Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

A Comprehensive Video Codec Comparison

  • Thorsten Laude (a1), Yeremia Gunawan Adhisantoso (a1), Jan Voges (a1), Marco Munderloh (a1) and Jörn Ostermann (a1)...

Abstract

In this paper, we compare the video codecs AV1 (version 1.0.0-2242 from August 2019), HEVC (HM and x265), AVC (x264), the exploration software JEM which is based on HEVC, and the VVC (successor of HEVC) test model VTM (version 4.0 from February 2019) under two fair and balanced configurations: All Intra for the assessment of intra coding and Maximum Coding Efficiency with all codecs being tuned for their best coding efficiency settings. VTM achieves the highest coding efficiency in both configurations, followed by JEM and AV1. The worst coding efficiency is achieved by x264 and x265, even in the placebo preset for highest coding efficiency. AV1 gained a lot in terms of coding efficiency compared to previous versions and now outperforms HM by 24% BD-Rate gains. VTM gains 5% over AV1 in terms of BD-Rates. By reporting separate numbers for JVET and AOM test sequences, it is ensured that no bias in the test sequences exists. When comparing only intra coding tools, it is observed that the complexity increases exponentially for linearly increasing coding efficiency.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      A Comprehensive Video Codec Comparison
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      A Comprehensive Video Codec Comparison
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      A Comprehensive Video Codec Comparison
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.

Corresponding author

Corresponding author: Thorsten Laude Email: laude@tnt.uni-hannover.de

References

Hide All
[1]ISO/IEC 11172: Information technology–coding of moving pictures and associated audio for digital storage media at up to about 1.5 Mbit/s, 1993.
[2]ISO/IEC 13818–2: Generic Coding of Moving Pictures and Associated Audio Information – Part 2: Video/ITU-T Recommendation H.262, 1994.
[3]ISO/IEC 14496–2: Information technology–coding of audiovisual objects–part 2: visual, 2000.
[4]ISO/IEC 14496–10: Coding of Audiovisual Objects-Part 10: Advanced Video Coding/ITU-T Recommendation H.264 Advanced video coding for generic audiovisual services, 2003.
[5]Ostermann, J.; Bormans, J.; List, P.; Marpe, D.; Narroschke, M.; Pereira, F.; Stockhammer, T.; Wedi, T.: Video coding with H.264/AVC: tools, performance, and complexity. IEEE Circ. Syst. Mag., 4 (1) (2004), 728.
[6]ITU-T Recommendation H.265/ ISO/IEC 23008-2:2013 MPEG-H Part 2: High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC), 2013.
[7]JCT-VC: HEVC reference software HM. Available at https://hevc.hhi.fraunhofer.de/.
[8]De Cock, J.; Mavlankar, A.; Moorthy, A.; Aaron, A.: A large-scale video codec comparison of x264, x265 and libvpx for practical VOD applications, in International Society for Optics and Photonics, San Francisco, CA, US, September 2016, 997116.
[9]Hanhart, P.; Rerabek, M.; De Simone, F.; Ebrahimi, T.: Subjective quality evaluation of the upcoming HEVC video compression standard, in SPIE Optical Engineering + Applications, San Diego, CA, US, October 2012, 84990V.
[10]Laude, T.; Tumbrägel, J.; Munderloh, M.; Ostermann, J.: Non-linear contour-based multidirectional intra coding. APSIPA Trans. Signal Inf. Process., 7 (11) (2018), 113.
[11]Laude, T.; Ostermann, J.: Deep learning-based intra prediction mode decision for HEVC, in Proc. of 32nd Picture Coding Symp. (PCS), Nuremberg, Germany, 2016, IEEE.
[12]Bankoski, J.; Wilkins, P.; Xu, Y.: Technical overview of VP8, an open source video codec for the web, in 2011 IEEE Int. Conf. on Multimedia and Expo, Hangzhou, CN, July 2011, 1–6, IEEE.
[13]Mukherjee, D.; Bankoski, J.; Grange, A.; Han, J.; Koleszar, J.; Wilkins, P.; Xu, Y.; Bultje, R.: The latest open-source video codec VP9 – An overview and preliminary results, in 2013 Picture Coding Symp. (PCS), San Jose, US, December 2013, 390–393, IEEE.
[14]Valin, J.-M.; Terriberry, T.B.; Egge, N.E.; Deade, T.; Cho, Y.; Montgomery, C.; Bebenita, M.: Daala: Building A Next-Generation Video Codec From Unconventional Technology, arXiv:1608.01947, August 2016.
[15]Bjontegaard, G.; Davies, T.; Fuldseth, A.; Midtskogen, S.: The thor video codec, in 2016 Data Compression Conf. (DCC), Snowbird, US, March 2016, 476–485, IEEE.
[16]IETF 100: NetVC WG: Internet Video Codec. Available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/slides-100-netvc-chair-slides/, 2017.
[17]Miller, M.; Zanaty, M.: Internet Video Codec (NETVC) Standardization Website. Available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netvc/about/, accessed 2019-03-26, 2019.
[18]Joint Video Exploration Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11: JEM reference software. Available at https://jvet.hhi.fraunhofer.de/svn/svn_HMJEMSoftware/, 2018.
[19]Chiariglione, L.: Press Release: Versatile Video Coding (VVC) project starts strongly in the Joint Video Experts Team. Available at https://mpeg.chiariglione.org/meetings/122, 2018.
[20]Joint Video Exploration Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11: VTM reference software. Available at https://vcgit.hhi.fraunhofer.de/jvet/VVCSoftware_VTM, 2019.
[21]Motokado: Comparison of ffmpeg's x264 presets. Available at http://blogs.motokado.com/yoshi/2011/06/25/comparison-of-x264-presets/, accessed 2019-03-18, 2011.
[22]Joint Video Exploration Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11: JVET-G1010: JVET common test conditions and software reference configurations, in 7th Meeting, Torino, IT, 13–21 July 2017.
[23]Grois, D.; Nguyen, T.; Marpe, D.: Coding efficiency comparison of AV1/VP9, H.265/MPEG-HEVC, and H.264/MPEG-AVC encoders, in 2016 Picture Coding Symp. (PCS), Nuremberg, DE, 2016, 1–5, IEEE.
[24]Laude, T.; Adhisantoso, Y.G.; Voges, J.; Munderloh, M.; Ostermann, J.: A comparison of JEM and AV1 with HEVC: coding tools, coding efficiency and complexity, in Picture Coding Symp. (PCS), San Francisco, CA, US, 2018, IEEE.
[25]Nguyen, T.; Marpe, D.: Future video coding technologies: a performance evaluation of AV1, JEM, VP9, and HM, in 2018 Picture Coding Symp. (PCS), San Francisco, US, 2018, 31–35.
[26]Guo, L.; De Cock, J.; Aaron, A.: Compression performance comparison of x264, x265, libvpx and aomenc for on-demand adaptive streaming applications, in 2018 Picture Coding Symp. (PCS), San Francisco, US, 2018, 26–30.
[27]Chen, Y. et al. : An overview of core coding tools in the AV1 video codec, in 2018 Picture Coding Symp. (PCS), San Francisco, US, June 2018, 41–45, IEEE.
[28]Feldmann, C.: Multi-Codec DASH Dataset: An Evaluation of AV1, AVC, HEVC and VP9 – Bitmovin. Available at https://bitmovin.com/av1-multi-codec-dash-dataset/, 2018.
[29]Grois, D.; Nguyen, T.; Marpe, D.: Performance comparison of AV1, JEM, VP9, and HEVC encoders, in Applications of Digital Image Processing XL, Andrew G. Tescher, Ed., San Diego, US, February 2018, vol. 10396, 120, SPIE.
[30]Liu, Y.: AV1 beats x264 and libvpx-vp9 in practical use case. Available at https://code.fb.com/video-engineering/av1-beats-x264-and-libvpx-vp9-in-practical-use-case/, 2018.
[31]Vatolin, D.; Grishin, S.; Kalinkina, D.; Soldatov, S.: MSU Video Codecs Comparison. Available at http://www.compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/codec_com_en.html [visited 2019-08-06], 2019.
[32]Sullivan, G.J.; Wiegand, T.: Rate-distortion optimization for video compression. IEEE Signal Process. Mag., 15 (6) (1998), 7490.
[33]Haub, F.; Laude, T.; Ostermann, J.: HEVC Inter Coding Using Deep Recurrent Neural Networks and Artificial Reference Pictures, arXiv Preprint 1812.02137, December 2018.
[34]Laude, T.; Ostermann, J.: Contour-based multidirectional intra coding for HEVC, in Proc. of 32nd Picture Coding Symp. (PCS), Nuremberg, Germany, 2016, IEEE.
[35]Bjontegaard, G.: VCEG-M33: calculation of average PSNR differences between RD-curves, in ITU-T SG 16 Q 6. 13th Meeting, Austin, Texas, USA, 2001.
[36]Bjøntegaard, G.: VCEG-AI11: improvements of the BD-PSNR model, in ITU-T SG 16 Q 6. 35th Meeting, Berlin, Germany, 2008.
[37]Wang, Z.; Bovik, A.C.; Sheikh, H.R.; Simoncelli, E.P.: Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans Image Process., 13 (4) (2004), 600612.
[38]Aaron, A.; Li, Z.; Manohara, M.; Lin, J.Y.; Wu, E.C.-H.; Kuo, C.-C.J.: Challenges in cloud based ingest and encoding for high quality streaming media, in 2015 IEEE Int. Conf. on Image Processing (ICIP), Quebec City, QC, Canada, September 2015, 1732–1736, IEEE.
[39]Lin, J.Y.; Liu, T.-J.; Wu, E.C.-H.; Kuo, C.-C.J.: A fusion-based video quality assessment (fvqa) index, in Signal and Information Processing Association Annual Summit and Conf. (APSIPA), 2014 Asia-Pacific, Siem Reap, Cambodia, December 2014, 1–5, IEEE.
[40]Rassool, R.: VMAF reproducibility: validating a perceptual practical video quality metric, in 2017 IEEE Int. Symp. on Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB), Cagliari, IT, June 2017, 1–2, IEEE.
[41]Norkin, A.; Birkbeck, N.: Film grain synthesis for AV1 video codec, in 2018 Data Compression Conf., Snowbird, UT, US, March 2018, 3–12, IEEE.
[42]Wandt, B.; Laude, T.; Rosenhahn, B.; Ostermann, J.: Extending hevc with a texture synthesis framework using detail-aware image decomposition, in Proc. of the Picture Coding Symp. (PCS), San Francisco, US, June 2018.
[43]Wandt, B.; Laude, T.; Liu, Y.; Rosenhahn, B.; Ostermann, J.: “Extending HEVC Using Texture Synthesis,” in IEEE Visual Communications and Image Processing (VCIP), St Petersburg, US, 2017.
[44]Akyazi, P.; Ebrahimi, T.: Comparison of compression efficiency between HEVC/H.265 and VP9 based on subjective assessments, in International Conf. on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), Sardinia, Italy, 2018.
[45]Wien, M.: High Efficiency Video Coding – Coding Tools and Specification, 1st ed., Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2015.
[46]Bossen, F.; Bross, B.; Flynn, D.: HEVC Complexity and Implementation Analysis. IEEE Trans. Circ. Syst. Vid. Technol., 22 (12) (2013), 16851696.
[47]Sullivan, G.J.; Ohm, J.-R.; Han, W.-j.; Wiegand, T.: Overview of the high efficiency video coding (HEVC) standard. IEEE Trans. Circ. Syst. Vid. Technol. 2012), 16491668.
[48]Sullivan, G.J.; Boyce, J.M.; Chen, Y.; Ohm, J.-R.; Segall, C.A.; Vetro, A.: Standardized extensions of high efficiency video coding (HEVC). IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process., 7 (6) (2013), 10011016.
[49]Ohm, J.-R.; Sullivan, G.J.; Schwarz, H.; Tan, T.K.; Wiegand, T.: Comparison of the Coding Efficiency of Video Coding Standards–Including High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC). IEEE Trans. Circ. Syst. Vid. Technol., 22 (12) (2012), 16691684.
[50]Sze, V.; Budagavi, M.; Sullivan, G.J.: High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) – Algorithms and Architectures, Integrated Circuits and Systems, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2014.
[51]Joint Video Exploration Team JVET of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC: JVET-G1001: Algorithm Description of Joint Exploration Test Model 7 (JEM 7), 2017.
[52]Khairat, A.; Nguyen, T.; Siekmann, M.; Marpe, D.; Wiegand, T.: Adaptive cross-component prediction for 4 : 4 : 4 high efficiency video coding, in ICIP, 2014, 3734–3738.
[53]Chen, C.-Y.; Tsai, C.-Y.; Huang, Y.-W.; Yamakage, T.; Chong, I.S.; Fu, C.; Itoh, T.; Watanabe, T.; Chujoh, T.; Karczewicz, M; Lei, S.: The adaptive loop filtering techniques in the HEVC standard, in International Society for Optics and Photonics, vol. 8499, San Diego, US, October 2012, 849913.
[54]Tsai, C.-Y.; Chen, C.-Y.; Yamakage, T.; Chong, I.S.; Huang, Y.; Fu, C.; Itoh, T.; Watanabe, T.; Chujoh, T.; Karczewicz, M.; Lei, S.: Adaptive Loop Filtering for Video Coding. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal. Process., 7 (6) (2013), 934945.
[55]Chen, J.; Alshina, E.: JVET-J1002: algorithm description for versatile video coding and test model, in 10th Meeting of the Joint Video Experts Team (JVET), San Diego, US, 2018.
[56]Boyce, J.: JVET-J0096: BoG report on benchmark set tool selection, in 10th Meeting of the Joint Video Experts Team (JVET), San Diego, US, 2018.
[57]Sullivan, G., J.-R. Ohm. JVET-J1000: Meeting Report of the 10th Meeting of the Joint Video Experts Team (JVET), San Diego, US, 2018.
[58]Massimino, P.: Paris Video Tech #4: AOM – AV1. How does it work? Available at https://parisvideotech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/AOM-AV1-Video-Tech-meet-up.pdf, 2017.
[59]Mukherjee, D.; Su, H.; Bankoski, J.; Converse, A.; Han, J.; Liu, Z.; Xu, Y.: “An overview of new video coding tools under consideration for VP10: the successor to VP9,” SPIE Optical Engineering + Applications, vol. 9599, no. September 2015, pp. 95991E, 2015.
[60]Li, J. et al. : Intra block copy for screen content in the emerging AV1 video codec, in 2018 Data Compression Conf., Snowbird, US, March 2018, 355–364, IEEE.
[61]Xu, X. et al. : Intra block copy in HEVC screen content coding extensions. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Circ. Syst., 6 (4) (2016), 409419.
[62]Parker, S.; Chen, Y.; Barker, D.; de Rivaz, P.; Mukherjee, D.: “Global and locally adaptive warped motion compensation in video compression,” in 2017 IEEE Int. Conf. on Image Processing (ICIP), Beijing, CN, September 2017, 275–279, IEEE.
[63]Laude, T.; Ostermann, J.: “Copy mode for static screen content coding with HEVC,” in IEEE Int. Conf. on Image Processing (ICIP), Québec City, Canada, 2015, IEEE.
[64]Xu, J.; Joshi, R.; Cohen, R.A.: Overview of the Emerging HEVC screen content coding extension. IEEE Trans. Circ. Syst. Vid. Technol., 26 (1) (2016), 5062.
[65]Valenzise, G.: Bjontegaard metric – file exchange – MATLAB central. Available at https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/27798-bjontegaard-metric, accessed 2019-03-20, 2010.
[66]Grois, D.; Nguyen, T.; Marpe, D.: “Coding efficiency comparison of AV1/VP9, H.265/MPEG-HEVC, and H.264/MPEG-AVC encoders,” in 2016 Picture Coding Symp. (PCS), Nuremberg, DE, 2016, 1–5, IEEE.

Keywords

A Comprehensive Video Codec Comparison

  • Thorsten Laude (a1), Yeremia Gunawan Adhisantoso (a1), Jan Voges (a1), Marco Munderloh (a1) and Jörn Ostermann (a1)...

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed