Top Banner
Li-Wei Kang and Chun-Shien Lu Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica Taipei, Taiwan, ROC {lwkang, lcs}@iis.sinica.edu.tw April 2009 2009 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing Distributed Compressive Video Sensing
25

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing

Jan 17, 2016

Download

Documents

Simona Fircoiu

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing. No errors. Vanishing error probability for long sequences. Distributed Source Coding. [Slepian and Wolf, 1973]. “Motion JPEG” Encoder. “Motion JPEG” Decoder. Side Information. Distributed Video Coding. Wyner-Ziv Intraframe Encoder. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Distributed  Compressive  Video  Sensing

Li-Wei Kang and Chun-Shien LuInstitute of Information Science, Academia Sinica

Taipei, Taiwan, ROC{lwkang, lcs}@iis.sinica.edu.tw

April 20092009 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing

(ICASSP2009, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing

Page 2: Distributed  Compressive  Video  Sensing

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing April 24, 2009 2

Distributed Source Coding

[bits]XR

[bits]YR

H X

H Y

|H Y X

|H X Y

,X YR R H X Y

Vanishing error probabilityfor long sequences

Vanishing error probabilityfor long sequences

No errorsNo errors

[Slepian and Wolf, 1973]

Page 3: Distributed  Compressive  Video  Sensing

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing April 24, 2009 3

Distributed Video Coding

“Motion JPEG”

Decoder

“Motion JPEG”

Encoder

X’X

Wyner-ZivInterframe Decoder

Wyner-ZivIntraframe Encoder

Side Information

Y

[Girod, 2006]

Page 4: Distributed  Compressive  Video  Sensing

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing April 24, 2009 4

Distributed Video Coding

• The statistical dependency between X and YLaplacian distribution

,2

ii YXii eYXp

ii YX

2

Page 5: Distributed  Compressive  Video  Sensing

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing April 24, 2009 5

Compressive Sensing

• When data is sparse/compressible, one can directly acquire a condensed representation with no/little information loss

• Random projection will work

[Baraniuk, 2008]

Page 6: Distributed  Compressive  Video  Sensing

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing April 24, 2009 6

Compressive Sensing

• Directly acquire “compressed” data

• Replace samples by more general “measurements”

[Baraniuk, 2008]

Page 7: Distributed  Compressive  Video  Sensing

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing April 24, 2009 7

Compressive Sensing

• y = Фx = ФΨθ = Aθ

y Ф Ψ θ

x = Ψθ

A = ФΨ

N×1N×N

M×NM×1

[Baraniuk, 2008]

Page 8: Distributed  Compressive  Video  Sensing

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing April 24, 2009 8

Measurement Matrix

• Scrambled block Hadamard ensemble (SBHE)partial block hadamard transform and random column

permutation

Ф = QMWPN

L. Gan, T. T. Do, and T. D. Tran, “Fast compressive imaging using scrambled hadamard ensemble,” in Proc. of European Signal Processing Conf., Lausanne, Switzerland, August 2008 (EUSIPCO2008).

Page 9: Distributed  Compressive  Video  Sensing

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing April 24, 2009 9

Signal Reconstruction

• The convex unconstrained optimization problem

• Can be seen as a maximum a posteriori criterion for estimating θ from

y = A θ + n, where n is white Gaussian noise

1

2

2A

2

1min

y

Page 10: Distributed  Compressive  Video  Sensing

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing April 24, 2009 10

Signal Reconstruction

• Signal recovery from random measurementsGradient projection for sparse reconstruction (GPSR)Two-step iterative shrinkage/thresholding algorithm (TwIST)Orthogonal matching pursuit (OMP)

M. A. T. Figueiredo, R. D. Nowak, and S. J. Wright, “Gradient projection for sparse reconstruction: application to compressed sensing and other inverse problems,” IEEE J. of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 1,no. 4, pp. 586-597, Dec. 2007.

J. M. Bioucas-Dias and M. A. T. Figueiredo, “A new TwIST: two-step iterative shrinkage/thresholding algorithms for image restoration,” IEEE Trans. on Image Processing, vol. 16, no. 12, pp. 2992-3004, Dec. 2007.

T. Blumensath and M. E. Davies, “Gradient pursuits,” IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing, vol. 56, June 2008.

Page 11: Distributed  Compressive  Video  Sensing

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing April 24, 2009 11

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing

• Measurement matrix Ф: scrambled block Hadamard ensemble (SBHE)

• Sparse basis matrix Ψ: DWT• Video signal sensing (encoder): general random

projection• Video signal recovery (decoder)

Key frame: GPSR with default settingsCS frame

side information generation (motion compensated interpolation)GPSR with the proposed initialization and the proposed

termination criteria

Page 12: Distributed  Compressive  Video  Sensing

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing April 24, 2009 12

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing

CS measurementyt = Ф xt

Each frame xtMeasurement vector (compressed frame) yt

Measurement vector yt

for each non-key frameInitialization by SI generation

Reconstructed previous key frames

GPSR optimization

Stopping criteria (a)-(c)

Non-stop Stop

ttx ~~ Reconstructed non-key frame

tx~

Compressive video sensing

Video signal recovery

Page 13: Distributed  Compressive  Video  Sensing

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing April 24, 2009 13

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing

• At the decoder, for a CS frame xt = Ψθt

its side information St = ΨθSt can be generated from its previous reconstructed key frames

• Proposed initializationinitial solution at the 0-th iteration:

• α(xt, St): the Laplacian parameter of (xt- St)

,~ 0

Stt ,~ 0tt Sx

Page 14: Distributed  Compressive  Video  Sensing

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing April 24, 2009 14

Key frame (t - 1)

Non-key frame t

Key frame (t + 1)

yt-1 = Φxt-1

with higher MR

yt = Φxt

with lower MR

yt+1 = Φxt+1

with higher MR

GPSR reconstruction

GPSR reconstruction

Proposed Modified

GPSR reconstruction

Side information (t)

Reconstructed frame (t)

Reconstructed frame (t-1)

Side information generation

Reconstructed frame (t+1)

Page 15: Distributed  Compressive  Video  Sensing

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing April 24, 2009 15

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing itx~

xt St

α(xt, )

α(xt, St)

,2

1min

1

2

21 tttt AyFt

22 StttF

it

it

it FWFWF ~~~

2211

itx~

α( , St) itx~

Page 16: Distributed  Compressive  Video  Sensing

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing April 24, 2009 16

Proposed Termination Criterion

• First:

• Second:

• Third:

T

Sx

SxSx

ti

t

ti

tti

t

,~

,~,~

1

1

0~~ 1 i

ti

t FF

Fi

t

it

it

TF

FF

1

1

~

~~

Page 17: Distributed  Compressive  Video  Sensing

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing April 24, 2009 17

Proposed Termination Criterion

• MR is low (MR ≤ 20%): if the First criterion with Tα = 0.9 is satisfied, the algorithm will stop

• MR is middle (20% < MR ≤ 70%): if the First criterion with Tα = 0.05 or the Second criterion is satisfied, the algorithm will stop

• MR is high (MR > 70%): if the Third criterion with TF = 0.001 is satisfied, the algorithm will stop

Page 18: Distributed  Compressive  Video  Sensing

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing April 24, 2009 18

Simulation Results

• Foreman and Coastguard CIF video sequences with 300 Y frames (352×288 = 101376 samples for each Y frame) and GOP size = 3 (Key, Non-key, Non-key, Key, …)

• The three approaches for comparison (all with default settings)GPSR, TwIST, OMP

• For OMP, block size = 32×32 suggested by V. Stankovic, L. Stankovic, and S. Cheng, “Compressive video sampling,” in Proc.

of European Signal Processing Conf., Lausanne, Switzerland, August 2008 (EUSIPCO2008).

Page 19: Distributed  Compressive  Video  Sensing

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing April 24, 2009 19

Simulation Results

Page 20: Distributed  Compressive  Video  Sensing

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing April 24, 2009 20

Simulation Results

Page 21: Distributed  Compressive  Video  Sensing

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing April 24, 2009 21

Simulation Results

The reconstruction complexities for the Foreman sequence

Page 22: Distributed  Compressive  Video  Sensing

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing April 24, 2009 22

Simulation Results

The PSNR performance at different reconstruction complexities for the Foreman sequence

Page 23: Distributed  Compressive  Video  Sensing

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing April 24, 2009 23

Simulation Results

(a) Side information (b) Reconstructed frame

Page 24: Distributed  Compressive  Video  Sensing

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing April 24, 2009 24

Simulation Results

The reconstructed Foreman sequences (352×288 for each frame) at measurement rate (MR) = 0.3 using (a) GPSR (gradient projection for sparse reconstruction) (average PSNR = 27.68 dB) (average reconstruction time = 15.14 seconds per frame); and (b) our DCVS (average PSNR = 29.48 dB) (average reconstruction time = 3.68 seconds per frame) (This example shows the 54-th frame).

Page 25: Distributed  Compressive  Video  Sensing

Distributed Compressive Video Sensing April 24, 2009 25

Conclusions

• The proposed DCVS approach exploits the two characteristicsdistributed video coding (DVC)compressive sensing (CS)

• The proposed DCVS can outperform or be comparable with the three existing approaches for comparison, especially at lower measurement rates

• The proposed DCVS can significant outperform the three existing approaches at the same reconstruction complexity