1 / 34

FLoD-A Framework for Peer-to-Peer 3D Streaming

FLoD-A Framework for Peer-to-Peer 3D Streaming. Outline. Introduction P2P Based 3D Streaming Requirements Challenges Framework Evaluation Conclusion. INTRODUCTION. 3D Objects. Objects are placed in a large scene Positions and orientations Associated data

coen
Download Presentation

FLoD-A Framework for Peer-to-Peer 3D Streaming

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. FLoD-A Framework for Peer-to-Peer 3D Streaming

  2. Outline • Introduction • P2P Based 3D Streaming Requirements • Challenges • Framework • Evaluation • Conclusion

  3. INTRODUCTION

  4. 3D Objects • Objects are placed in a large scene • Positions and orientations • Associated data • Polygonal meshes, Textures, Light maps, animations • Information is stored within a scene description

  5. FoV & AoI

  6. Traditional 3D Content • Require users to pre-installation or prior download • Undesirable - Web 3D • The future internet • If millions of 3D site were exist …

  7. 3D Streaming Features • Continuous, real time delivery of 3D content • Allow user interactions without a prior download • 3D content needs to be fragmented into segment • Users accessing 3D content often have different visibility • Scalable and efficient 3D streaming may be important

  8. 3D Streaming Stages • Object determination • Employ visibility determination to pick object • Use visual quality estimates to assign transmission priority • Object transmission • Data reduction technique are used to send the object segment

  9. P2P 3D Streaming • How can 3D streaming be realized for millions of concurrent users? • Users navigating may own similar content • 3D Data would resemble on-demand media streaming • The main different: • Content access pattern • Media streaming: linear (time) • 3D streaming: non-linear (area)

  10. In This Article • FLoD: A Framework for Peer-to-Peer 3D Streaming

  11. P2P BASED 3D STREAMING REQUIREMENTS

  12. Requirements • 3D object data can be fragmented into • A base piece • many refinement pieces • scene can be rendered once the base pieces are obtained

  13. Requirements • Different fragmentation methods • Progressive meshes [7] • Geometry image [12] • Texture fragmentation [13] • Render and navigation may begin as soon as base pieces within the AOI art obtain

  14. Requirement for Client • Main concern – Visual Quality • Visual perception [11] • How muchand how fasta client obtains data • Fill ratio • the ratio between the data currently owned and necessary to render a view at an instant • The goal is maximizing the fill ratio

  15. Measures for Client • Base latency • The time to obtain the base piece of an object • The delay for a user to see a basic view of an object • Completion latency • The time to download the complete data of an object • The delay of being able to fully inspect an object

  16. Requirement for Server • Main concern - improve the system’s scalability • Content is delivered by Peer-to-Peer style • Minimize the server’s CPU and bandwidth usage

  17. Distributed Visibility Determination Dynamic group management Peer and piece selection CHALLENGES

  18. Distributed Visibility Determination • Visibility should be determined without the server or any global knowledge • We need to partition and distribute scene descriptions to all peers

  19. Dynamic group management • Peers exchange 3D data based on interest group • Involves the efficient discovery and maintenance of interest group • If users are moving constantly, the group is much more dynamic than media streaming

  20. Peer and piece selection !! • Contact the proper peers • Request the proper data piece • Resource capacity, content availability, network • 3D streaming is view-dependent [14] • Data pieces may be applied in arbitrary order • Requires only a roughly sequential transfer order

  21. FRAMEWORK

  22. Conceptual Model • Partition • Divide the entire scene into blocks • Fragmentation • Divide 3D objects into pieces • Prefetching • Predict data usage and generating object scene request • Prioritization • Perform visibility determination to generate the ordering of object pieces • Selection • Determining the proper peers to obtain pieces • Efficient fulfill request from prefetching and prioritization

  23. FLoD Framework • Graphics layer • Object determination (prefetching, prioritization) • Object reconstruction (de-partition, de-fragmentation) • Networking layer • Object transmission (peer and piece selection)

  24. FLoD Policies • Content Discovery • Query the neighbors first, then request the data from the neighbors • Peer Selection • Random or based on certain criteria. (peer’s bandwidth capacity) • Server Request Condition • To ask the server whenever other clients cannot respond to request • To ask the server only if the client becomes the nearest node to an object

  25. EVALUATION

  26. Scalability Simulation • The upload bandwidth for both C/S server and FLoD server

  27. Scalability Simulation • The upload and download bandwidth of FLoD client

  28. Streaming Quality • The fill ratio for both C/S and FLoD client

  29. Streaming Quality • FLoD client’s base latency is relatively stable at below 600ms

  30. AOI Neighbors • If AOI neighbors do not exist • Server request ratio may decrease as nod densith

  31. Limitation • Downgrade client’s upload to 64, 48, 32, 16, 8 KB/s • Look at the effect of data density • The fill ratio decreases as the client upload gets smaller

  32. Conclusion • This is a topic of interest to both graphics and networking. • Challenges: • Quality of client • Efficiency content delivery • Peer and piece selection • Cannot found AOI neighbors

  33. References • [7] H. Hoppe, “Progressive meshes,” in Proc. SIGGRAPH, 1996. • [8] S.-Y. Hu, J.-F. Chen, and T.-H. Chen, “Von: A scalable peer-to-peernetwork for virtual environments,” IEEE Network, vol. 20, no. 4, pp.22–31, 2006. • [11] J. Chim, R. W. H. Lau, H. V. Leong, and A. Si, “Cyberwalk: A webbaseddistributed virtual walkthrough environment,” IEEE TMM, vol. 5,no. 4, pp. 503–515, 2003. • [12] N.-S. Lin, T.-H. Huang, and B.-Y. Chen, “3d model streaming based onjpeg 2000,” IEEE TCE, vol. 53, no. 1, 2007. • [13] J.-E. Marvie and K. Bouatouch, “Remote rendering of massively textured3d scenes through progressive texture maps,” in Proc. VIIP, 2003,pp. 756–761. • [14] J. Kim, S. Lee, and L. Kobbelt, “View-dependent streaming of progressivemeshes,” in Proc. SMI’04, 2004, pp. 209–220.

  34. THANKSQ & A

More Related