg
probability distribution
Similar to Table 5.1, Table 5.2 illustrates the reversible variable length codewords generated
using different RVLC construction algorithms on Tsai probability distribution.

SYMB
OLS

PROBABILITIES

HUFFMAN
CODE

TAKISHI
MA
(SYMM
RVLC)

YAN
ALGORIT
HM
(SYMM
RVLC)

TSAI
ALGORITH
M(SYMM
RVLC)

JEONG
(SYMM
RVLC)

TSAI
ALGORIT
HM
(ASYMM
RVLC)

GOLOMB
RICE
CODE
(ASYMM
RVLC)

TAKISHIMA
(ASYMM
RVLC)

0.1487857

001

000

000

010

000

000

01

010

0.09354149

110

111

010

101

111

111

00

101

0.08833733

0000

0110

101

0110

010

0101

111

0110

0.07245769

0100

1001

111

1001

101

1010

110

1001

0.06872164

0101

00100

0110

0000

0110

0010

1011

0000

0.06498532

0110

01010

1001

1111

1001

1101

1010

1111

0.05831331

1000

01110

00100

01110

00100

0100

10011

01110

0.05644515

1001

10001

01110

10001

11011

1011

10010

10001

0.05537763

1010

10101

10001

00100

01110

0110

100011

00100

0.04376834

00010

11011

11011

11011

10001

11001

100010

11011

0.04123298

00011

001100

001100

011110

001100

10011

1000011

011110

0.02762209

10110

010010

011110

100001

110011

01110

1000010

100001

0.02575393

10111

011110

100001

001100

011110

10001

001100

0.02455297

11100

100001

110011

110111

100001

001100

0.02361889

11110

101101

0010100

0111110

0010100

011110

0.02081665

11111

110011

0011100

1000001

1101011

100001

1000001
1
1000001
0
1000000
11
1000000
10

0.01868161

011100

0010100

0111110

0010100

0011100

1001001

1000000
011

0010100

0.01521216

011101

0011100

1000001

0011100

1100011

0011100

1101011

0.01521216

011110

0100010

1100011

1100011

0111110

1100011

0.0126768

011111

0111110

1101011

1101011

1000001

0111110

0.01160928

111011

1000001

0011110
0

0001000

0011110
0

1000001

1000000
010
1000000
0011
1000000
0010
1000000
00011

96

110011
0111110
1000001

0011100
1100011
0001000

0.0086736

1110100

1011101

0.00146784

11101011

0.00080064

111010101

0.00080064

0.00053376

111010100
0
111010100
1
4.155

0010110
100
0011111
100
0100000
010
0100110
010
4.7143

AverageCodewordLength

0111111
0
1000000
1
1100001
1
0010101
00
0011011
00
4.4608

1110111
010000001
0
010011001
0
011000011
0
011100111
0
4.6207

1100001
1
0111111
0
1000000
1
0111111
10
1000000
01
4.4608

0011110
0
1100001
1
1001010
01
0011101
001
1001011
100
4.3085

1000000
00010
1000000
000011
1000000
000010
1000000
0000011
1000000
0000010
4.892178
61

1110111
01111110
011111110
011111111
0
100000000
01
4.6078178

Table 5.2: RVLCs generated using different RVLC construction algorithms on Tsai
probability distribution
Table 5.3 presents a list of all the reversible variable length codewords generated using
different algorithms using 1-gram probability distribution.

SYMB
OLS

POBABILI
TIES

HUFFMA
NCODE

TAKISHI
MA
(SYMM
RVLC)

TSAI
ALGORIT
HM
(SYMM
RVLC)
010

JEONG
(SYMM
RVLC)

000

YAN
ALGORIT
HM
(SYMM
RVLC)
000

000

TSAI
ALGORIT
HM
(ASYMM
RVLC)
000

GOLOMB
RICECODE
(ASYMM
RVLC)

01

0.1304

011

0.1045

110

111

010

0.0856

0000

110

0.0797

0001

0.0707

010

101

111

111

00

101

101

110

010

0101

111

0110

1001

111

1001

101

1010

110

1001

0011

100

0110

0110

0010

1011

0000

0.0677

0100

1010

1001

1111

1001

1101

1010

1111

0.0627

1000

1110

00100

01110

00100

0100

10011

01110

0.0607

1001

10001

01110

10001

11011

1011

10010

10001

0.0528

1011

10101

10001

00100

01110

0110

100011

00100

0.0378

00101

11011

11011

11011

10001

11001

100010

11011

0.0339

01010

1100

001100

011110

001100

10011

1000011

011110

0.0289

01011

10010

011110

100001

110011

01110

1000010

100001

0.0279

10101

11110

100001

001100

011110

10001

10000011

001100

0.0249

11101

100001

110011

110111

100001

001100

10000010

110011

0.0249

11100

101101

0010100

0111110

011110

100000011

0111110

0.0199

001000

110011

011100

1000001

100001

100000010

1000001

0.0199

11111

10100

0111110

0010100

1001001

1000000011

0010100

0.0199

11110

11100

1000001

0011100

0011100

1000000010

1101011

0.0149

101000

100010

1100011

1100011

1100011

0.0139

101001

111110

1101011

1101011

0.0092

0010010

1000001

0011110

0001000

1000000001
1
1000000001
0
1000000000

0011100

001010
0
110101
1
001110
0
110001
1
011111
0
100000
1
001111

97

0111110
1000001

TAKISHIM
A
(ASYMM
RVLC)

1100011
0001000

0
K

0.0042

0.0017

0.0013

0.0012

0.0008

AverageCodeword
Length

0010011
1
0010011
000
0010011
001
0010011
010
0010011
011
4.155

1011101
1011010
0
1111110
0
1000000
10
1001100
10
4.7143

00

0111111
0
1000000
1
1100001
1
0010101
00
0011011
00
4.4608

1110111
0100000
010
0100110
010
0110000
110
0111001
110
4.6207

11

110000
11
011111
10
100000
01
011111
110
100000
001
4.4608

0011110
0
1100001
1
1001010
01
0011101
001
1001011
100
4.3085

1000000000
10
1000000000
011
1000000000
010
1000000000
0011
1000000000
0010
4.8877

1110111
01111110
01111111
0
01111111
10
10000000
001
4.6168

Table 5.3: RVLCs generated using different RVLC construction algorithms on 1- gram
probability distribution
The values of average codeword lengths and maximum codeword lengths obtained for
different construction algorithms are given in Table 5.4.

SYMMETRIC RCLC

Average
Codeword Length

Algorithms
Comparing
Parameters

Huff
man

Takishima

Tsai

Jeong

ASYMMETRIC RCLC
Yan Takisima

Tsai Golomb
and
Rice
4.30 4.8877
85

One Gram
distribution

4.156
8

4.7143

4.61
57

4.4608

4.460
8

4.6168

Buttigieg
distribution

4.204
6

4.7799

4.68
41

4.5418

4.541
8

4.6848

4.36
62

5.0394

Tsai
distribution

4.155
723

4.7002
9173

4.60
7417
43

4.4646
3681

4.464
63681

4.6078
18

4.30
8777

4.89217
9

10

10

11

10

14

Maximum codeword
length

Table 5.4: Average codeword length and maximum codeword length of RVLCs constructed
using different construction algorithms on different distributions
From Table 5.4, it can be seen that minimum value of average codeword length of RVLCs
can be obtained by either using Yan algorithm or Jeong algorithm over 1-gram distribution.
Although Huffman algorithm gives the minimum average codeword length but it doesnt

98

provide any error resiliency. It may be noted that 1-gram distribution is a well known

distribution in cryptography [99], but it has never been used before in the analysis of RVLCs.
The conclusion drawn from the comparison Table 5.4 can be summarized below:

If we compare on the basis of maximum codeword length, Golomb and Rice RVLC
construction algorithm is worst out of these algorithms.

The least value of maximum codeword length is obtained for the case of Tsai
symmetrical RVLC construction algorithm, Yan symmetrical RVLC construction
algorithm and Jeong symmetrical RVLC construction algorithm.

Among symmetric RVLCs, the least values of average codeword lengths are obtained
for Jeong symmetric RVLC algorithm and Yan symmetric RVLC algorithm.

Thus, it may be concluded that the performances of Yan symmetrical RVLC algorithm and
Jeong symmetrical RVLC algorithm, over 1-gram distribution, are better as compared to
those of other construction algorithms in terms of minimum average codeword length and
minimum value of maximum codeword length. Yan is a Huffman independent algorithm and
Jeong is Huffman dependent algorithm. Therefore, we choose Yan algorithm over other
algorithms to evaluate the performances of RVLCs in multimedia applications which are
discussed in the next section.

5.3. MEASURES OF PERFORMANCE

In this chapter, our purpose is to evaluate the performance of different entropy encoders. For
this, we require ways to mathematically measure it. A compression algorithm can be
formulated in a number of different ways. We could measure complexity of an algorithm, the
memory required to implement the algorithm, how fast the algorithm performs on a given
machine, the amount of compression, and how closely the reconstruction resembles the
original [129]. We have used the following measures of performance for both image coding
and video coding:
1. Compression Ratio;
2. Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR);
3. Total Encoding Bits;
99

4. Maximum codeword length;

5. Average Codeword Length.
The performance measures are briefly defined below:
1. Compression Ratio: A very logical way of measuring how well a compression
algorithm compresses a given set of data is to look at the ratio of the number of bits
required to represent the data before compression to the number of bits required to
represent the data after compression. This ratio is called the compression ratio.

Low value of compression ratio is obtained in lossless types of compressions with

good quality. High compression ratio can be obtained with lossy types of
compressions but, with some compromise in the quality of video or any other data.
2. Peak Signal to Noise Ratio: PSNR is most commonly used as a measure of quality of
reconstruction of a lossy compression. A high value of PSNR normally indicates that
the data reconstruction is of high quality. PSNR is calculated using following
equation:
,

10

where MAX is the maximum possible intensity value for a pixel in an image, i.e. 255
images, and , where one of the

for an image of 8-bit resolution and for two

images is considered a lossy approximation of the other, Mean Square Error (MSE) is
defined as:

where,
the

represents a pixel of image and

,
,

,
represents a pixel of

image at

position.

3. Total Encoding Bits: To evaluate the performance of a compression technique, the

total number of encoding bits is used as an important performance measure. It
100

simply indicates how many bits are generated at the output of encoder of the image
compression or the video compression.
4. Maximum Codeword Length: A Maximum Codeword Length is an important
performance measure which is used to compare different coding methods. In practical
systems, a very high value of maximum codeword length (say, 80 or 90) creates
difficulty in assigning the codewords to the message symbols and creates problems in
decoding also.
5. Average Codeword Length: Here we consider a DMS (Discrete Memory-less Source)
emitting

messages, the

message with probability

and the sum of the

probabilities of the symbols equals to one. If the messages be encoded into binary
codes, with

message of length

length, then, the average codeword length of a

code , is defined as the average number of bits required for transmitting a symbol:
,
.
The above mentioned performance measures have been used to evaluate the performances of
image compression and video compression. Next, we discuss simulation results obtained for
image compression and video compression.

5.4. SIMULATIONS AND ANALYSIS: IMAGE COMPRESSION

Simulation provides a theoretical check and comparison with the real life situation. We recall
that, in the process of image compression and video compression, entropy encoding is
performed to obtain the binary bit-stream from the symbols generated after run length
encoding. Symbols are assigned codewords according to their probabilities; a higher probable
symbol is assigned a codeword of smaller length to make the average codeword length a
minimum.
For the construction of variable length codewords, we use different entropy codes: Huffman
code; Reversible Variable Length Codes and Variable Length Error-correcting codes.

101

JPEG is an image compression standard [130]. Developed by Joint Photographic Experts

Group, JPEG compression is "lossy," because the compression scheme sacrifices some image
quality for a reduction in the image data size. Quantization is an important step in JPEG.
Here, we consider three different standard quantization matrices for different quality levels:
quantization matrix of quality level 10, 10; quantization matrix of quality level 50, 50 and
quantization matrix of quality level 90, Q90. The quantization matrices Q10, Q50 and Q90
are given in Figure 5.1:
80
55

70

70
Q10 =
90

120
245

255

60
60

50
70

80
95

65 80 120
85 110 145
110 185 255
185 255 255
255 255 255
255 255 255

16
12

14

14
Q50 =
18

24
49

72

120 200 255 255

130 255 255 255
200 255 255 255

255 255 255 255

255 255 255 255

255 255 255 255

255 255 255 255

255 255 255 255

11 10 16
12 14 19

24
26

40
58

51
60

13 16 24

40

57

69

17 22 29

51

87

80

22 37 56
35 55 64

68 109 103
81 104 113

64 78 87 103 121 120

92 95 98 112 100 103

3 2 2
2 2 3

3 3 3

3 3 4
Q90 =
4 4 7

5 7 11
10 13 16

14 18 19

12

5
6

8 11
10 17

11 14 22
13 16 12
17

21 24

20 22 20

61
55
56

62
77

92
101

99

10 12
12 11
14 11

16 12
21 15

23 18
24 21

20 20

Figure 5.1: Standard quantization matrices for different quality levels: Q10, Q50 and Q90
The effects of different quantization matrices are: use of 10 gives makes a large number of
zeros, while 90 results in very few zeros.

102

We first select a value of quality factor giving good results of JPEG image compression.
Next, using that quality factor, we analyze the performance of the image compression
technique for different entropy encoders. Thus, the steps for analyzing the performance of
image compression are:
1. Step 1: Analyze the performance of image coder for different quantization matrices
corresponding to different quality factors;
2. Step-2: Using the optimised quantization matrix, obtained from the results of step 1,
we evaluate the performance of image coder for the three entropy encoders: Huffman
codes, RVLCs and VLECs.
For the evaluation of the performance measures of image compression, we take four standard
images present in the literature- Cameraman, Lena, Airplane and Pepper [131].

5.4.1. IMAGE COMPRESSION WITH DIFFERENT QUANTIZATION

MATRICES
We take up the decoded images of JPEG image compression for different quantization
matrices corresponding to different quality levels with the help of some pictures. Let us take
the original image to be camera man [131] as shown in Figure 5.2. The decoded JPEG
compressed image with the quality factor of 10 is shown in Figure 5.3. Figure 5.4 represents
the decoded image of JPEG encoded with the quality factor of 50 and Figure 5.5 shows the
decoded image corresponding to the quality factor of 90.

Figure 5.2: Original image

Figure 5.3: Decoded image with Q10

103

Figure 5.4: Decoded image with Q50

Figure 5.5: Decoded image with Q90

It may be noted from Figure 5.3 that the decoded image is highly degraded if 10 is used as
the quantization matrix. The quality of image is worse at the places of lower frequency
components, like at the background. The image has small blocks of the same intensity.
There is not much difference in perceptual quality of Figure 5.4 comparing with Figure 5.5.
Figure 5.5 presents a better result as compared to Figure 5.4, due to a higher value of quality

factor and less compression of the original image. Figure 5.4 gives an optimised result in the
sense that the approximate perception of the image is obtained with less number of
transmitted bits. With a quality level of 50, this matrix renders both high compression and
excellent decompressed image quality.
The results for cameraman are already discussed in Figure 5.2 to Figure 5.5. We applied
image compression to several other images. The results on other images like Lena, Pepper
and Airplane [131] for different quantization matrices are given in Appendix B.

5.4.2. IMAGE COMPRESSION WITH DIFFERENT ENTROPY

ENCODERS
Here, we report results obtained for image compression. As discussed in the previous section,
the image compression was applied to four standard images - Cameraman, Lena, Peppers and
Airplane, available in the literature [131]. We use the following parameters to evaluate the
performance of image compression:
1. PSNR ratio;
104

2. Maximum Codeword Length;

3. Average Codeword Length;
4. Total number of encoding bits.
Next, we evaluate the performance of image compression for following entropy encoders:
1. Huffman codes;
2. Reversible Variable Length Codes;
3. Variable Length Error-correcting Codes.
The performance of the different entropy encoders depend on the channel characteristics. Let
us categorise the channels behaviour in the following categories:
1. Channel is noiseless;
2. Channel has introduced single bit error;
3. Noisy channel (errors introduced is more than one).
Case 1- Noiseless channel
The MATLAB simulation results for noiseless channel are discussed in this section. We take
cameraman as a sample input image. The size of original image is 63.7 KB. The test image
is given in Figure 5.2. The decoded image for the quantization matrix Q10 is given in Figure
5.3. Channel being noiseless, the same decoded image is obtained for all entropy encoders.

Similarly, Figure 5.4 and Figure 5.5 show decoded images for quantization matrices Q50 and
Q90 respectively. For a particular value of quality factor, the same decoded image is obtained
using different entropy encoders for a noiseless channel.
Simulation results are compiled in Table 5.5. The values of PSNR, compression ratio and
total number of encoding bits are computed for each entropy encoder. The values are
computed for each quality factor: Q10, Q50 and Q90. In the noiseless case (no error
introduced) PSNR and the compression ratio remain same for all the entropy encoders,
because the same decoded image is obtained at the decoder.
Quality Entropy

PSNR

Compression Maximum

Average

Level

(dB)

Ratio

Codeword of

Encoding

Codeword

105

Total Number
Encoding

Q = 10

Q = 50

Techniques

Length

Length

Huffman

12

4.7610

8014

15

5.0660

8529

VLEC

23

6.1940

10421

Huffman

14

5.2895

9656

17

5.9528

10274

35

6.5558

12556

15

5.5220

11200

21

6.1869

12559

35

6.6710

13555

RVLC

RVLC
VLEC

26.4635

31.6631

9.0082

7.4711

Huffman
Q = 90

RVLC

34.3669

6.4444

VLEC

Bits

Table 5.5: Results of image compression with no error introduction in the channel
For a noiseless channel, we may arrive at the following conclusions from Table 5.5:

PSNR ratio and the compression ratio remain same for the three coding techniques for
a particular quality factor;

PSNR and compression ratio decrease with the increase in quality factor from 10 to
90;

The values of maximum values of maximum codeword length, average codeword

length and total number of encoding bits vary for Huffman code, RVLC and VLEC
for a particular quality factor.

Case 2- Noisy channel with single bit error introduced into the channel
The performance of error resilient RVLCs over Huffman codes can be observed in a noisy
environment. If we use Huffman coding as entropy encoder in the presence of an error,
synchronisation will be lost in the forward decoding of the bit-stream at that point of error.
Here, we present MATLAB simulated results of image compression for cameraman input
image for different entropy encoders.

106

Figure 5.6 represents the original image that was encoded and transmitted using Huffman
entropy encoder. The error was introduced in the bit-stream at a random position and the
received bit-stream was decoded at the receiver. Figure 5.7 represents the decoded image.

Figure 5.6: Original image

Figure 5.7: Huffman decoded image
Figure 5.7 clearly indicates that after the position of an error, the information in the bitstream is completely lost. RVLC gives a solution in this case, with both forward and the
backward decoding, only a small segment containing the erroneous bit is affected and the
remaining part can be decoded correctly. Figure 5.8 represents the original image that was
encoded and transmitted over the noisy channel. Figure 5.9 represents the forward-decoded
image which is similar to the decoded image if Huffman is used for entropy encoding.
Figure 5.10 represents the backward (reverse) decoded image. After combining forward
decoded image with reverse decoded image, the approximate version of the transmitted
image can be obtained as shown in Figure 5.11. Only one pixel is in error which is
represented by a circle in Figure 5.11.

Figure 5.8: Original image

Figure 5.9: Forward decoded image

107

Figure 5.10: Reverse decoded image

Figure 5.11: Combined image (RVLC decoded image)

Case 3- Noisy channel with more than one error introduced into the channel
As observed above, the performance of RVLC is no doubt better than Huffman code in noisy
environment. In noisy channel with single bit error introduced, Huffman code is unable to
completely decode, but RVLC decodes the bit-stream except a small segment containing that
particular erroneous bit. If more than one error is introduced in the channel, RVLC also fails
to decode completely. In such a situation, we demonstrate how VLECs perform better as
compared to RVLCs or Huffman codes. The VLEC gives the promising solution in the noisy
channel environment. Let us assume that the noisy channel has introduced two errors in the
entropy-encoded bit-stream. The original image is shown in Figure 5.12. Figure 5.13 displays
decoded Huffman decoded image. It can be seen that after the occurrence of first error,
Huffman has failed completely to decode it. Figure 5.14 shows the RVLC decoded image.
After the occurrence of first error, backward decoding is done. Combining the results of
forward decoding and backward decoding, RVLC decoded image is constructed that
demonstrates the loss of bit-stream information between the two extreme positioned errors.
Figure 5.15 represents the VLEC-decoded image.

108

Figure 5.12: Original image

Figure 5.13: Huffman decoded image

Figure 5.14: RVLC decoded image

Figure 5.15: VLEC decoded image
Similar results, obtained for other standard images Lena, Pepper and Airplane, are
given in Appendix B. With the error correction capability of variable length error-correcting
codes, the errors are corrected at the decoder and image is properly received, while the image
data are lost if Huffman codes or RVLCs are used as entropy encoders. Thus, it may be
concluded for a noisy channel (more than 1 error in the whole bit-stream), VLEC gives
complete decoding of data as compared to RVLC and Huffman.

5.5. SIMULATION RESULTS OF VIDEO COMPRESSION

We study the working of H.263++ video coding standard [88] [125], and observe that theis
video coding standard uses Golomb and Rice RVLCs [88] as the source coder (in place of
Huffman codes) [87]. The problem with Golomb and Rice RVLC algorithm is the
exponential increase in the size of codewords with the number of codewords required. Due to
this, values obtained of average codeword length, maximum codeword length and
compression ratio are not optimal and the video coder has scope of improvement due to the
109

large values of average codeword length, maximum codeword length and the compression
ratio. One possibility is to replace Golomb and Rice RVLC by another RVLC to get
improved results.

Different algorithms to construct RVLCs have been implemented and their comparative
analysis was reported in Section 5.2.2. The conclusion drawn from the analysis was that the
Yan construction algorithm for generating symmetric RVLCs is the best among all other
RVLC construction algorithms. In this section, we evaluate the performance of H.263++
video compression with three different entropy encoders:
1. Huffman coding method (VLC);
2. Conventional RVLCs used in H.263++ (Golomb and Rice RVLCs);
3. Yan RVLCs.
The reason to select Huffman is clear as Huffman is traditionally the best source code.
Conventional H.263++ video coder uses Golomb and Rice RVLCs and Yan Symmetric
RVLCs. Three videos (named as Video-1, Video-2 and Video-3) have been used in the
database to measure the performances of different coding schemes. The video details are
shown in Table 5.6.

Video Parameters

Video-1
(adobe.avi)

Video quality measure:MSE (Mean Square 10.165

Error)
Video quality measure:Average PSNR (Peak 38.38dB
Signal to Noise Ratio)
Number of frames
12
Frames per second (fps)

Video-2
(gunman.avi)

Video-3
(ball.avi)

3.265

10.62

43.71dB

38.02dB

268

500

29.97

30

Duration

2.141 sec

8.942 sec

16.667 sec

File size

4.13 MB

509 KB

1.54 MB

Frame height

538

240

240

Frame width

669

320

320

110

Table 5.6: Comparison of videos of different video quality measures- MSE and PSNR
The performance of different entropy codes Huffman codes, Golomb and Rice RVLCs and
Yan RVLCs is compared on the basis of the following indices:
1. Compression Ratio;
2. MSE (Mean Square Error);
3. PSNR (Peak Signal to Noise Ratio);
4. Total encoding bits;
5. Average number of bits per symbol.
Next, we present the MATLAB simulated results of video coder for rhino input video. Few
frames of the input video are shown in Figure 5.16.

Figure 5.16: Frames of 'rhino' input video

111

Three different entropy encoders (Huffman code, Golomb and Rice RVLC and Yan RVLC)
are applied to the H.263++ video coding standard. The values of PSNR and MSE are given in
Table 5.6. The obtained values of maximum codeword length, average codeword length and
total encoding bits for different entropy encoders are given in Table 5.7 for Video-1.
L

Entropy encoding

Total

method
Huffman

Yan RVLC

Golomb and Rice

RVLC

encoding Average

bits

codeword length

17

1036396

2.99

>87

Very Large

87

Very Large

17

1053948

3.04

14

1106316

3.19

13

>1106316

28

1163627

3.35

>>28

>1163627

20

1096634

3.16

20

>1096634

20

>1096634

Table 5.7: Comparison table of all entropy encoders for first video

Similar comparison tables are obtained for the other Video-2 and Video-3. The details of
these tables are given in Appendix C. Table 5.8 shows the comparison of the different
entropy encoders, in terms of average codeword length, maximum codeword length and total
encoding bits. RVLCs have been generated using Yan construction algorithm and Golomb
and Rice construction algorithm for different values of
Video

Entropy

encoding

method

VIDEO-1

.
Total
encoding
bits

Average
codeword length
(bits/symbol)

Huffman coding

17

1036396

2.99

Yan RVLC

17

1053948

3.04

Yan RVLC

14

1106316

3.19

Conventional

20

1096634

3.16

H.263++ RVLC

112

Conventional

20

>1096634

> 3.16

Huffman coding

17

33845

2.99

Yan RVLC

17

38110

3.04

Yan RVLC

14

39706

3.19

Conventional

20

41209

3.16

20

>41209

> 3.16

Huffman coding

17

61437

2.99

Yan RVLC

17

38110

3.04

Yan RVLC

14

39706

3.19

Conventional

20

41209

3.16

20

>41209

> 3.16

H.263++ RVLC

VIDEO-2

H.263++ RVLC
Conventional
H.263++ RVLC

VIDEO-3

H.263++ RVLC
Conventional
H.263++ RVLC
Table 5.8: Comparison of different source codes, on the basis of the encoded file sizes

From Table 5.8 it is clear that by using Yan RVLCs (for

as 3), the values of average

codeword length, maximum codeword length and total encoding bits are less as compared to
the corresponding values obtained using for conventional H.263++ RVLCs for the same
perceptual quality of the decoded video.

5.6. CONCLUSIONS

In coding, in addition to the problems of error control (error detection and correction), there
are other problems for reliable communication. Some of these problems are those related to
compression and error resilience. An important class of codes studied here is the Reversible
Variable Length Codes. RVLCs have been studied in detail by constructing these using
seven different algorithms and thereafter a comparative analysis has been made among all

construction algorithms. This analysis proves that Yan algorithm is the best algorithm to
113

generate symmetric RVLCs. It is a well defined, pipe-line based Huffman independent

algorithm. It is in view of our foregoing analysis that we choose Yan algorithm over other
RVLC construction algorithms to evaluate the performance of RVLCs in multimedia
applications - image compression and video compression.
The performance of image coder for different entropy coders (Huffman code, RVLC and
VLEC) has been evaluated. We applied image compression to several images for which
pictorial representations are given in the chapter. For a noisy channel, we have demonstrated

that VLECs perform better than the other entropy encoders (Huffman codes and RVLCs).
Also, through MATLAB simulation of H.263++ video coding standard, we have shown that

the performance of video coder is improved by using Yan RVLCs in place of conventional
RVLCs (Golomb and Rice RVLCs), for the same values of perceptual quality parameters
(PSNR, MSE and compression ratio).

114