The State of Remote Scientific Visualization Providing Local 

Graphics Performance to Remote ARL MSRC Users 

by John M. Vines and Claude Sandroff 

ARL-TR-3635 September 2005 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
NOTICES 

Disclaimers 

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless 

so designated by other authorized documents. 

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the 

use thereof. 

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator. 
Army Research Laboratory 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5067 

ARL-TR-3635 September 2005 

The State of Remote Scientific Visualization Providing Local 

Graphics Performance to Remote ARL MSRC Users 

John M. Vines 

Computational and Information Sciences Directorate, ARL 

Claude Sandroff

IP Video Systems/Teraburst Networks Inc. 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
ii

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering 

and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, 

including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson 

Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to 

comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

September 2005 

2. REPORT TYPE 

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

March 2004–June 2005 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

The State of Remote Scientific Visualization Providing Local Graphics 

Performance to Remote ARL MSRC Users 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

5U03CC 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

John M. Vines and Claude Sandroff*

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

ATTN: AMSRD-ARL-CI-HC 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5067 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

 REPORT NUMBER 

ARL-TR-3635 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT 

 NUMBER(S) 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

*

IP Video Systems/Teraburst Networks Inc. 

Sunnyvale, CA 

14. ABSTRACT 

As data continue to grow beyond enormous sizes, visualization in three dimensions becomes the preferred way to analyze and 

solve complex problems. When visualization techniques are combined with technology that allows for global collaboration and 

sharing of high-resolution images, the Department of Defense has a tool for making faster and better decisions. 

Government and academic researchers engaged in analysis and simulation can access high-performance computing remotely 

from their desktops, improving both resource utilization and productivity. 

The need for networked visualization is strongly driven by those agencies and organizations where the cost or impact of 

decision making is very high. Such decision making revolves around large datasets, sophisticated modeling, and is based on 

complex data sharing and collaboration between remote heterogeneous teams. Clearly, organizations facing the need to analyze 

complex data sets will realize great benefits by creating networked visualization solutions. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

remote scientific visualization, IP communications, wavelet based compression, collaboration, visualization area network 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

John Vines 

a. REPORT 

UNCLASSIFIED 

b. ABSTRACT 

UNCLASSIFIED

c. THIS PAGE 

UNCLASSIFIED

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

14 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

410-278-9150 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iii

Contents 

1. Introduction 1

2. Visualization and Collaboration 1

3. Networking Enhanced Visualization 1

4. Optimized Networking Solutions for Visualization 2

5. Visualized Images Contain a High Level of Redundancy 4

6. Compression Adapted for Visualization 4

7. Conclusion 6

Distribution List 7 
iv

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
1

1. Introduction 

As datasets continue to grow into the terabytes, users will be required to use distributed 

rendering and compositing techniques to enable the visualization of scientific data. Although 

users of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory Major Shared Resource Center will be able to take 

advantage of the latest distributed rendering and compositing techniques, remote users will still 

require a more viable connection avenue than XWindows can offer. The use of compression 

hardware and software will enable local graphics performance from a geographically dispersed 

location over an existing IP network. 

2. Visualization and Collaboration 

As data sets grow to enormous sizes, visualization in two or preferably three dimensions 

becomes the only way to analyze and solve complex problems. When visualization techniques 

are combined with technology that allows for collaboration and sharing of high-resolution 

images, Department of Defense agencies have a true competitive tool to foster collaboration and 

enhance productivity. 

The ability to visualize and transport complex images in real time allows dispersed teams of 

experts in many geographically dispersed regions to make faster and better decisions. 

Government and academic researchers engaged in analysis and simulation can access remote 

high-performance computing assets, improving both resource utilization and productivity. 

As the “state-of-the-art” for data-visualization and data-assessment centers continues to evolve, 

visualization theaters and powerful computational facilities are continuously being built and 

upgraded. The need for networked visualization is strongly driven by those industries and 

organizations where the cost or impact of decision making is very high. Such decision making 

revolves around large datasets, sophisticated modeling, and is based on complex data sharing and 

collaboration between remote heterogeneous teams. Clearly, organizations facing the need to 

analyze complex data sets will realize great benefits by creating networked visualization 

solutions. 

3. Networking Enhanced Visualization 

Today’s high-end visualization typically uses SXGA screen resolution (1280 × 1024) but it is 

evolving towards UXGA (1600 × 1200), UXGA-W (1920 × 1200), and ultimately QXGA 
2

(2048 × 1536). Display frame rates for viewing mono images most commonly range between 

60 and 72 Hz, but range between 96 and 120 Hz for three-dimensional (3-D) stereoscopic 

imagery. The real rendered images, i.e., the different images generated by the visualization 

application, are 20–30 frames per s (fps), but it is expected that with high-end computers as well 

as clustered systems these rates will also go to 60 fps in the medium term. This means that the 

screen pixel content will increase from around 1 megapixel to more than 3.1 megapixels. At 

24 bits of resolution per pixel (8 bits per color) and taking into account regular screen blanking, 

it means that uncompressed transmission rates will increase from 2 Gbps to close to 10 Gbps. 

Adding networking to high-resolution visualization solutions allows organizations to address 

several major new application domains such as collaborative visualization, remote access, 

distribution, and broadcasting of high-end computer graphics to multiple locations 

simultaneously. 

The main advantages of networked visualization are as follows: 

• Sharing and distribution of high-resolution video data to multiple locations in the local, 

campus, and wide area. This allows organizations to keep the data set in a secure location 

while users access this data without having to travel to these highly secure data locations. 

• Three-dimensional stereoscopic multiscreen graphics capability so that users can work with 

high-end visualization in any place, wherever the rendering computer is located. 

• Security: the TeraBurst connectivity solutions only transport images in real-time, allowing 

the organization to keep all data in a secure centralized location. Hence, data at multiple 

sites no longer needs to be synchronized and updated, greatly simplifying data 

management. Furthermore, the public network never directly connects to the computer 

hosting the data, adding another layer of security. Images are transported only when a 

session is in progress, with a similar system being required at the remote end. Finally, 

circuit-based technologies like SONET/SDH tend to be highly secure while encryption 

systems, offered by IP Virtual Private Networks (VPN), can be added to packet-based 

solutions to provide full security. 

4. Optimized Networking Solutions for Visualization 

There are many solutions that allow networking of computers. Since we focus here on 

visualization requiring image transport with high-resolution and low latency, the following 

solutions are not considered: 

• Solutions that are application, computer, and client dependant. Moreover, existing software 

solutions only address lower-end visualization needs (low resolution, two-dimensional, 

and/or low frame rate). 
3

• Keyboard/video/mouse (K/V/M) hardware solutions (e.g., most of current packet-based 

solutions) that only address lower-end visualization, typically serves up to 1280 × 1024 at 

60 Hz. They are mainly intended as remote consoles performing server management rather 

than visualization solutions. 

The solutions discussed here (i.e., optical and high-end packet based solutions) are 

complimentary to these solutions serving medium- to high-end visualization needs. 

TeraBurst has a deployed suite of digital optical products called Video-to-Optical (V2O) that 

operate over both private fiber and public SONET/SDH networks. This digital approach—

unique in the visualization market place—offers superior performance to current analog 

solutions for a number of reasons: 

• They are standards-based and provide connectivity over virtually unlimited distances 

(tested up to 30,000 miles), safeguarding high (digital) quality with very low latency. 

• They provide fully synchronized video, audio, and control signals (all are multiplexed over 

the same optical media) offering a fully interactive experience. 

• They provide simple broadcast/multicast capabilities by splitting the signals to multiple 

destinations. 

• They are easy to deploy since they only need one pair of single-mode fiber. 

• They are secure since they do not transmit any “real data” and the multiplexed stream is 

complex to decipher. Moreover, optical monitoring tools can be used to further monitor 

any loss of optical signal intensity making the tapping of signals virtually impossible. 

The TeraBurst packet-based (Ethernet/IP) solutions called Video-to-Data (V2D) marry all of the 

major advantages of digital optical solutions with the ubiquity of data networks by the following: 

• supporting short (LAN) and long (WAN) distances, 

• providing a fully interactive experience through synchronized high-end video, audio, and 

control signals, 

• offering broadcast/multicast capabilities through IP multicasting, 

• using existing packet networks, and 

• further enhancing security by adding data encryption (via IP VPN). 
4

5. Visualized Images Contain a High Level of Redundancy 

It is important to realize how much information is actually transmitted in most real applications. 

Uncompressed video translates into data rates that vary from 2 to 6 Gbps (and more). The 

second important parameter is the refresh rate vs. the real screen update rate. Typically, 

computers only render up to 20–30 fps while display rates can reach 96 Hz and higher. 

However, on the communication links, redundant frames can be eliminated by applying a 

number of techniques as follows: 

• By systematically dropping frames (e.g., drop one or two frames every frame). 

• By comparing whole frames and only sending new ones. 

• By dropping identical “slices,” a slice defined as a well-defined part of a frame, between 

frames resulting in complete frame drop for identical frames and removal of additional 

redundant information in different frames 

All these mechanisms dramatically reduce the required bandwidth with virtually no loss of 

information. 

6. Compression Adapted for Visualization 

The main goal of compression is to reduce the required bandwidth (over optical and packet 

networks) while safeguarding the overall picture quality so that the bandwidth cost becomes 

relatively insignificant when fielding visualization applications. 

Off-the-shelf compression methods like MPEG2 and MPEG4 provide a cheap and highly 

compressed stream of video, but they do not fulfill the image quality requirements for high-end 

visualization. Therefore, specific hardware-based compression is required. This visualization 

compression makes use of reducing the redundant information and applying visually lossless 

compression in hardware to support high rendering and refresh rates. 

Frame and slice differencing with variable noise reduction is the main mechanism to eliminate 

redundant information between frames. Noise reduction is a key mechanism, since many 

components introduce noise on the signals. Analog-to-digital conversion, in addition to system 

electronics, source stability (computer, video equipment), and intermediate (video) switches and 

cabling can all introduce noise. The level of noise is also largely dependent on the type of 

frames. For example, highly complex frames with sharp differences between pixels will be 

much more susceptible to noise than gradually changing images. 
5

TeraBurst Networks has developed a compression solution (“TeraBurst Intelligent Frame 

Differencing*”) which accounts for these requirements. When “static images” are displayed 

(e.g., analysis of a design) with an appropriate noise cancellation setting, close to zero 

information will be transmitted over the network. When “moving images” are displayed with the 

same noise cancellation setting, only new information will be transmitted. 

Further reduction of bandwidth is achieved by applying spatial compression. As represented in 

figure 1, several measurements show that visually lossless compression can be implemented with 

a compression ratio up to 1:8–1:10 (depending on type of image, this requires 4-4-4†

 

compression method). Higher compression rates up to 1:15 still provide good results, but some 

visual artifacts begin to be introduced. Also, when 4-2-2 compression is applied, visual artifacts 

become visible quicker but this compression method yields better results than 4-4-4 at higher 

compression ratios. Therefore, the recommended implementation method is a combination of 

both compression methods with user-selectability of the method and the corresponding 

parameters whereby the user can make a trade-off between bandwidth usage and image quality. 

The chart in figure 2 compares these two compression methods. 

Figure 1. Static and moving images. 

 *

TeraBurst Intelligent Frame Differencing is a trademark of TeraBurst Networks, Sunnyvale, CA. 

†

4-4-4 compression uses as much luminance as chrominance information while 4-2-2 compression only uses half of the 

chrominance information. 
6

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0 5 10 15

Compression Ratio

Mean Absolute Difference (%)

4 4 4 Avg

Visual lossless 4 2 2 Avg

Figure 2. Comparison of 4-4-4 and 4-2-2 compression methods.

With a combination of the compression methods, Gigabit (green) and Fast (yellow) Ethernet 

connectivity for high-end visualization can be implemented as shown in table 1. 

Table 1. Transmission rate data. 

Transmission Rate 

(Mbps) 

Compression Slice 

Drop: 

1:12 

90% 

1:8 

75% 

1:2 

60% 

Uncompression 

No Drop 

Horizontal Vertical Refresh (Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps) 

1280 1024 60 16 59 378 1887 

1280 1024 96 26 95 605 3020 

1600 1200 60 24 87 554 2765 

1600 1200 85 34 123 784 3917 

2048 1536 85 55 202 1285 6417 

7. Conclusion 

The hardware compression equipment provided the remote user with real-time local graphics and 

file system performance where the traditional XWindows display provided an unusable interface 

to the data requiring the user to copy the data from a high-performance computing asset to the 

local file system to provide any means of interactivity. 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

7

 1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL 

 (PDF INFORMATION CTR 

 ONLY) DTIC OCA 

 8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD 

 STE 0944 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218 

 1 US ARMY RSRCH DEV & 

 ENGRG CMD 

 SYSTEMS OF SYSTEMS 

 INTEGRATION 

 AMSRD SS T 

 6000 6TH ST STE 100 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5608 

 1 INST FOR ADVNCD TCHNLGY 

 THE UNIV OF TEXAS 

 AT AUSTIN 

 3925 W BRAKER LN 

 AUSTIN TX 78759-5316 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 IMNE ALC IMS 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 3 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL CI OK TL 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 3 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL CS IS T 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 1 DIR USARL 

 AMSRD ARL CI OK TP (BLDG 4600) 
8

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.