# Reducing System Load of Effective Video Using a Network Model
## 4 Simulations
### Evaluation  
We performed several tests on the system using various images. The data for each video was measured via live streaming. Figure 23 shows the image used for the simulation. The used video displays information about each video in the form of a Channel (Ch.). The 360\({}^{\circ}\) real-time game screen, the 2D game screen, and broadcast screen were used in Ch. 1-3. For comparison, the results of applying the entire area, including the original, and the network after segmentation, including SRGAN and SRCNN, are shown in each diagram. Tables 2 and 3 correspond to Ch. 1 in Figure 23. As a result of the simulation, it can be seen that bitrate differs by 5.8 times compared to SRCNN (scaling) based on FoV (by one scaling) value, and SRGAN (scaling) differs by 2.9 times. Latency values showed a  
Figure 23: 1/O comparison of the proposed method. Figure 22: Model processing. high difference of 16 times for SRCNN and 9 times for SRGAN. And it can be seen that the difference in Network Bandwidth is about 5.8 to 2.9 times. The overall bitrate and data rate by one scaling are shown in Table 3, and in the FoV area, 4K or higher quality is transmitted. The video bitrate range of 4K or higher requires about 13,000-51,000 kbps, but the bitrate in the FoV area was reduced to 3651 kbps. Tables 4 and 5 corresponds to Ch. 2. As a result of the simulation, it can be seen that the FoV (by one scaling) of the bitrate differs by 13 times in SRCNN (scaling) and 6.5 times in SRGAN (scaling). Latency showed a high difference of 4.4 times in SRGAN. And it can be seen that network bandwidth differs by about 5 to 2.8 times. Table 5 shows the overall bitrate and data rate of one scaling. In the FoV area, HD quality is transmitted. In HD quality, the video bitrate range needs about 1500-6000 kbps, but the FoV area was able to check it at 854 kbps. Tables 6 and 7 correspond to Ch. 3. As a result of the simulation, it can be seen that the FoV (by one scaling) of the bitrate differs by about 13 times in SRCNN (scaling) and 6.5 times in SRGAN (scaling). Latency values also showed a high difference of 4.4 times for SRCNN and 9 times for SRGAN. It can be seen that network bandwidth differs from about 5.8 to 2.9 times. For Ch. 3, it is the same size as Ch. 2. However, since Ch. 2 is in the form of a game, more load is inevitably added, so Ch. 3 shows a lower value than Ch. 2. In the case of Ch. 3, as with Ch. 2, HD quality is transmitted, and a bitrate of about 159 kbps was confirmed. When the video is transmitted by applying the proposed method, it shows a low bitrate value even though it is a high-resolution video. It can be seen that the overall value decreased by about 40-60%. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Original** & **SRGAN (Scaling)** & **SRGAN (by One Scaling)** & **SRCNN (Scaling)** & **SRCNN (by One Scaling)** \\ \hline Bitrate & 301 Kbps & 6937 Kbps & 1054 Kbps & 13,823 Kbps & 4729 Kbps \\ \hline Latency & – & 755.24 & 83.90 & 373.92 & 92.98 \\ \hline Network Bandwidth & 10.568 Kbps & 229.048 Kbps & 79.072 Kbps & 413.16 Kbps & 154.736 Kbps \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Compare each network of game streaming video. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Original** & **SRGAN (Scaling)** & **SRGAN (by One Scaling)** & **SRCNN (Scaling)** \\ \hline Bitrate & 719 Kbps & 7365 Kbps & 2520 Kbps & 14,676 Kbps & 5021 Kbps \\ \hline Latency & – & 16,974.42 & 1886.05 & 30,780 & 7695 \\ \hline Network Bandwidth & 0.7112 Mbps & 7.3264 Mbps & 2.4624 Mbps & 14.3336 Mbps & 4.8184 Mbps \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Compare each network of the 360\({}^{\circ}\) video.