(JBE Vol. 21, No. 3, May 2016) (Regular Paper) 21 3, 2016 5 (JBE Vol. 21, No. 3, May 2016) http://dx.doi.org/10.5909/jbe.2016.21.3.436 ISSN 2287-9137 (Online) ISSN 1226-7953 (Print) MMT MPEG-2 TS a), a) An Overhead Comparison of MMT and MPEG-2 TS in Broadcast Services MinKyu Park a) and Yong Han Kim a) MMT(MPEG Media Transport) MPEG-2 TS(Transport Stream) (overhead). MPEG-2 TS DTV(Digital Television), IPTV(Internet Protocol Television), DMB(Digital Multimedia Broadcasting). MPEG-2 TS 1990, 20 MPEG-2 TS., 2014 MPEG(ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC 29/WG 11) MPEG-2 TS MMT., MMT MPEG-2 TS.,,. Abstract This paper compares the transport overhead of MMT (MPEG Media Transport) with that of MPEG-2 TS (Transport Stream). MPEG-2 TS is globally used in multiplexing compressed audio and video data in digital broadcast industry, including areas of DTV (Digital Television), IPTV (Internet Protocol Television), and DMB (Digital Multimedia Broadcasting). It was the early 1990s when MPEG-2 TS standard was established. After more than two decades of years since its first establishment, many parts of MPEG-2 TS turned out to be inappropriate to today s broadcast and communication environment. Given the situations, in 2014 MPEG (ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC 29/WG 11) standardized MMT as the next-generation multimedia transport standard hopefully that can replace MPEG-2 TS. In this paper, with assumptions of broadcast service scenarios we applied both MMT and MPEG-2 TS to each scenario and we calculated their transport overheads. We used a software program that counts the transport overhead, which was developed in our laboratory for this paper. And we conducted a comparative analysis based on the calculated result of transport overhead. Keywords: MMT, MPEG-2 TS, transport overhead, DTV, IPTV a) (Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Seoul) Corresponding Author : (Yong Han Kim) E-mail: yhkim@uos.ac.kr Tel: +82-2-6490-2330 ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9470-6060 Manuscript received May 4, 2016; Revised May 16, 2016; Accepted May 16, 2016.
1 : MMT MPEG-2 TS (MinKyu Park et al.: An Overhead Comparison of MMT and MPEG-2 TS in Broadcast Services). MPEG-2 TS(Transport Stream) MPEG-2 (Part) [1],,, AV(Audio-Visual), (bitstream) MPEG(Moving Picture Experts Group). MPEG-2 TS 20,. IP(Internet Protocol),,,, UHD(Ultra High Definition). MPEG-2 TS 188., MPEG 2009 AV (format), 2014 ISO/IEC 20008-1(MPEG-H Part 1: MPEG media transport, MMT) [2]. MMT IP IP,. MMT [3]~[5]. MPEG-2 TS 188, MMT MTU(Maximum Transmission Unit) MMTP(MMT Protocol). MMTP MPEG-2 TS MMT MPEG-2 TS. MPEG-2 TS MMT. MPEG-2 TS TS (sync byte) (framing), MMT UDP/IP. MMT MPEG-2 TS. MMT IP,. MMT MMTP ISOBMFF(ISO Base Media File Format) [6] (encapsulation). ISOBMFF (metadata), MMT (cache),..,,, MMT MPEG-2 TS.. MPEG-2 TS MMTP MPEG-2 TS MMT,., HDTV MPEG-2 TS, MPEG-2 TS. MPEG-2 TS MMTP.
(JBE Vol. 21, No. 3, May 2016). 2 MMTP, 3 MPEG-2 TS. 4 MMTP, 5. 6.. MMTP, HDTV 4 28 MPEG-2 TS, ES (Elemantry Stream). MPEG-2 TS MMTP, MPEG-2 TS 4 28. MPEG-2 TS PSI(Program Specific Information) PSIP(Pro- gram and System Information Protocol, ATSC A/65 [7] ) (signalling). PSIP MMT,, MMTP., MMTP,,. < 1> MPU(Media Process Unit), < 2> MPU MMTP (payload). MMT MPU ISOBMFF, MPU MMTP. MPU < 2> MPU (MPU metadata), (fragment metadata), MFU(Media Fragment 1. MPU Fig 1. The structure of MPU Unit) 3 (data unit), MMTP. MPU MPU MFU, MFU MMTP MFU. moof mdat (, ). MFU (hint sample).,,,. MFU, MMT (hint track)., MMT MPU MFU MMT, MPU MPU
1 : MMT MPEG-2 TS (MinKyu Park et al.: An Overhead Comparison of MMT and MPEG-2 TS in Broadcast Services) 2. MPU MMTP Fig 2. The method of loading an MPU as MMTP payloads MMTP. MPEG- 2 TS PES(Packetized Elementary Stream), MPU. MMT MPU MPEG-2 TS. MPU MPU MMTP MMT [2] ISOBMFF [6] [3]~[5]. MPU GOP(Group of Picture). MPU GOP MPU. MMTP MPU I (Intra frame), MPEG-2 TS GOP 15 GOP MPU. MPU MPU 0.5. 3. [2] Fig 3. Structure of the signalling messages and tables for Package consumption [2]
(JBE Vol. 21, No. 3, May 2016) MMT (signaling message). < 3>. PA(Package Access), MPI(Media Presentation Information), MP(MMT Package), DCI(Device Capability Information), CRI(Clock Relation Information), PA, MPI, MP, DCI, CRI.,. (scalable transport), MPI MP.,. PA. MPI HTML5.0 MPEG CI(Composition Information) [8]. MP, MPEG-2 TS (Program Map Table, PMT). DCI. CRI NTP(Network Time Protocol) (timestamp) MPEG-2. CRI MPEG-2 TS AV ES MMT (asset). (package acquisition delay), PA MPI. MMT, PA., MPI MP MPI,.,. MMTP,,, PA. DTV [9] PMT 0.4 4. [10] MMT Fig 4. The structure of the MMT client developed in [10]
1 : MMT MPEG-2 TS (MinKyu Park et al.: An Overhead Comparison of MMT and MPEG-2 TS in Broadcast Services) 5. [10] MMT, MMTP Fig 5. Verification experiment of the generated MMTP stream using the MMT client developed in [10], MMTP PA 0.4. MMT MPI, MMTP MPI HTML5 MPEG CI. MPEG-2 TS, MMT. MMTP MTU. MTU (Ethernet) 1,492 1,500, MTU 1,500 MMTP. MMTP, MMT. < 4> MMT. < 4> MMT, MMTP. MMTP,. [10]. < 5>.. MPEG-2 TS MPEG-2 TS 188, 4 TS (header) 184, (adaptation field) TS. PES (section). PES PES ES. MPEG-2 TS (Program Associa-
(JBE Vol. 21, No. 3, May 2016) tion Table, PAT) PMT,. MPEG-2 TS ATSC DVB(Digital Video Broadcasting). MPEG-2 TS, (null).. MPEG-2 TS 188.. MPEG-2 TS MMTP MPEG-2 TS, PSIP.. MMT, MPEG-2 TS PAT,. < 1> MPEG-2 TS. < 1>. MPEG-2 TS PES TS, TS PES TS., MPEG-2 TS, (stuffing), TS 188. TS. < 1> TS. MPEG-2 TS PAT PMT TS, PAT PMT 5.72 x 10 3 2.14 x 10 3 < 1>., MPEG-2 TS, PAT PMT, (program acquisition delay). MPEG-2 TS AV 1 1 PMT PAT AV 1 PAT PMT 2. MMTP PAT PMT 0.4, PAT PMT, MPEG-2 TS 1. MPEG-2 TS Table 1. The result of recorded MPEG-2 TS analysis PMT Video Audio Total TS packet count (packets) 6.70 x 10 2 3.17 x 10 6 7.00 x 10 4 3.24 x 10 6 Sum of TS packet size (bytes) Sum of ES data size (bytes) Sum of TS packet header size (bytes) PES header size (bytes) Sum of overhead data size (bytes) 1.26 x 10 5 (0.021%) 1.26 x 10 5 (0.021%) 5.96 x 10 8 (97.818%) 5.83 x 10 8 (95.690%) 1.27 x 10 7 (2.091%) 2.25 x 10 5 (0.037%) 1.30 x 10 7 (2.128%) 1.32 x 10 7 (2.161%) 1.29 x 10 7 (2.110%) 2.80 x 10 5 (0.046%) 3.50 x 10 4 (0.006%) 3.15 x 10 5 (0.052%) 6.09 x 10 8 (100.00%) 5.96 x 10 8 (97.779%) 1.30 x 10 7 (2.137%) 2.60 x 10 5 (0.043%) 1.34 x 10 7 (2.201%)
1 : MMT MPEG-2 TS (MinKyu Park et al.: An Overhead Comparison of MMT and MPEG-2 TS in Broadcast Services) < 1>. < 1> TS 4, PCR(Program Clock Referen- ce). MPEG-2 TS. MPEG-2 TS 3.24 x 10 6 ( PMT, Video, Audio ), 6.09 x 10 8. ES 5.96 x 10 8, (, ) 1.34 x 10 8. MPEG-2 TS ES 2.201%.. MPEG-2 TS. 전달오버헤드전달을위해추가되는바이트수 비디오및오디오 ES의바이트수. MMTP II MMTP MTU, 1,492 1,500. 1,500 MTU MMTP. MMTP MTU 1,500 IP (20 ) UDP(User Data- gram Protocol) (8 ) 1,472. < 2> < 3> MTU 1,500 ( MMTP 1,472 ),, MPEG-2 TS ES MMTP,. MMT MMTP MMTP. MMTP (full size header), (compressed header).. MMTP MMTP ID. MMT 256. < 2> MMTP, < 3>. MMTP 1 2. < 2> < 3> MMTP MPU, II MPU,, MFU, MFU. MMTP, MPEG-2 TS, PA 0.4. < 2> MMTP MMTP 4.26 x 10 5, 6.08 x 10 8. ES 5.95 x 10 8, (PA,,, ES ) 1.31 x 10 7. MPEG-2 TS MMTP. MPU MFU I
(JBE Vol. 21, No. 3, May 2016) 2. MMTP (MTU : 1,500, MMTP, 1) Table 2. The result of MMTP stream analysis (MTU: 1,500 bytes, MMTP header compression not used, Version1) PA Message Video Audio Total MMTP packet count (packets) 6.72 x 10 2 4.07 x 10 5 1.78 x 10 4 4.26 x 10 5 Sum of MMTP packet size (bytes) Sum of ES data size (bytes) Sum of MMTP packet header size (bytes) Sum of MMTP payload header size (bytes) Sum of MPU metadata size (bytes) Sum of fragment metadata size (bytes) Sum of data unit header size for MFU (bytes) Sum of hint sample data size (bytes) Sum of overhead data size (bytes) 6.77 x 10 5 (0.111%) 6.77 x 10 5 (0.111%) 5.93 x 10 8 (97.541%) 5.82 x 10 8 (95.732%) 6.52 x 10 6 (1.072%) 3.26 x 10 6 (0.536%) 6.85 x 10 5 (0.113%) 1.52 x 10 5 (0.025%) 1.12 x 10 5 (0.018%) 2.72 x 10 5 (0.045%) 1.10 x 10 7 (1.809%) 1.43 x 10 7 (2.348%) 1.29 x 10 7 (2.113%) 2.84 x 10 5 (0.047%) 1.42 x 10 5 (0.023%) 5.38 x 10 5 (0.089%) 5.65 x 10 4 (0.009%) 1.17 x 10 5 (0.019%) 2.84 x 10 5 (0.047%) 1.42 x 10 6 (0.234%) 6.08 x 10 8 (100%) 5.95 x 10 8 (97.846%) 6.80 x 10 6 (1.119%) 3.40 x 10 6 (0.559%) 1.22 x 10 6 (0.201%) 2.08 x 10 5 (0.034%) 2.29 x 10 5 (0.038%) 5.57 x 10 5 (0.092%) 1.31 x 10 7 (2.154%). MPEG-2 TS, I MPU. MPU, AV MPEG-2 TS. < 1> MPEG-2 TS PAT PMT GOP PAT PMT GOP ES. < 2> < 3> 3. MMTP (MTU : 1,500, MMTP, 2) Table 3. The result of MMTP stream analysis (MTU: 1,500 bytes, MMTP header compression used, Version2) PA Message Video Audio Total MMTP packet count (packets) 6.72 x 10 2 4.06 x 10 5 1.78 x 10 4 4.24 x 10 5 Sum of MMTP packet size (bytes) Sum of ES data size (bytes) Sum of MMTP packet header size (bytes) Sum of MMTP payload header size (bytes) Sum of MPU metadata size (bytes) Sum of fragment metadata size (bytes) Sum of data unit header size for MFU (bytes) Sum of hint sample data size (bytes) Sum of overhead data size (bytes) 6.77 x 10 5 (0.112%) 6.77 x 10 5 (0.112%) 5.91 x 10 8 (97.548%) 5.82 x 10 8 (96.137%) 4.07 x 10 6 (0.673%) 3.25 x 10 6 (0.536%) 6.85 x 10 5 (0.113%) 1.52 x 10 5 (0.025%) 1.12 x 10 5 (0.019%) 2.72 x 10 5 (0.045%) 8.54 x 10 6 (1.410%) 1.41 x 10 7 (2.341%) 1.29 x 10 7 (2.122%) 1.82 x 10 5 (0.030%) 1.42 x 10 5 (0.023%) 5.38 x 10 5 (0.089%) 5.65 x 10 4 (0.009%) 1.17 x 10 5 (0.019%) 2.84 x 10 5 (0.047%) 1.32 x 10 6 (0.218%) 6.06 x 10 8 (100.000%) 5.95 x 10 8 (98.260%) 4.26 x 10 6 (0.703%) 3.39 x 10 6 (0.559%) 1.22 x 10 6 (0.202%) 2.08 x 10 5 (0.034%) 2.29 x 10 5 (0.038%) 5.57 x 10 5 (0.092%) 1.05 x 10 7 (1.740%)
1 : MMT MPEG-2 TS (MinKyu Park et al.: An Overhead Comparison of MMT and MPEG-2 TS in Broadcast Services) MMTP. 1 MMTP MMTP 2.154%.. 전달오버헤드전달을위해추가되는바이트수 비디오및오디오 ES의바이트수 < 3> MMTP 2. PA MMTP 0.4 PA. MPU MMTP. < 3>, MMTP 4.24 x 10 5, 6.06 x 10 8. < 2>, MMTP MMTP MMTP, ES, MMTP. MMTP < 2>. ES 1 5.95 x 10 8, 1.05 x 10 7. 2 MMTP MMTP 1.740%.. 전달오버헤드전달을위해추가되는바이트수 오디오및비디오 ES의바이트수, < 3> < 2>, MPU,, MFU,, MMTP MMTP MMTP. MMTP, MMTP. MMTP. < 3> 2 < 2> 1, 1 2.202% 2 1.771% 0.431% MMTP. MMTP.,.,,. < 2> < 3> UDP/IP, MPEG-2 TS. MPEG-2 TS.. IPTV(Internet Protocol Television) HDTV MPEG-2 TS MMTP.
(JBE Vol. 21, No. 3, May 2016) 1. IPTV < 4> IPTV (stack). [11] IPTV MPEG-2 TS MPEG-2 TS UDP RTP(Real-time Transport Protocol) DVB-IPI [12] 7.1., MPEG-2 TS RTP UDP QoS(Quality of Service) (managed network). IPTV MPEG- 2 TS, MPEG-2 TS. DVB-IPI MPEG-2 TS RTP/UDP/IP < 5>. RTP UDP TS. IPTV, MPEG-2 TS. MTU 1,492 1,500, IP MPEG-2 TS 7 (40 + 7 x 188 = 1,356 ). MPEG-2 TS RTP/UDP/IP IP III MPEG-2 TS 4.63 x 10 5 ( 3.24 x 10 5 7 1 ). RTP/UDP/IP 1.85 x 10 7 ( 4.63 x 10 5 x 40 )., UDP/IP 4. IPTV [11] Fig 4. Transport Protocol Stack in IPTV [11] 5. RTP (IPv4) [12] Fig 5. Minimal packet format (IPv4) for RTP encapsulation [12]
1 : MMT MPEG-2 TS (MinKyu Park et al.: An Overhead Comparison of MMT and MPEG-2 TS in Broadcast Services) 1.30 x 10 7 ( 4.63 x 10 5 x 28 ). MPEG-2 TS III, MPEG-2 TS 1.34 x 10 7 1.30 x 10 7 (UDP/IP ) 1.85 x 10 7 (RTP/UDP/IP ). 2.64 x 10 7 (UDP/IP ) 3.19 x 10 8 (RTP/UDP/IP ). IPTV, MPEG-2 TS 4.426%(UDP/IP ) 5.357% (RTP/UDP/IP ). IPTV MMT, MPEG-2 TS UDP/IP IV. MMTP IPTV. MMTP UDP/IP MMTP UDP/IP MMTP UDP/IP (28 ). MMTP UDP/IP 2.50 x 10 7 ( 1), 2.24 x 10 7 ( 2). IPTV MMTP 4.206%( 1), 3.767%( 2). < 4> MPEG-2 TS MMTP IPTV. IPTV MMT MPEG-2 TS MMTP. [13] IP, MPEG-2 TS, 4 TS,. 2. HDTV HDTV MPEG-2 TS MPEG-2 TS. HDTV MPEG-2 TS MMTP, MMTP UDP/IP. HDTV MMTP MPEG-2 TS. IP, %. HDTV MMTP V 1 IPTV %. III IV 4. IPTV, MPEG-2 TS MMTP Table 4. The result of transport overhead comparison between MPEG-2 TS and MMTP in IPTV Transport overhead MPEG-2 TS/UDP/IP 4.426% MPEG-2 TS/RTP/UDP/IP 5.337% MMTP/UDP/IP (MTU: 1,500 bytes, uncompressed header, Version1) 4.206% MMTP/UDP/IP (MTU: 1,500 bytes, compressed header, Version2) 3.767%
(JBE Vol. 21, No. 3, May 2016) MPEG-2 TS MMTP, MMTP MPEG-2 TS., MPEG-2 TS MMTP, PCR, IP IBB(Integra-ted Broadcast Broadband). MMT, AV (wall clock) NTP,. IPTV NTP MMT.. MMT MPEG-2 TS. HDTV MPEG-2 TS, MMTP, MPEG-2 TS MMTP.., IPTV HDTV MPEG-2 TS MMTP. MPEG-2 TS MMTP ISOBMFF, MPEG-2 TS 188 MTU (1,500 )., UDP/IP 1 1 1 MPEG-2 TS 2.25%, MMTP MMTP 2.20%, MMTP MMTP, 1.77%, MMTP MPEG-2 TS., MMTP MPEG-2 TS UDP/IP, IP. MPEG-2 TS MMTP IPTV, MMTP MPEG-2 TS, HDTV. (References) [1] ISO/IEC 13818-1, Information technology Generic coding of moving pictures and associated audio information: Systems, Third Edition, Int l Organization for Standardization, 2007. [2] ISO/IEC 23008-1, Information technology High efficiency coding and media delivery in heterogeneous environments - Part 1: MPEG Media Transport, Int l Organization for Standardization, 2014. [3] K. Park, Y. Lim, D. Suh, Delivery of ATSC 3.0 Services With MPEG Media Transport Standard Considering Redistribution in MPEG-2 TS Format, IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 338 351, Mar. 2016. [4] Y. Lim, S. Aoki, I. Bouazizi, and J. Song, New MPEG Transport Standard for Next Generation Hybrid Broadcasting System with IP, IEEE Trans. on Broadcasting, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 160-169, June 2014. [5] K. Park, Y. Lim, D. Suh, Delivery of ATSC 3.0 Services With MPEG Media Transport Standard Considering Redistribution in MPEG-2 TS Format, IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 338
1 : MMT MPEG-2 TS (MinKyu Park et al.: An Overhead Comparison of MMT and MPEG-2 TS in Broadcast Services) 351, Mar. 2016. [6] ISO/IEC 14496-12, Information technology - Coding of audio-visual objects - Part 12: ISO Base Media File Format, Int l Organization for Standardization, 2012. [7] ATSC Standard, Document A/65, Program and System Information Protocol for Terrestrial Broadcast and Cable, Advanced Television Systems Committee, 2013. [8] ISO/IEC 23008-11, Information technology High efficiency coding and media delivery in heterogeneous environments - Part 11: MPEG Media Transport Composition Information, Int l Organization for Standardization, 2015. [9] TTAK.KO-07.0014/R4, Standard of Transmission and Reception for Digital Terrestrial Television Broadcasting, Telecommunications Technology Association, 2012. [10] J. Jeong, An implementation of Internet multimedia streaming by MMTP, Masters Thesis, University of Seoul, 2015. [11] TTAK.KO-08.0012/R2, IPTV Middleware (ICSP: IPTV Convergence Service Platform), Telecommunications Technology Association, 2010. [12] ETSI TS 102 034, Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Transport of MPEG-2 TS Based DVB Services over IP Based Networks, European Telecommunications Standards Institute, 2014. [13] A. MacAulay, B. Felts, Y. Fisher, Envivio WHITE PAPER IP Streaming of MPEG-4: Native RTP vs MPEG-2 Transport Stream, http://pdf.textfiles.com/manuals/starinmanuals/envivio /Manual/White%20Paper%20-%20IP%20Streaming%20of%20MPE G-4%20-%20Native%20RTP%20vs%20MPEG-2%20Transport%20 Stream.pdf, Oct. 2005. - 2010 2 : ( ) - 2012 2 : ( ) - 2012 2 ~ : - ORCID : http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9254-9735 - :, MPEG, - 1982 2 : ( ) - 1984 2 : ( ) - 1990 12 : (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, RPI) (Ph.D) - 1984 3 ~ 1996 3 : ( ) - 1991 10 ~ 1992 9 : NTT - 1996 3 ~ : - 2012 1 ~ : - 2002 5 ~ 2013 12 : DMB - 2014 1 ~ : - 2000 1 ~ : MPEG ( : ) - ORCID : http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9470-6060 - :,,