HEVC/H.265 Video Codecs Comparison

Transcription

HEVC/H.265
Video Codecs
Comparison
Video group head: Dr. Dmitriy Vatolin
Project head: Dr. Dmitriy Kulikov
Measurements & analysis: Mikhail Erofeev,
Vladimir Yanushkovsky
Free version
Codecs:
H.265
Non H.265
• f265 H.265 Encoder
• InTeleMax TurboEnc
• Intel MSS HEVC GAcc
• SIF Encoder
• Intel MSS HEVC Software
• VP9 Video Codec
• Ittiam HEVC Hardware Encoder
• x264
• Ittiam HEVC Software Encoder
• Strongene Lentoid HEVC Encoder
• SHBP H.265 Real time encoder
• x265
CS MSU Graphics & Media Lab, Video Group
October 15, 2015
http://www.compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/index_en.html
[email protected]
October 15, 2015
Contents
1 Acknowledgments
5
2 Disclaimer
6
3 Overview
7
3.1 Sequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
3.2 Codecs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
4 Objectives and Testing Rules
9
4.1 HEVC Codec Testing Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
4.2 Testing Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
5 Desktop Comparison
10
5.1 Fast Transcoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
5.1.1
RD curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
5.1.2
Encoding Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
5.1.3
Speed/Quality Trade-Off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
5.1.4
Bitrate Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
5.1.5
Relative Quality Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
5.2 Universal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
5.2.1
RD curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
5.2.2
Encoding Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
5.2.3
18
5.2.4
19
5.2.5
20
5.3 Ripping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
5.3.1
RD curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
5.3.2
Encoding Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
5.3.3
24
5.3.4
25
5.3.5
26
6 Conclusion
29
6.1 Desktop Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
6.1.1
Fast Transcoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
6.1.2
Universal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
6.1.3
Ripping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
6.1.4
Overall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
6.2 Server Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
6.2.1
Fast Transcoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
6.2.2
Universal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
6.2.3
Ripping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
MSU Codec Comparison Report
2
October 15, 2015
6.2.4
Overall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7 Participants’ Comments
36
37
7.1 WebM codec team—VP9 Encoder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
7.2 Ittiam Systems(P) Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
7.3 MulticoreWare, Inc.—x265 encoder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
7.4 SIF Encoder Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
A Sequences
39
A.1 “Apple Tree” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
A.2 “Bunny” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
A.3 “City Crowd” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
A.4 “Concert” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
A.5 “Day Cars” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
A.6 “Developers” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
A.7 “Fire” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
A.8 “Golden Statue” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46
A.9 “Hockey” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47
A.10 “Kremlin” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48
A.11 “Market Walk” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
49
A.12 “Mountain View” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50
A.13 “Night Cars” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
A.14 “Pine Tree” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52
A.15 “River Boats” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53
A.16 “Road” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
54
A.17 “Shake Walk” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55
A.18 “Sita” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56
A.19 “Trigans” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57
A.20 “Water” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58
A.21 “Water Ripple” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
59
B Codecs
60
B.1 InTeleMax TurboEnc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
B.2 f265 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
61
B.3 Intel Media Server Studio HEVC Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
62
B.4 Intel Media Server Studio HEVC GAcc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
63
B.5 Ittiam HEVC Software Encoder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
64
B.6 Ittiam HEVC Hardware Encoder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
65
B.7 Strongene Lentoid HEVC Encoder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
66
B.8 SHBP H.265 Real time encoder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67
B.9 SIF-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
68
B.10 WebM Project VP9 Encoder v1.3.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
69
B.11 x264 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
70
B.12 x265 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71
3
October 15, 2015
C Figures Explanation
72
C.1 RD Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72
C.2 Relative Bitrate/Relative Time Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72
C.3 Graph Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72
C.4 Bitrates Ratio with the Same Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72
C.5 Relative Quality Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
74
D Objective Quality Metrics Description
76
D.1 SSIM (Structural SIMilarity) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
76
D.1.1 Brief Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
76
D.1.2 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
76
E About the Graphics & Media Lab Video Group
79
4
October 15, 2015
1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Graphics & Media Lab Video Group would like to express its gratitude to the following companies for providing the codecs and settings used in this report:
• InTeleMax, Inc.
• Intel Corporation
• Ittiam Sysytems (P) Ltd.
• Strongene Ltd.
• ”System house ”Business partners” company
• SIF Encoder developper team
• The WebM Project team
• x264 developer team
• x265 developer team
The Video Group would also like to thank these companies for their help and technical support during the tests.
5
October 15, 2015
2
DISCLAIMER
This is free version of the report which contains only overall results for desktop and server platform and detailed
analysis of codecs performance on one video sequence for desktop platform. For each individual sequence detailed plots and quality scores computed using various quality metrics please refer to Enterprise version of this
report (http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/hevc_2015/#version_comparison).
6
October 15, 2015
3
3.1
OVERVIEW
Sequences
Sequence
Number of frames
Frame rate
Resolution
1.
Apple Tree
338
30
1920 × 1080
2.
Bunny
600
24
1920 × 1080
3.
City Crowd
763
30
1920 × 1080
4.
Concert
1533
25
1920 × 1080
5.
Day Cars
1299
25
1920 × 1080
6.
Developers
1500
30
1280 × 720
7.
Fire
601
25
1920 × 1080
8.
Golden Statue
1993
30
1920 × 1080
9.
Hockey
1000
25
1920 × 1080
10.
Kremlin
1899
25
1920 × 1080
11.
Market Walk
688
30
1920 × 1080
12.
Mountain View
398
30
1920 × 1080
13.
Night Cars
1305
25
1920 × 1080
14.
Pine Tree
1130
30
1920 × 1080
15.
River Boats
1061
30
1920 × 1080
16.
Road
877
25
1920 × 1080
17.
Shake Walk
805
25
1920 × 1080
18.
Sita
1000
25
1920 × 1080
19.
Trigans
10500
30
1920 × 1080
20.
Water
1209
25
1920 × 1080
TABLE 1: Summary of video sequences
Brief descriptions of the sequences used in our comparison are given in Table 1. More detailed descriptions of
these sequences can be found in Appendix A.
7
October 15, 2015
3.2
Codecs
Codec
Developer
Version
1.
InTeleMax TurboEnc
InTeleMax, Inc.
3.0
2.
f265 H.265 Encoder
f265 Developer Team
0.2
3.
Intel MSS HEVC GAcc
Intel
Intel Media Server Studio 2015
R4 – Professional Edition (re-
4.
Intel MSS HEVC Software
Intel
lease date: April 2015)
Intel Media Server Studio 2015
R4 – Professional Edition (re-
5.
Ittiam HEVC Hardware Encoder
Ittiam Systems (P) Ltd.
lease date: April 2015)
2_04_4_00
6.
Ittiam HEVC Software Encoder
1_14_8_06
7.
10.
Strongene Lentoid HEVC Encoder Strongene Ltd.
2.2
SHBP Codec’s development team
SHBP H.265 Real time encoder
Email: [email protected]
SIF Encoder Team
SIF Encoder
1.30.4
Email: [email protected]
1.3.0
VP9 Video Codec
The WebM Project
11.
x264
x264 Developer Team
146 r2538 121396c
12.
x265
MulticoreWare, Inc.
1.5+460-ac85c775620f
8.
9.
TABLE 2: Short codec descriptions
Brief descriptions of the codecs used in our comparison are given in Table 2. x264 was used as a good quality
AVC reference codec for comparison purposes. Detailed descriptions of all codecs used in our comparison can be
found in Appendix B.
8
October 15, 2015
4
OBJECTIVES AND TESTING RULES
4.1
HEVC Codec Testing Objectives
The main goal of this report is the presentation of a comparative evaluation of the quality of new HEVC codecs
and codecs of other standards using objective measures of assessment. The comparison was done using settings
provided by the developers of each codec. Nevertheless, we required all presets to satisfy minimum speed requirement on the particular use case. The main task of the comparison is to analyze different encoders for the
task of transcoding video—e.g., compressing video for personal use.
4.2
Testing Rules
The comparison was performed on two platforms:
• Desktop—Core i7 4770R @3.9 GHz, RAM 4 GB, Windows 8.1
• Server—Xeon E5 2697v3, RAM 64 GB, Windows Server 2012
For both platforms we considered three key use cases with different speed requirements.
• Desktop
– Ripping—no minimum speed
– Universal—minimum 10 FPS
– Fast transcoding—minimum 30 FPS
• Server
– Ripping—no minimum speed
– Universal—minimum 30 FPS
– Fast transcoding—minimum 60 FPS
9
October 15, 2015
5
5.1
DESKTOP COMPARISON
Fast Transcoding
5.1.1 RD curves
The plot below contains RD-curves for one test video sequence. For codecs’ performance on other video sequences please refer to Enterprise version of this report http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/
deo
deo
i
i
v
v
/
/
.ru
.ru
n
n
o
o
i
i
ess
ess
r
r
p
p
.com
.com
w
w
ww
ww
0.98
Metric value, SSIM, Y
0.96
0.94
0.92
eo
eo
d
d
i
i
v
v
/ encoder
.ru/
.rutime
SHBP H.265
Real
n
n
o
o
i
i
ssMSS HEVC Software
ess
eIntel
r
r
Intel MSS HEVC GAcc
p
p
.com
.com x265
x264
w
w
ww
ww
0.9
0.88
0.86
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Bitrate, Mbps
9
10
11
12
Better quality
hevc_2015/#version_comparison.
13
FIGURE 1: Bitrate/quality—usecase “Fast Transcoding,” Apple Tree sequence, Y-SSIM metric
5.1.2 Encoding Speed
Figure below shows how participating codecs differ in encoding speed on “Apple Tree” video sequence.
10
October 15, 2015
o
n
ssio
e
r
p
60
Encodeing speed (fps)
ide
v
/
u
.r
.com
w
w
50
w
essi
r
p
om
1
2
x264
3
4
o
pr
m
o
w.c
w.c
w
w
0
vide
/
u
r
on.
i
s
s
e
o
n
ssio
e
r
p
.com
w
w
vide
/
u
r
on.
20
o
w
40
30
ide
v
/
u
.r
Faster
70
ww
5
6
7
8
Bitrate, Mbps
9
10
Intel MSS HEVC GAcc
11
12
13
x265
FIGURE 2: Encoding speed—usecase “Fast Transcoding,” Apple Tree sequence
5.1.3 Speed/Quality Trade-Off
Detailed descriptions of the speed/quality trade-off graphs can be found in Appendix C. Sometimes, codec
results are not present in the particular graph owing to the codec’s extremely poor performance. The
codec’s RD curve has no intersection with the reference’s RD curve.
The speed/quality trade-off graphs simultaneously show relative quality and encoding speed for the encoders
tested in this comparison. x264 is the reference codec, for which both quality and speed are normalized to unity
for all of the graphs.
11
October 15, 2015
0.9
Average relative bitrate
1
1.1
1.2
deo
i
v
/
.ru
1.3
deo
i
v
/
.rutime encoder
SHBP H.265
nReal
o
i
Intel
MSS
HEVC
Software
s
s
preIntel MSS HEVC GAcc
n
ssio
e
r
mp
1.4
.com
w
ww
.co
ww
1.5
w
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
Better
eo
eo
d
d
i
i
v
v
.ru/
.ru/
n
n
o
o
i
i
ess
ess
r
r
p
p
.com
.com
w
w
ww
ww
x265
x264
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
Relative Encoding Time
1.1
1.15
1.2
Better
FIGURE 3: Speed/quality trade-off—usecase “Fast Transcoding,” all sequences, Y-SSIM metric
o
0.8
1
r
mp
o
c
.
w
1.2
vide
/
u
r
on.
i
s
s
e
r
mp
o
c
.
w
ww
ww
1.4
o
vide
/
u
r
on.
i
s
s
e
o
1.6
ide
v
/
u
.r
ion
s
s
e
pr
1.8
.com
w
w
2
w
2.2
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
e
pr
m
o
c
w.
ww
1
1.05
1.1
eo
d
i
v
.ruReal/ time encoder
SHBP H.265
n
o
i
s MSS HEVC Software
sIntel
1.15
Intel MSS HEVC GAcc
x265
x264
1.2
1.25
1.3
FIGURE 4: Speed/quality trade-off—usecase “Fast Transcoding,” Apple Tree sequence, Y-SSIM metric
5.1.4 Bitrate Handling
The plot below shows how accurately encoded stream’s real bitrate matches bitrate requested by user on “Apple
Tree” video sequence.
12
eo
eo
d
d
i
i
v
v
.ru/
.ru/
n
n
o
o
i
i
ess
ess
r
r
p
p
.com
.com
w
w
ww
ww
1.1
1.05
deo
i
v
/
.ru
1
n
ssio
e
r
omp
0.95
w.c
w
w
0
1
2
x264
3
4
deo
i
v
/
.ru
n
ssio
e
r
omp
Better
Real bitrate / target bitrate, times
1.15
w.c
w
w
5
6
7
8
Target bitrate, Mbps
Better
October 15, 2015
9
Intel MSS HEVC GAcc
10
11
12
x265
FIGURE 5: Bitrate handling—usecase “Fast Transcoding,” Apple Tree sequence
5.1.5 Relative Quality Analysis
Note that each number in the tables below corresponds to some range of bitrates (see Appendix C). Unfortunately, these ranges can differ significantly because of differences in the quality of compared encoders.
This situation can lead to some inadequate results when three or more codecs are compared. Please see
Section C.4 for explanation how to read table and plot below.
13
October 15, 2015
SHBP H.265 Real time
encoder
Intel MSS HEVC
Software
Intel MSS HEVC
GAcc
x265
x264
Ittiam HEVC Hardware
Encoder
SHBP H.265 Real time
encoder
100% t
58% p
58% p
69% p
66% o
67% q
210% o
100% t
100% t
120% r 106% p
120% r
Intel MSS HEVC GAcc
210% o
100% t
100% t
120% q 106% p
120% r
x265
189% q
87% s
87% s
100% t 92% q
103% s
x264
186% r
97% t
97% t
117% s 100% t
114% s
Ittiam HEVC Hardware
Encoder
180% q
86% s
85% s
102% r 91% p
100% t
Confidence
a
k
t
0%
50%
100%
TABLE 3: Average bitrate ratio for a fixed quality—usecase “Fast Transcoding,” Y-SSIM metric
Figure below depicts the data from the table above. Each line in the figure corresponds to one codec. Values
on the vertical axis are the average relative bitrates compared with the codecs along the horizontal axis. A
lower bitrate indicates better relative results.
14
eo
eo
d
d
i
i
v
v
.ru/
.ru/
n
n
o
o
i
i
ess
ess
r
r
p
p
.com
.com
w
w
ww
ww
o
o
vide
/
u
r
on.
essi
r
p
m
w.co
pr
m
o
w.c
Itt
ia
H mH
ar E
En dw VC
co ar
de e
r
64
H In
EV te
C lM
G SS
Ac
c
65
ww
H
BP
tim H.
e 265
en R
co ea
de l
r
EV
C Int
So el
ft MS
w S
ar
e
ww
50%
x2
100%
vide
/
u
r
on.
i
s
s
e
x2
150%
SH
Relative bitrate
200%
Better
October 15, 2015
Codec
x264
Intel MSS HEVC GAcc
x265
FIGURE 6: Average bitrate ratio for a fixed quality—usecase “Fast Transcoding,” Y-SSIM metric
For visual purposes we show the same plot without SHBP H.265 Real time encoder below.
15
eo
eo
d
d
i
i
v
v
.ru/
.ru/
n
n
o
o
i
i
ess
ess
r
r
p
p
.com
.com
w
w
ww
ww
vide
/
u
r
on.
essi
r
p
m
w.co
90%
x2
H In
EV te
C lM
G SS
Ac
c
65
pre
m
o
w.c
w
w
vide
/
u
r
on.
o
ssi
H
EV
C Int
So el
ft M
w SS
ar
e
ww
o
Itt
ia
H mH
ar E
En dw VC
co ar
de e
r
100%
64
110%
x2
Relative bitrate
120%
Better
October 15, 2015
Codec
Intel MSS HEVC GAcc
x265
x264
FIGURE 7: Average bitrate ratio for a fixed quality—usecase “Fast Transcoding,” Y-SSIM metric, without SHBP
H.265 Real time encoder
5.2
Universal
Now we move to Universal use case which imposes weaker speed requirements (codecs should process at least
10 frames per second on reference video sequence).
16
October 15, 2015
5.2.1 RD curves
o
pr
.com
w
w
p
.com
w
w
w
0.9
w
o
es
mpr
.co
w
w
0
1
2
vide
/
u
r
.
n
ssio
e
r
mp
.co
w
w
w
w
3
4
5
6
InTeleMax TurboEnc
Strongene Lentoid HEVC Encoder
Intel MSS HEVC GAcc
x265
SIF Encoder
x264
o
vide
/
u
r
.
sion
0.85
0.8
ide
v
/
u
n.r
o
i
s
res
7
8
9
Bitrate, Mbps
10
11
12
13
Better quality
0.95
o
ide
v
/
u
n.r
o
i
s
es
14
FIGURE 8: Bitrate/quality—usecase “Universal,” Apple Tree sequence, Y-SSIM metric
eo
d
i
v
.ru/
35
.com
w
ww
30
25
ion
s
s
e
pr
.com
w
ww
eo
d
i
v
.ru/
ion
s
s
e
pr
deo
i
v
/
.ru
20
ion
s
s
e
mpr
o
c
.
w
ww
15
10
0
1
2
InTeleMax TurboEnc
Intel MSS HEVC GAcc
3
4
5
deo
i
v
/
.ru
Faster
40
ion
s
s
e
mpr
o
c
.
w
ww
6
7
8
9
Bitrate, Mbps
x265
10
11
SIF Encoder
12
13
14
x264
FIGURE 9: Encoding speed—usecase “Universal,” Apple Tree sequence
17
October 15, 2015
o
2.5
3
InTeleMax TurboEnc
Intel MSS HEVC GAcc
x265
SIF Encoder
x264
o
0.8
vide
/
u
r
.
n
ssio
e
r
mp
.co
w
ww
ww
0.7
o
vide
/
u
r
.
n
ssio
e
r
mp
o
c
.
w
0.6
p
.com
w
ww
ww
ide
v
/
u
n.r
o
i
s
res
Better
ess
r
p
m
w.co
1.5
2
o
ide
v
/
u
r
ion.
1
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Better
FIGURE 10: Speed/quality trade-off—usecase “Universal,” all sequences, Y-SSIM metric
deo
i
v
/
.ru
1
n
ssio
e
r
mp
2
3
4
w.co
w
w
InTeleMax TurboEnc
Intel MSS HEVC GAcc
x265
SIF Encoder
x264
5
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
eo
d
i
v
.ru/
n
o
i
ress
p
.com
w
ww
w
0.7
n
ssio
e
r
mp
w.co
w
w
eo
d
i
v
.ru/
n
o
i
ress
p
.com
w
w
deo
i
v
/
.ru
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
FIGURE 11: Speed/quality trade-off—usecase “Universal,” Apple Tree sequence, Y-SSIM metric
18
October 15, 2015
eo
eo
d
d
i
i
v
v
Strongene
Lentoid
HEVC
Encoder
/
.ru/
.ruSoftware
Intel MSS HEVC
n
n
o
o
i
i
ssMSS HEVC GAcc
ess
eIntel
r
r
x265
p
p
Encoder
.com
.com SIF
w
w
x264
w
w
w
w
1.5
deo
i
v
/
u
on.r
essi
r
p
m
w.co
1
ww
0.5
Better
2
0
1
2
3
4
deo
i
v
/
n.ru
o
i
s
es
pr
m
o
w.c
w
w
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Better
InTeleMax TurboEnc
12
FIGURE 12: Bitrate handling—usecase “Universal,” Apple Tree sequence
19
October 15, 2015
InTeleMax
TurboEnc
SHBP H.265
Real time
encoder
Strongene
Lentoid HEVC
Encoder
Intel MSS
HEVC
Software
Intel MSS
HEVC GAcc
x265
SIF Encoder
x264
Ittiam HEVC
Software
Encoder
Ittiam HEVC
Hardware
Encoder
InTeleMax
TurboEnc
100% t
55% r
35% n
33% n
31% n
30% n
80% q
34% o
34% n
35% o
SHBP H.265
Real time
encoder
197% n
100% t
61% p
57% p
53% o
51% o
167% l
61% o
N/A a
60% p
Strongene
Lentoid HEVC
Encoder
334% k
215% o
100% t
95% s
88% s
88% s
279% j
96% q
98% s
102% s
Intel MSS HEVC
Software
346% k
219% o
107% s
100% t
94% t
94% s
299% j
102% q
104% s
108% s
Intel MSS HEVC
GAcc
374% j
243% n
115% r
108% s
100% t
100% s
326% i
108% p
111% s
116% s
x265
367% j
237% n
115% r
108% r
101% s
100% t
319% i
109% p
112% s
116% s
SIF Encoder
134% q
65% r
38% n
37% n
33% n
33% n
100% t
39% o
36% n
38% n
x264
330% m
203% q
107% t
101% t
93% t
94% t
276% l
100% t
104% s
108% s
Ittiam HEVC
Software
Encoder
344% k
N/A a
103% r
98% r
91% s
90% s
295% i
99% p
100% t
104% s
Ittiam HEVC
Hardware
Encoder
330% k
215% o
99% s
94% s
87% s
87% s
281% j
95% p
96% t
100% t
Confidence
a
k
t
0%
50%
100%
TABLE 4: Average bitrate ratio for a fixed quality—usecase “Universal,” Y-SSIM metric
20
October 15, 2015
400%
o
ss
re
p
m
w.co
w
w
w
ide
v
/
u
r
ion.
200%
o
n
ssio
e
r
mp
o
c
.
w
100%
o
vide
/
u
r
.
vide
/
u
r
.
Better
ess
r
p
.com
w
w
300%
Relative bitrate
o
ide
v
/
u
r
ion.
n
ssio
e
r
mp
w.co
w
w
ww
Itt
x2
64
ia
m
w HE
ar V
e C
En S
co oft
de r
Itt
ia
m
H
a H
En rdw EVC
co ar
de e
r
r
En
co
de
5
SI
F
x2
6
I
EV nte
C lM
G SS
Ac
c
H
In
Tu Tele
rb M
oE ax
SH
nc
BP
tim H.
e 265
en R
co ea
de l
r
Le S
nt tr
oi on
d g
En HE en
co VC e
de
H
r
EV
C Int
So el
ft MS
w S
ar
e
0%
Codec
InTeleMax TurboEnc
Intel MSS HEVC GAcc
x265
SIF Encoder
x264
FIGURE 13: Average bitrate ratio for a fixed quality—usecase “Universal,” Y-SSIM metric
For visual purposes we show the same plot below without InTeleMax TurboEnc, SIF and SHBP encoders.
21
ide
v
/
u
r
ion.
vide
/
u
r
.
n
ssio
e
r
omp
ia
H mH
ar E
En dw VC
co ar
de e
r
64
Itt
x2
x2
65
w.c
w
w
H In
EV te
C lM
G SS
Ac
c
EV
C Int
So el
ft M
w SS
ar
e
ww
Le S
nt tr
oi on
d g
En HE en
co VC e
de
r
o
o
n
85%
vide
/
u
r
.
w
ssio
e
r
mp
o
c
.
w
90%
o
.com
w
w
100%
95%
ide
v
/
u
n.r
o
i
s
s
pre
Itt
w
105%
ess
r
p
.com
w
w
H
Relative bitrate
110%
o
ia
m
w HE
ar V
e C
En S
co oft
de r
115%
Better
October 15, 2015
Codec
x264
Intel MSS HEVC GAcc
x265
FIGURE 14: Average bitrate ratio for a fixed quality—usecase “Universal,” Y-SSIM metric, without SIF Encoder,
SHBP H.265 Real time encoder, InTeleMax TurboEnc
5.3
Ripping
This year we have intensive competition in Desktop-Ripping nomination of our comparison, since there are 10
participants.
22
October 15, 2015
5.3.1 RD curves
o
pr
.com
w
w
p
.com
w
w
w
0.9
ide
v
/
u
n.r
o
i
s
res
w
o
InTeleMax TurboEnc
Intel MSS HEVC GAcc
x265
SIF Encoder
VP9 Video Codec
x264
f265 H.265 Encoder
o
vide
/
u
r
.
sion
0.85
es
mpr
.co
w
w
0
2
n
ssio
e
r
mp
.co
w
w
w
0.8
vide
/
u
r
.
w
4
6
8
10
Bitrate, Mbps
12
14
Better quality
0.95
o
ide
v
/
u
n.r
o
i
s
es
16
FIGURE 15: Bitrate/quality—usecase “Ripping,” Apple Tree sequence, Y-SSIM metric
30
ww
20
pr
m
o
w.c
deo
i
v
/
n.ru
o
i
s
es
o
pr
m
o
w.c
ww
eo
d
i
v
.ru/
o
n
ssio
e
r
p
10
w
0
0
.com
w
w
2
InTeleMax TurboEnc
Intel MSS HEVC GAcc
x264
4
vide
/
u
r
on.
i
s
s
e
ide
v
/
u
.r
Faster
40
n
ssio
e
r
p
.com
w
w
w
6
8
10
Bitrate, Mbps
x265
12
14
SIF Encoder
f265 H.265 Encoder
16
VP9 Video Codec
FIGURE 16: Encoding speed—usecase “Ripping,” Apple Tree sequence
23
October 15, 2015
o
ess
r
p
m
w.co
1.5
p
.com
w
ww
ww
ide
v
/
u
n.r
o
i
s
res
2
InTeleMax TurboEnc
Intel MSS HEVC GAcc
x265
SIF Encoder
VP9 Video Codec
x264
f265 H.265 Encoder
o
o
vide
/
u
r
.
vide
/
u
r
.
n
ssio
e
r
mp
o
c
.
w
2.5
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
1
n
ssio
e
r
mp
.co
w
ww
ww
3
Better
o
ide
v
/
u
r
ion.
1
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
3
3.2 3.4
Better
FIGURE 17: Speed/quality trade-off—usecase “Ripping,” all sequences, Y-SSIM metric
deo
i
v
/
.ru
1
n
ssio
e
r
mp
2
w.co
w
w
3
w.co
w
w
eo
d
i
v
.ru/
4
ion
s
s
e
pr
.com
w
w
5
w
6
deo
i
v
/
n.ru
o
i
s
es
mpr
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
InTeleMax TurboEnc
Intel MSS HEVC GAcc
x264
0.8
1
ion
s
s
e
mpr
w.co
w
w
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
x265
eo
d
i
v
.ru/
2.2
SIF Encoder
f265 H.265 Encoder
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
VP9 Video Codec
FIGURE 18: Speed/quality trade-off—usecase “Ripping,” Apple Tree sequence, Y-SSIM metric
24
October 15, 2015
o
.com
w
w
w
1.5
ion
s
s
e
pr
.com
w
ww
o
1
r
ww
0.5
0
mp
o
c
.
w
1
2
InTeleMax TurboEnc
Intel MSS HEVC GAcc
x264
3
vide
/
u
r
on.
i
s
s
e
Better
ion
s
s
e
pr
2
ide
v
/
u
.r
o
vide
/
u
r
on.
i
s
s
e
r
mp
o
c
.
w
ww
4
5
6
7
8
x265
9
10
SIF Encoder
f265 H.265 Encoder
11
Better
o
ide
v
/
u
.r
12
VP9 Video Codec
FIGURE 19: Bitrate handling—usecase “Ripping,” Apple Tree sequence
25
October 15, 2015
InTeleMax
TurboEnc
SHBP H.265
Strongene
Real time
Lentoid HEVC
encoder
Encoder
Intel MSS
HEVC
Software
Intel MSS
HEVC GAcc
x265
SIF Encoder
VP9 Video
Codec
x264
Ittiam HEVC
f265 H.265
Software
Encoder
Encoder
InTeleMax
TurboEnc
100% t
57% r
32% n
27% m
32% n
26% m
80% p
N/A a
33% n
N/A a
46% p
SHBP H.265
Real time
encoder
189% n
100% t
N/A a
N/A a
53% o
N/A a
161% m
N/A a
56% o
N/A a
83% o
Strongene
Lentoid HEVC
Encoder
360% j
N/A a
100% t
84% t
100% s
79% s
310% i
84% r
98% p
96% s
146% m
Intel MSS
HEVC
Software
435% i
N/A a
120% q
100% t
118% q
93% r
390% g
98% r
115% o
114% r
179% k
Intel MSS
HEVC GAcc
357% j
243% n
102% s
85% s
100% t
80% s
314% i
84% q
99% p
96% s
150% m
x265
432% i
N/A a
128% r
108% t
126% q
100% t
382% g
106% r
122% o
121% r
187% k
SIF Encoder
133% q
68% r
35% n
28% l
34% n
27% l
100% t
29% j
37% o
32% n
54% q
VP9 Video
Codec
N/A a
N/A a
122% o
103% q
120% o
95% q
388% f
100% t
115% m
116% p
179% i
x264
351% l
229% p
105% t
89% t
103% t
83% s
295% k
89% r
100% t
99% s
153% p
Ittiam HEVC
Software
Encoder
N/A a
N/A a
105% r
89% s
105% r
83% r
338% h
87% q
103% o
100% t
156% l
f265 H.265
Encoder
255% o
158% s
71% r
60% q
72% r
58% q
203% o
61% o
73% r
69% r
100% t
Confidence
a
k
t
0%
50%
100%
TABLE 5: Average bitrate ratio for a fixed quality—usecase “Ripping,” Y-SSIM metric
26
deo
i
v
/
.ru
deo
i
v
/
.ru
n
eo
Vi
d
9
x2
64
ia
m
w HE
ar V
e C
En S
co oft
de r
f2
65
En H.
co 26
de 5
r
co
d
En
VP
Itt
er
65
w.co
w
w
In
Tu Tele
rb M
SH
oE ax
BP
nc
tim H.
2
e 65
en R
co ea
de l
r
Le S
nt tr
oi on
d g
En HE en
co VC e
H
de
EV
r
C Int
So el
ft M
w SS
ar
e
H In
EV te
C lM
G SS
Ac
c
0%
w.c
w
w
n
ssio
e
r
mp
SI
F
ssio
e
r
omp
100%
c
200%
Co
de
300%
eo
eo
d
d
i
i
v
v
.ru/
.ru/
n
n
o
o
i
i
ess
ess
r
r
p
p
.com
.com
w
w
ww
ww
x2
Relative bitrate
400%
Better
October 15, 2015
Codec
InTeleMax TurboEnc
Intel MSS HEVC GAcc
x264
x265
SIF Encoder
f265 H.265 Encoder
VP9 Video Codec
FIGURE 20: Average bitrate ratio for a fixed quality—usecase “Ripping,” Y-SSIM metric
For visual purposes we show the same plot below without SIF, SHBP and TurboEnc encoders.
27
120%
o
65
En H.
co 26
de 5
r
f2
ia
m
w HE
ar V
e C
En S
co oft
de r
c
de
VP
9
Vi
de
o
Co
64
w.co
w
w
65
w.co
w
w
Le S
nt tr
oi on
d g
En HE en
co VC e
de
r
H
EV
C Int
So el
ft MS
w S
ar
e
60%
n
ssio
e
r
mp
x2
80%
deo
i
v
/
n.ru
o
i
s
es
mpr
vide
/
u
r
.
100%
Itt
140%
H In
EV te
C lM
G SS
Ac
c
Relative bitrate
160%
eo
eo
d
d
i
i
v
v
.ru/
.ru/
n
n
o
o
i
i
ess
ess
r
r
p
p
.com
.com
w
w
ww
ww
x2
180%
Better
October 15, 2015
Codec
VP9 Video Codec
Intel MSS HEVC GAcc
x265
x264
f265 H.265 Encoder
FIGURE 21: Average bitrate ratio for a fixed quality—usecase “Ripping,” Y-SSIM metric, without SIF Encoder,
SHBP H.265 Real time encoder, InTeleMax TurboEnc
28
October 15, 2015
6
6.1
CONCLUSION
Desktop Comparison
6.1.1 Fast Transcoding
ww
120%
ide
v
/
u
.r
ion
s
s
e
r
100%
mp
o
c
.
94%
w
ww
o
.com
w
w
Itt
x2
64
w
SH
H
EV
C Int
So el
ft MS
w S
ar
e
90%
I
EV nte
C lM
G SS
Ac
c
94%
ide
v
/
u
.r
ion
s
s
e
pr
108%
65
100%
110%
x2
110%
o
BP
tim H.
e 265
en R
co ea
de l
r
ww
130%
r
mp
o
c
.
w
Better
r
mp
o
c
.
w
deo
i
v
/
n.ru
o
i
s
es
ia
H mH
ar E
En dw VC
co ar
de e
r
140%
152%
deo
i
v
/
n.ru
o
i
s
es
H
150%
Codec
FIGURE 22: Average bitrate ratio for a fixed quality—usecase “Fast Transcoding,” Y-SSIM metric.
29
October 15, 2015
6.1.2 Universal
Better
deo
i
v
/
n.ru
o
i
s
es
163%
x2
64
ia
m
w HE
ar V
e C
En S
co oft
de r
Le S
nt tr
oi on
d g
En HE en
co VC e
d
Itt er
ia
m
H
a H
E rd EV
SH nc wa C
BP ode re
tim H. r
e 265
en R
co ea
de l
r
SI
F
En
co
de
r
104%
In
Tu Tele
rb M
oE ax
nc
pr
105%
m
o
w.c
w
w
101%
Itt
EV
C Int
So el
ft MS
w S
ar
e
H
100%
essi
r
p
com 98% 100%
91% w.92%
ww
I
EV nte
C lM
G SS
Ac
c
150%
deo
i
v
/
u
on.r
H
200%
65
250%
292%
eo
eo
d
d
i
i
v
v
ru/
.ru/
.254%
n
n
o
o
i
i
ess
ess
r
r
p
p
.com
.com
w
w
ww
ww
x2
300%
Codec
FIGURE 23: Average bitrate ratio for a fixed quality—usecase “Universal,” Y-SSIM metric.
30
October 15, 2015
6.1.3 Ripping
In
Tu Tele
rb M
oE ax
nc
4
I
EV nte
C lM
G SS
Ac
c
Le S
nt tr
oi on
d g
En HE en
co VC e
f2 der
65
En H.
co 26
SH
de 5
BP
r
tim H.
e 265
en R
co ea
de l
r
SI
F
En
co
de
r
H
o
x2
6
c
EV
I
n
C t
So el
ft MS
Itt
w S
ia
ar
m
e
w HE
ar V
e C
En S
co oft
de r
H
Co
de
5
de
100%
o
178%
deo
i
v
/
136%
n.ru
o
i
i
s
s
res97% 100% 101% 102%mpres
p
m
.co 87%
.co
82% w87%
w
ww
ww
vide
/
u
r
on.
Vi
150%
x2
6
200%
VP
9
250%
eo
eo
d
d
i
i
v
v
u/
.ru/
.r269%
n
n
o
o
i
i
ess
ess
r
r
p
p
.com
.com
w
w
ww
ww
Better
306%
300%
Codec
FIGURE 24: Average bitrate ratio for a fixed quality—usecase “Ripping,” Y-SSIM metric.
31
October 15, 2015
6.1.4 Overall
vide
/
u
r
on.
o
SH
BP
tim H.
e 265
en R
co ea
de l
r
I
EV nte
C lM
G SS
Ac
c
ssi
e100%
r
p
96% com
w.
w
w
H
EV
C Int
So el
ft MS
w S
ar
e
o
H
65
100%
essi
r
p
om 93%
92% w.c
ww
vide
/
u
r
on.
64
120%
x2
140%
x2
160%
Better
163%
eo
eo
d
d
i
i
v
v
.ru/
.ru/
n
n
o
o
i
i
ess
ess
r
r
p
p
.com
.com
w
w
ww
ww
Codec
FIGURE 25: Average bitrate ratio for a fixed quality—Y-SSIM metric.
32
October 15, 2015
6.2
Server Comparison
6.2.1 Fast Transcoding
110%
ssi
e
r
mp
de
i
v
/
100%n.ru
io
s
res
o
mp
o
c
.
ww
BP
tim H.
e 265
en R
co ea
de l
r
SH
Itt
4
w
5
EV
C Int
So el
ft MS
w S
ar
e
89%
Le S
nt tr
oi on
d g
En HE en
co VC e
de
r
o
87% w.c
w
w
90%
95%
x2
6
100%
deo
i
v
/
u
on.r
97%
x2
6
120%
ia
m
w HE
ar V
e C
En S
co oft
de r
130%
H
140%
Better
144%
deo
deo
i
i
v
v
/
/
.ru
.ru
n
n
o
o
i
i
ess
ess
r
r
p
p
.com
.com
w
w
ww
ww
Codec
FIGURE 26: Average bitrate ratio for a fixed quality—usecase “Fast Transcoding,” Y-SSIM metric.
33
October 15, 2015
6.2.2 Universal
100%
pr
m
o
w.c
w
w
deo
i
v
/
n.ru
o
i
s
es
Better
o
de
r
En
co
SI
F
SH
BP
tim H.
e 265
en R
co ea
de l
r
93%
4
ia
m
w HE
ar V
e C
En S
co oft
de r
Itt
H
EV
C Int
So el
ft MS
w S
ar
e
essi
r
p
om
91%
87% w.c 90%
w
w
5
100%
vide
/
u
r
on.
151%
x2
6
150%
Le S
nt tr
oi on
d g
En HE en
co VC e
de
r
200%
x2
6
235%
eo
eo
d
d
i
i
v
v
.ru/
.ru/
n
n
o
o
i
i
ess
ess
r
r
p
p
.com
.com
w
w
ww
ww
Codec
FIGURE 27: Average bitrate ratio for a fixed quality—usecase “Universal,” Y-SSIM metric.
34
October 15, 2015
6.2.3 Ripping
200%
164%
In
Tu Tele
rb M
oE ax
nc
65
En H.
co 26
SH
de 5
r
BP
tim H.
2
e 65
en R
co ea
de l
r
SI
F
En
co
de
r
f2
4
x2
6
c
EV
C Int
So el
ft MS
w S
Itt
ar
ia
e
m
w HE
ar V
e C
En S
co oft
de r
Le S
nt tr
oi on
d g
En HE en
co VC e
de
r
Co
de
o
de
Vi
o
H
5
essi87%
r
p
com 80%
74% w.77%
ww
x2
6
100%
eo
d
i
v
/
123%
n.ru
o
i
s
100%
res
92%
p
m
.co
w
ww
vide
/
u
r
on.
150%
VP
9
250%
Better
268%
eo
eo
d
d
i
i
v
v
ru/
.ru/
.236%
n
n
o
o
i
i
ess
ess
r
r
p
p
.com
.com
w
w
ww
ww
Codec
FIGURE 28: Average bitrate ratio for a fixed quality—usecase “Ripping,” Y-SSIM metric.
35
October 15, 2015
6.2.4 Overall
Better
BP
tim H.
e 265
en R
co ea
de l
r
SH
ia
m
w HE
ar V
e C
En S
co oft
de r
4
r
mp
o
c
.
w
ww
92%
deo
i
v
/
100%n.ru
o
s
es i
Itt
91%
o
x2
6
vide
/
u
r
on.
Le S
nt tr
oi on
d g
En HE en
co VC e
de
r
80%
essi
r
p
om85%
84% w.c
ww
EV
C Int
So el
ft MS
w S
ar
e
100%
H
120%
5
140%
x2
6
152%
eo
eo
d
d
i
i
v
v
.ru/
.ru/
n
n
o
o
i
i
ess
ess
r
r
p
p
.com
.com
w
w
ww
ww
Codec
FIGURE 29: Average bitrate ratio for a fixed quality—Y-SSIM metric.
36
October 15, 2015
7
PARTICIPANTS’ COMMENTS
7.1
WebM codec team—VP9 Encoder
1. We noted that the VP9 encoder in the test is running with parameter (--cpu-used=1). This setting trades off
some compression performance for the encoding speed. One can use parameter (--cpu-used=0) to improve
the compression performance by 8%-10%.
2. Although the test environment allows up to 32 cores, our current VP9 encoder is implemented to support
up to 8 cores for encoding.
3. It is definitely possible to incorporate more computing resources to significantly speedup the VP9 encoding
process while achieving the same compression statistics. As an open source project, we certainly welcome
contributions from the video coding community to make it happen.
4. Regarding the rate control variance noted on page 25, the VP9 encode settings are optimized for VoD. This
use case values a high compression ratio over precisely matching target bitrates, so the encoder allows the
actual bitrate to be within ±50% of the target. The acceptable range of variance could be reduced, with
some loss in compression performance.
7.2
Ittiam Systems(P) Ltd.
Ittiam is happy that its encoder has been rated as pareto optimal in 5 out of 6 cases (across desktop and server),
and, faster by 40+% than the reference x264 encoder in the fast transcoding and universal use-cases. We would
like to point out that the configurations provided by us were not tuned for SSIM, but more for subjective viewing.
Also, in cases other than ripping, our encoder was configured for single pass and CBR, while 2-pass VBR encoding
(as done for x264) would have further improved the compression/BDRATE. The metric chosen Y-SSIM fails to take
the chroma quality into account and we hope that MSU will factor this in their next round of comparisons. In our
own comparisons against publicly available encoders, our chroma quality has been better than these encoders.
For short sequences, the look-ahead configured tends to be comparable and reflects as a reduced throughput.
Also, we feel that configuring the desktop in high performance mode could have further differentiated our encoder.
7.3
MulticoreWare, Inc.—x265 encoder
x265 is developed to optimize subjective visual quality, not objective quality metrics. As such, our objective quality measurements are not as high as they would be if we optimized for PSNR or SSIM.
Encoding speed has been greatly improved in the latest version of x265 (1.7 + 478), thanks to a combination
of algorithmic improvements and other performance optimizations.
7.4
SIF Encoder Team
Thank you for invitation to participate in video codec test. We’d like to inform you that SIF codec version we
presented is “work-in progress”. Version you’ve tested was very close to release which was made about 3 years
ago with very limited resources. SIF Codec core has a significant potential for improvement and we are going to
37
October 15, 2015
realize it with our new team and additional resources in 2015 - 2016. We hope to present an improved version of
SIF Codec for your next test.
38
October 15, 2015
A
SEQUENCES
A.1 “Apple Tree”
Sequence title
Apple Tree
Resolution
1920×1080
Number of frames
338
Color space
YV12
Frames per second
30.0
FIGURE 30: Apple Tree sequence, frame 169
Video sequence with zoom out and lot of small details.
39
October 15, 2015
A.2 “Bunny”
Sequence title
Bunny
Resolution
1920×1080
Number of frames
600
Color space
YV12
Frames per second
24.0
FIGURE 31: Bunny sequence, frame 300
Scene from a cartoon movie Big Buck Bunny. Contains a lot of movement, very bright colors, different type of
motion.
40
October 15, 2015
A.3 “City Crowd”
Sequence title
City Crowd
Resolution
1920×1080
Number of frames
763
Color space
YV12
Frames per second
30.0
FIGURE 32: City Crowd sequence, frame 382
Video sequence with walking crowd.
41
October 15, 2015
A.4 “Concert”
Sequence title
Concert
Resolution
1920×1080
Number of frames
1533
Color space
YV12
Frames per second
25.0
FIGURE 33: Concert sequence, frame 766
This sequence is a part from concert record. This concert has not a lot of movement, but a lot of flashes and
flashing color lights make this sequence pretty hard for the encoding. Camera zooms in the first part of the scene.
42
October 15, 2015
A.5 “Day Cars”
Sequence title
Day Cars
Resolution
1920×1080
Number of frames
1299
Color space
YV12
Frames per second
25.0
FIGURE 34: Day Cars sequence, frame 650
This sequence contains one of the Moscow large streets with big number of moving cars. Camera is static in
this sequence.
43
October 15, 2015
A.6 “Developers”
Sequence title
Developers
Resolution
1280×720
Number of frames
1500
Color space
YV12
Frames per second
30.0
FIGURE 35: Developers sequence, frame 750
Video with some movement and facial expressions in foreground and some very bright movement at background (man in red shirt walking at background). Typical videoconference use-case.
44
October 15, 2015
A.7 “Fire”
Sequence title
Fire
Resolution
1920×1080
Number of frames
601
Color space
YV12
Frames per second
25.0
FIGURE 36: Fire sequence, frame 300
This scene contains campfire shoot at the evening. Big part of the frame is dark background.
45
October 15, 2015
A.8 “Golden Statue”
Sequence title
Golden Statue
Resolution
1920×1080
Number of frames
1993
Color space
YV12
Frames per second
30.0
FIGURE 37: Golden Statue sequence, frame 996
Video sequence with crowded street and moving cars on foreground.
46
October 15, 2015
A.9 “Hockey”
Sequence title
Hockey
Resolution
1920×1080
Number of frames
1000
Color space
YV12
Frames per second
25.0
FIGURE 38: Hockey sequence, frame 500
Record of Moscow State University (MSU) and Moscow State University of Civil Engineering hockey teams
training. Recorded on the non-professional video camera, contains fast-moving players in the half-lighted ice rink.
47
October 15, 2015
A.10
“Kremlin”
Sequence title
Kremlin
Resolution
1920×1080
Number of frames
1899
Color space
YV12
Frames per second
25.0
FIGURE 39: Kremlin sequence, frame 950
Panoramic scene of Moscow Kremlin in the cloudy day. Slow camera movement.
48
October 15, 2015
A.11
“Market Walk”
Sequence title
Market Walk
Resolution
1920×1080
Number of frames
688
Color space
YV12
Frames per second
30.0
FIGURE 40: Market Walk sequence, frame 344
Video sequence with shaking camera.
49
October 15, 2015
A.12
“Mountain View”
Sequence title
Mountain View
Resolution
1920×1080
Number of frames
398
Color space
YV12
Frames per second
30.0
FIGURE 41: Mountain View sequence, frame 199
Video sequecne with view from fast moving car.
50
October 15, 2015
A.13
“Night Cars”
Sequence title
Night Cars
Resolution
1920×1080
Number of frames
1305
Color space
YV12
Frames per second
25.0
FIGURE 42: Night Cars sequence, frame 652
Same as the Day cars sequence, but this scene was shot at night � contains a lot of moving car�s lights and dark
background.
51
October 15, 2015
A.14
“Pine Tree”
Sequence title
Pine Tree
Resolution
1920×1080
Number of frames
1130
Color space
YV12
Frames per second
30.0
FIGURE 43: Pine Tree sequence, frame 565
Video sequence with focus and defocus.
52
October 15, 2015
A.15
“River Boats”
Sequence title
River Boats
Resolution
1920×1080
Number of frames
1061
Color space
YV12
Frames per second
30.0
FIGURE 44: River Boats sequence, frame 530
Video sequence contains static and moving parts of the frame.
53
October 15, 2015
A.16
“Road”
Sequence title
Road
Resolution
1920×1080
Number of frames
877
Color space
YV12
Frames per second
25.0
FIGURE 45: Road sequence, frame 438
Sequence captured from the moving car on the Moscow streets. Contains small moving objects (pedestrians),
trees and moving cars (cars speed differs from the camera speed).
54
October 15, 2015
A.17
“Shake Walk”
Sequence title
Shake Walk
Resolution
1920×1080
Number of frames
805
Color space
YV12
Frames per second
25.0
FIGURE 46: Shake Walk sequence, frame 402
Sequence recorded while walking with a strong camera movement.
55
October 15, 2015
A.18
“Sita”
Sequence title
Sita
Resolution
1920×1080
Number of frames
1000
Color space
YV12
Frames per second
25.0
FIGURE 47: Sita sequence, frame 500
Part of a cartoon movie Sita sings the blues. Contains a lot of contrast shapes with strict edges. Scenes contains
only monotonous movement.
56
October 15, 2015
A.19
“Trigans”
Sequence title
Trigans
Resolution
1920×1080
Number of frames
10500
Color space
YV12
Frames per second
30.0
FIGURE 48: Trigans sequence, frame 5250
Long sequences with many scene changes.
57
October 15, 2015
A.20
“Water”
Sequence title
Water
Resolution
1920×1080
Number of frames
1209
Color space
YV12
Frames per second
25.0
FIGURE 49: Water sequence, frame 604
Scene contains pouring and highlighted water flow. Sometimes camera focuses on the bottom of the creek.
58
October 15, 2015
A.21
“Water Ripple”
Sequence title
Water Ripple
Resolution
1920×1080
Number of frames
220
Color space
YV12
Frames per second
30.0
FIGURE 50: Water Ripple sequence, frame 110
Water ripple, hard to compress sequence.
59
October 15, 2015
B
B.1
CODECS
InTeleMax TurboEnc
Encoder title
InTeleMax TurboEnc
Version
3.0
Developed by
InTeleMax, Inc.
FIGURE 51: InTeleMax TurboEnc
Platform
Preset name
Encoder parameters
Desktop
Ripping
Encode_V3.0.exe %SOURCE_FILE% -w %WIDTH% -h %HEIGHT%
-o %TARGET_FILE% -bitrate %BITRATE_BPS% -r %FPS% -cf 4
Universal
Server
Ripping
60
October 15, 2015
B.2
f265
Encoder title
f265
Version
0.2
Developed by
f265 Developer Team
FIGURE 52: f265 encoder
Platform
Preset name
Encoder parameters
Desktop,
Ripping
f265cli.exe -p "quality=25 rc=abr
Server
bitrate=%BITRATE_KBPS1000%" -w %WIDTH%x%HEIGHT%
%SOURCE_FILE% %TARGET_FILE%
61
October 15, 2015
B.3
Intel Media Server Studio HEVC Software
Encoder title
Intel Media Server Studio HEVC Software
Version
Intel Media Server Studio 2015 R4 – Professional Edition (release date: April 2015)
Developed by
Intel
FIGURE 53: Intel Media Server Studio HEVC Software
Platform
Preset name
Encoder parameters
Desktop,
Ripping
mfx_transcoder.exe h265 --preset slow -encode_plugin
Server
mfxplugin64_hevce_sw.dll -mfxdll libmfxrt64.dll -i
%SOURCE_FILE% -w %WIDTH% -h %HEIGHT% -f %FPS% -o
%TARGET_FILE% -b %BITRATE_BPS% -avbr -u 1 -async 3
Universal
mfx_transcoder.exe h265 --preset medium -encode_plugin
Fast
mfx_transcoder.exe h265 --preset fast -encode_plugin
62
October 15, 2015
B.4
Intel Media Server Studio HEVC GAcc
Note: GAcc – Graphics Accelerated (GPGPU codec).
Encoder title
Intel Media Server Studio HEVC Graphics Accelerated
Version
Intel Media Server Studio 2015 R4 – Professional Edition (release date: April 2015)
Developed by
Intel
FIGURE 54: Intel Media Server Studio HEVC GAcc
Platform
Preset name
Encoder parameters
Desktop
Ripping
mfx_transcoder.exe h265 --preset slow -encode_plugin
mfxplugin64_hevce_hw.dll -mfxdll libmfxrt64.dll -i
Universal
mfx_transcoder.exe h265 --preset medium -encode_plugin
Fast
mfx_transcoder.exe h265 --preset fast -encode_plugin
63
October 15, 2015
B.5
Encoder title
Version
1_14_8_06
Developed by
FIGURE 55: Ittiam HEVC Software Encoder
Platform
Preset name
Encoder parameters
Desktop,
Ripping
ihevce_x64_sw_eval.exe -c vid_enc_cfg_FirstPass_vbr_1080p_ES_ripping.txt
Server
--src_width %WIDTH% --src_height %HEIGHT% --tgt_width %WIDTH% --tgt_height
%HEIGHT% --num_frames_to_encode %FRAMES_NUM% --src_frame_rate_num %FPS_NUM%
--src_frame_rate_denom %FPS_DENOM% --tgt_bitrate %BITRATE_BPS% -i
%SOURCE_FILE% -o %TARGET_FILE%
ihevce_x64_sw_eval.exe -c vid_enc_cfg_SecondPass_vbr_1080p_PQ_ripping.txt
--src_width %WIDTH% --src_height %HEIGHT% --tgt_width %WIDTH% --tgt_height
%HEIGHT% --num_frames_to_encode %FRAMES_NUM% --src_frame_rate_num %FPS_NUM%
Universal
ihevce_x64_sw_eval.exe -c vid_enc_cfg_Cbr_1080p_MS_universal.txt --src_width
%WIDTH% --src_height %HEIGHT% --tgt_width %WIDTH% --tgt_height %HEIGHT%
--num_frames_to_encode %FRAMES_NUM% --src_frame_rate_num %FPS_NUM%
Fast
ihevce_x64_sw_eval.exe -c vid_enc_cfg_Cbr_1080p_ES_fast.txt --src_width
%WIDTH% --src_height %HEIGHT% --tgt_width %WIDTH% --tgt_height %HEIGHT%
--num_frames_to_encode %FRAMES_NUM% --src_frame_rate_num %FPS_NUM%
64
October 15, 2015
B.6
Encoder title
Version
2_04_4_00
Developed by
FIGURE 56: Ittiam HEVC Hardware Encoder
Platform
Preset name
Encoder parameters
Desktop
Universal
ihevce_x64_hw_eval.exe -c
vid_enc_cfg_Cbr_1080p_MS_hw_universal.txt --src_width
%WIDTH% --src_height %HEIGHT% --tgt_width %WIDTH%
--tgt_height %HEIGHT% --num_frames_to_encode
%FRAMES_NUM% --src_frame_rate_num %FPS_NUM%
--src_frame_rate_denom %FPS_DENOM% --tgt_bitrate
%BITRATE_BPS% -i %SOURCE_FILE% -o %TARGET_FILE%
Fast
ihevce_x64_hw_eval.exe -c
vid_enc_cfg_Cbr_1080p_ES_hw_fast.txt --src_width
%WIDTH% --src_height %HEIGHT% --tgt_width %WIDTH%
--tgt_height %HEIGHT% --num_frames_to_encode
%FRAMES_NUM% --src_frame_rate_num %FPS_NUM%
--src_frame_rate_denom %FPS_DENOM% --tgt_bitrate
%BITRATE_BPS% -i %SOURCE_FILE% -o %TARGET_FILE%
65
October 15, 2015
B.7
Encoder title
Version
2.2 (r3833 for client, r3771 for server)
Developed by
Strongene Ltd.
FIGURE 57: Strongene Lentoid HEVC Encoder
Platform
Preset name
Encoder parameters
Desktop
Ripping
lentenc -c 4 --frames %FRAMES_NUM% -y -b
%BITRATE_KBPS% -r %FPS% -s %WIDTH%x%HEIGHT%
Universal
Server
Ripping
Universal
Fast
66
October 15, 2015
B.8
Encoder title
Version
Developed by
SHBP Codec’s development team
FIGURE 58: SHBP H.265 Real time encoder
Platform
Preset name
Encoder parameters
Desktop,
Ripping
sh_hevc_enc.exe -w %WIDTH% -h %HEIGHT% -f %FPS% -n
Server
%FRAMES_NUM% -p 3 -b %BITRATE_KBPS% -i %SOURCE_FILE%
-o %TARGET_FILE%
Universal
-o %TARGET_FILE%
Fast
-o %TARGET_FILE%
67
October 15, 2015
B.9
SIF-1
Encoder title
SIF-1
Version
1.30.4
Developed by
www.mysif.ru
FIGURE 59: SIF-1
Platform
Preset name
Encoder parameters
Desktop
Ripping
ConsoleEnc.exe %SOURCE_FILE% --me_mode=slow
--comp_mode=vbr_all_p --out_bitrt=%BITRATE_KBPS%
--viz_dist=100 --sub_me_mode=fastest --rc_buf_s=2
--entropy_mode=4_threads -w %WIDTH% -h %HEIGHT%
--fps=%FPS_NUM%/%FPS_DENOM% -o %TARGET_FILE%.avi
Universal
ConsoleEnc.exe %SOURCE_FILE% --me_mode=standard
--no_chroma_me --entropy_mode=4_threads -w %WIDTH% -h
%HEIGHT% --fps=%FPS_NUM%/%FPS_DENOM% -o %TARGET_FILE%.avi
Server
Ripping
ConsoleEnc.exe %SOURCE_FILE% --me_mode=slow
--entropy_mode=8_threads --threads=28 -w %WIDTH% -h %HEIGHT%
--fps=%FPS_NUM%/%FPS_DENOM% -o %TARGET_FILE%.avi
Universal
ConsoleEnc.exe %SOURCE_FILE% --me_mode=ultrafast
--no_chroma_me --entropy_mode=8_threads --threads=28 -w
%WIDTH% -h %HEIGHT% --fps=%FPS_NUM%/%FPS_DENOM% -o
%TARGET_FILE%.avi
68
October 15, 2015
B.10
WebM Project VP9 Encoder v1.3.0
Encoder title
WebM Project VP9 Encoder v1.3.0
Version
1.3.0
Developed by
The WebM Project
FIGURE 60: WebM Project VP9 Encoder v1.3.0
Platform
Preset name
Encoder parameters
Desktop
Ripping
vpxenc.exe %SOURCE_FILE% -o %TARGET_FILE% -w %WIDTH%
-h %HEIGHT% --fps=%FPS_NUM%/%FPS_DENOM%
--test-decode=warn --target-bitrate=%BITRATE_KBPS%
--codec=vp9 --profile=0 --kf-max-dist=90000
--static-thresh=0 --cpu-used=1 --tile-columns=3 -t 8
--min-q=2 --max-q=52 --undershoot-pct=25
--overshoot-pct=50 --buf-sz=1000 --buf-initial-sz=500
--buf-optimal-sz=600 --max-intra-rate=300
--resize-allowed=0 -p 2 --lag-in-frames=25
--end-usage=vbr --frame-parallel=0
Server
Ripping
vpxenc.exe %SOURCE_FILE% -o %TARGET_FILE% -w %WIDTH%
-h %HEIGHT% --fps=%FPS_NUM%/%FPS_DENOM%
--test-decode=warn --target-bitrate=%BITRATE_KBPS%
--codec=vp9 --profile=0 --kf-max-dist=90000
--static-thresh=0 --cpu-used=1 --tile-columns=3 -t 8
--min-q=2 --max-q=62 --undershoot-pct=50
--overshoot-pct=50 --buf-sz=1000 --buf-initial-sz=500
--buf-optimal-sz=600 --max-intra-rate=300
--resize-allowed=0 -p 2 --lag-in-frames=25
--end-usage=vbr --frame-parallel=0
69
October 15, 2015
B.11
x264
Encoder title
x264
Version
146 r2538 121396c
Developed by
x264 Developer Team
FIGURE 61: x264 encoder
Platform
Preset name
Encoder parameters
Desktop,
Ripping
x264 --tune ssim --preset placebo --me umh --merange 32
Server
--keyint infinite --pass 1 --bitrate %BITRATE_KBPS%
%SOURCE_FILE% -o %TARGET_FILE% --input-res %WIDTH%x%HEIGHT%
--fps %FPS%
x264 --tune ssim --preset placebo --me umh --merange 32
--keyint infinite --pass 2 --bitrate %BITRATE_KBPS%
%SOURCE_FILE% -o %TARGET_FILE% --input-res %WIDTH%x%HEIGHT%
--fps %FPS%
Universal
x264 --tune ssim --preset slow --trellis 2 --keyint infinite
--pass 1 --bitrate %BITRATE_KBPS% %SOURCE_FILE% -o
%TARGET_FILE% --input-res %WIDTH%x%HEIGHT% --fps %FPS%
x264 --tune ssim --preset slow --trellis 2 --keyint infinite
--pass 2 --bitrate %BITRATE_KBPS% %SOURCE_FILE% -o
Fast
x264 --tune ssim --preset medium --keyint infinite --pass 1
--bitrate %BITRATE_KBPS% %SOURCE_FILE% -o %TARGET_FILE%
--input-res %WIDTH%x%HEIGHT% --fps %FPS%
x264 --tune ssim --preset medium --keyint infinite --pass 2
--bitrate %BITRATE_KBPS% %SOURCE_FILE% -o %TARGET_FILE%
70
October 15, 2015
B.12
x265
Encoder title
x265
Version
1.5+460-ac85c775620f
Developed by
x265 Developer Team
FIGURE 62: x265 encoder
Platform
Preset name
Encoder parameters
Desktop
Ripping
x265 -p veryslow --bitrate %BITRATE_KBPS%
%SOURCE_FILE% -o %TARGET_FILE% --input-res
%WIDTH%x%HEIGHT% --fps %FPS%
Universal
x265 -p medium --bitrate %BITRATE_KBPS% %SOURCE_FILE%
-o %TARGET_FILE% --input-res %WIDTH%x%HEIGHT% --fps
%FPS%
Fast
x265 -p ultrafast --ref 3 --bitrate %BITRATE_KBPS%
Server
Ripping
x265 -p veryslow --bitrate %BITRATE_KBPS%
Universal
x265 -p fast --bitrate %BITRATE_KBPS% %SOURCE_FILE% -o
Fast
x265 -p superfast --no-scenecut --bitrate
%BITRATE_KBPS% %SOURCE_FILE% -o %TARGET_FILE%
71
October 15, 2015
C FIGURES EXPLANATION
The main charts in this comparison are classical RD curves (quality/bitrate graphs) and relative bitrate/relative
time charts. Additionally, bitrate handling charts (ratio of real and target bitrates) and per-frame quality charts
were also used.
C.1
RD Curves
These charts show variation in codec quality by bitrate or file size. For this metric, a higher curve presumably
indicates better quality.
C.2
Relative Bitrate/Relative Time Charts
Relative bitrate/relative time charts show the dependence on relative encoding time of the average bitrate for
a fixed quality output. The Y-axis shows the ratio of the bitrate of the codec under test to that of the reference
codec for a fixed quality. A lower value (that is, the higher the value is on the graph) indicates a better-performing
codec. For example, a value of 0.7 means that codec under test can encode the sequence under test in a file that
is 30% smaller than that encoded by the reference codec.
The X-axis shows the relative encoding time for the codec under test. Larger values indicate a slower codec.
For example, a value of 2.5 means that the codec under test works 2.5 times slower, on average, than the reference
codec.
C.3
Graph Example
Figure 63 shows a case where these graphs can be useful. In the top left graph, it is apparent that the “Green”
codec encodes with significantly better quality than the “Black” codec. On the other hand, the top right graph
shows that the “Green” codec is slightly slower. Relative bitrate/relative time graphs can be useful in precisely
these situations: it is clearly visible in the bottom graph that one of the codecs is slower, but yields higher visual
quality, and that the other codec is faster, but yields lower visual quality.
As a result of these advantages, relative bitrate/relative time graphs are used frequently in this report since
they assist in the evaluation of the codecs in the test set, especially when number of codecs is large.
A more detailed description of the preparation of these graphs is given below.
C.4
Bitrates Ratio with the Same Quality
The first step in computing the average bitrate ratio for a fixed quality is inversion of the axes of the bitrate/quality
graph (see Figure 64b). All further computations are performed using the inverted graph.
The second step involves averaging the interval over which the quality axis is chosen. Averaging is performed
only over those segments for which there are results for both codecs. This limitation is due to the difficulty of
developing extrapolation methods for classic RD curves; nevertheless, for interpolation of RD curves, even linear
methods are acceptable.
The final step is calculation of the area under the curves in the chosen interpolation segment and determination of their ratio (see Figure 64c). This result is an average bitrate ratio for a fixed quality for the two codecs. If
72
October 15, 2015
Better quality
0.96
0.94
50
40
30
0.92
0
2
4
6
8
10
Bitrate, Mbps
0
12
(a) RD curve. “Green” codec is better!
(b)
2
4
6
8
10
Bitrate, Mbps
12
Encoding speed (frames per second). “Green” codec
is slower!
1
1.02
Better
Metric value, SSIM
0.98
Faster
60
1.04
1.06
0.94
0.95
0.96
0.97
0.98
0.99
1
Faster
(c) Integral situation with codecs. This plot shows the situation more clearly
FIGURE 63: Speed/Quality trade-off example
73
October 15, 2015
First codec
Second codec
(b)
(a) Source RD curves
Axes’ inversion and averaging interval
choosing
S1
S2
S1
S2
(c) Areas under curves ratio
FIGURE 64: Average bitrate ratio computation
more than two codecs are considered, then one of them is defined as a reference codec and the quality of others
is compared to that of the reference.
C.5
Relative Quality Analysis
While most figures in this report provide codec scores relative to reference encoder (i.e. x264) the “Relative Quality Analysis” sections show bitrate ratio with fixed quality (see Section C.4) score for each codec pair. This might
be useful if one is interested in comparison of codec A relative to codec B only.
Below we show simplified example of “Average bitrate ratio for a fixed quality” table for two codecs only:
74
October 15, 2015
A
B
A 100% t 75% e
B 134% e 100% t
Confidence
a
k
t
0%
50%
100%
TABLE 6: Example of average bitrate ratio for a fixed quality table
Let’s consider column “B” row “A” of the table containing value 75% this should be read in the following way:
average bitrate for a fixed quality of codec B is 75% less relative to codec A. The icon in the cell depicts confidence
of this estimate. If projections of codecs’ RD curves on quality axis (see Figure 64) have relatively large common
area you will see happy icon. If size of this intersection is small and thus bitrate score can’t be computed reliably
the sad icon will be shown.
“Average bitrate ratio for a fixed quality” plots are visualizations these tables. Each line in such plot depicts
values from one column of corresponding table.
75
October 15, 2015
D OBJECTIVE QUALITY METRICS DESCRIPTION
D.1 SSIM (Structural SIMilarity)
D.1.1 Brief Description
The original paper on the SSIM metric was published by Wang, et al.1 The paper can be found at http://ieeexplore.
ieee.org/iel5/83/28667/01284395.pdf. The SSIM author homepage is found at http://www.cns.nyu.edu/
~lcv/ssim/
The scheme of SSIM calculation can be presented as follows. The main idea that underlies the structural similarity (SSIM) index is comparison of the distortion of three image components:
• Luminance
• Contrast
• Structure
The final formula, after combining these comparisons, is the following:
SSIM(x, y) =
(2µx µy + C1 )(2σxy + C2 )
,
(µx + µy + C1 )(σx + σy + C2 )
where
µx =
N
∑
ωi xi ,
(1)
(2)
i=1
v
uN
u∑
σx = t
ωi (xi − µx ),
(3)
i=1
σxy =
N
∑
ωi (xi − µx )(yi − µy ).
(4)
i=1
Finally, C1 = (K1 L)2 and C2 = (K2 L)2 , where L is the dynamic range of the pixel values (e.g. 255 for 8-bit
grayscale images), and K1, K2 ≪ 1.
The values K1 = 0.01 and K2 = 0.03 were used for the comparison presented in this report, and the matrix
filled with a value “1” in each position to form a filter for the result map.
For the implementation used in this comparison, one SSIM value corresponds to two sequences. The value is
in the range [−1, 1], with higher values being more desirable (a value of 1 corresponds to identical frames). One of
the advantages of the SSIM metric is that it better represents human visual perception than does PSNR. SSIM is
more complex, however, and takes more time to calculate.
D.1.2 Examples
Figure 65 shows the example of an SSIM result for an original and processed (compressed with lossy compression)
image. The resulting value of 0.9 demonstrates that the two images are very similar.
1 Zhou Wang, Alan Conrad Bovik, Hamid Rahim Sheikh and Eero P. Simoncelli, “Image Quality Assessment: From Error Visibility to Structural Similarity,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, Vol. 13, No. 4, April 2004.
76
October 15, 2015
(a) Original
(b) Compressed
(c) SSIM
FIGURE 65: SSIM example for compressed image
Figure 66 depicts various distortions applied to original image and Figure 67 shows SSIM values for these
distortions.
(a) Original image
(b) Image with added noise
(c) Blurred image
(d) Sharpen image
FIGURE 66: Examples of processed images
77
October 15, 2015
(a) SSIM map for original image,
(b) SSIM map for noisy image,
SSIM = 1
SSIM = 0.552119
(c)
SSIM map for blurred image,
SSIM = 0.9225
(d) SSIM map for sharpen image,
SSIM = 0.958917
FIGURE 67: SSIM values for original and processed images
78
October 15, 2015
E ABOUT THE GRAPHICS & MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP
The Graphics & Media Lab Video Group is part of the Computer Science Department of Moscow State University. The Graphics Group began at the end of
1980’s, and the Graphics & Media Lab was officially founded in 1998. The main
research avenues of the lab include areas of computer graphics, computer vision and media processing (audio, image and video). A number of patents have
been acquired based on the lab’s research, and other results have been presented in various publications.
The main research avenues of the Graphics & Media Lab Video Group are video processing (pre- and post-, as
well as video analysis filters) and video compression (codec testing and tuning, quality metric research and codec
development).
The main achievements of the Video Group in the area of video processing include:
• High-quality industrial filters for format conversion, including high-quality deinterlacing, high-quality frame
rate conversion, new, fast practical super resolution and other processing tools.
• Methods for modern television sets, such as a large family of up-sampling methods, smart brightness and
contrast control, smart sharpening and more.
• Artifact removal methods, including a family of denoising methods, flicking removal, video stabilization with
frame edge restoration, and scratch, spot and drop-out removal.
• Application-specific methods such as subtitle removal, construction of panorama images from video, video
to high-quality photo conversion, video watermarking, video segmentation and practical fast video deblur.
The main achievements of the Video Group in the area of video compression include:
• Well-known public comparisons of JPEG, JPEG-2000 and MPEG-2 decoders, as well as MPEG-4 and annual
H.264 codec testing; codec testing for weak and strong points, along with bug reports and codec tuning
recommendations.
• Video quality metric research; the MSU Video Quality Measurement Tool and MSU Perceptual Video Quality Tool are publicly available.
• Internal research and contracts for modern video compression and publication of MSU Lossless Video Codec
and MSU Screen Capture Video Codec; these codecs have one of the highest available compression ratios.
The Video Group has also worked for many years with companies like Intel, Samsung and RealNetworks.
In addition, the Video Group is continually seeking collaboration with other companies in the areas of video
processing and video compression.
E-mail: [email protected]
79

HEVC/H.265 Video Codecs Comparison

Transcription

Similar documents

Deutsche Dienststelle - Ons Jongen a Meedercher

A0220-Zahlenbereiche und deren Erweiterungen Z nach Q