[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Eighth MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Video Codecs Comparison - Standard Version
Video group head: Dr. Dmitriy Vatolin
Project head: Dr. Dmitriy Kulikov
Measurements, analysis: Marat Arsaev
REPORT IS UPDATED! Now it contains Appendixes with GPU encoders comparsion and Very High Speed Encoders comparison.
|
Different Versions of Report
There are two different versions of H.264 Comparison 2012 report:
Here is the comparison of the versions:
Pro version of comparison will be available immediately after report purchasing.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Report Overview
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Video Codecs that Were Tested
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Overview
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Sequences
Table 1. Summary of video sequences
| Sequence |
Number of frames |
Frame rate |
Resolution |
| VideoConference (5 sequences) |
| Deadline |
1374 |
30 |
352x288 |
| Developers 4CIF |
3600 |
30 |
640x480 |
| Developers 720p |
1500 |
30 |
1280x720 |
| Presentation |
548 |
30 |
720x480 |
| Business |
493 |
30 |
1920x1080 |
| Movies (10 SD sequences) |
| Ice Age |
2014 |
24 |
720x480 |
| City |
600 |
60 |
704x576 |
| Crew |
600 |
60 |
704x576 |
| Indiana Jones |
5000 |
30 |
704x288 |
| Harbour |
600 |
60 |
704x576 |
| Ice Skating |
480 |
60 |
704x576 |
| Soccer |
600 |
60 |
704x576 |
| Race Horses |
300 |
30 |
832x480 |
| State Enemy |
6500 |
24 |
720x304 |
| Party Scene |
500 |
50 |
832x480 |
| HDTV sequences (16 sequences) |
| Park Joy |
500 |
50 |
1280x720 |
| Riverbed |
250 |
25 |
1920x1080 |
| Rush Hour |
500 |
25 |
1920x1080 |
| Blue Sky |
217 |
25 |
1920x1080 |
| Station |
313 |
25 |
1920x1080 |
| Stockholm |
604 |
50 |
1280x720 |
| Sunflower |
500 |
25 |
1920x1080 |
| Tractor |
690 |
25 |
1920x1080 |
| Bunny |
600 |
24 |
1920x1080 |
| Dream |
600 |
24 |
1920x1080 |
| Troy |
300 |
24 |
1920x1072 |
| Water Drops |
535 |
30 |
1920x1080 |
| Capitol |
600 |
30 |
1920x1080 |
| Parrots |
600 |
30 |
1920x1080 |
| Citybus |
600 |
30 |
1920x1080 |
| Underwater |
600 |
30 |
1920x1080 |
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Objectives and Testing Tools
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
H.264 Codec Testing Objectives
The main goal of this report is the presentation of a comparative evaluation of the quality of new H.264 codecs using objective measures of assessment. The comparison was done using settings provided by the developers of each codec.
The main task of the comparison is to analyze different H.264 encoders for the task of transcoding video—e.g., compressing video for personal use. Speed requirements are given for a sufficiently fast PC; fast presets are analogous to real-time encoding for a typical home-use PC.
H.264 Codec Testing Tools
For all measurements the PRO version of the YUVsoft Video Codec Scoring System was used
The following computer configuration was used for the main tests:
Sugar Bay platform, 3rd Generation Core i7 3xxx(IVB), 4 Cores CPU @3.4 GHz,
Integrated GPU: Intel HD Graphics 4000
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580
HDD: SSD160G
Total Physical Memory: 2x2 Gb RAM (1600 MHz)
OS Name: Microsoft Windows 7
Overall Conclusions
Overall, the leader in this comparison for software encoders is x264, followed by MainConcept, DivX H.264 and Elecard.
The overall ranking of the software codecs tested in this comparison is as follows:
- x264
- MainConcept
- DivX H.264
- Elecard
- Intel Ivy Bridge QuickSync
- XviD
- DiscretePhoton
- MainConcept CUDA
This rank is based only on the encoders’ quality results. Encoding speed is not considered here.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Professional Versions of Comparison Report
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
H.264 Comparison Report Pro 2012 version contains:
Additional objective metrics (PSNR, 3-SSIM, MS-SSIM)
All metrics results for all colorplanes (Y,U,V and overall)
Results for all the sequences, codecs and presets used in comparison
Much more figures
etc.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Acknowledgments
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
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:
DiscretePhoton team
Elecard Ltd
Intel Corporation
MainConcept GmbH
x264 Development Team
The Video Group would also like to thank these companies for
their help and technical support during the tests.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Thanks
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Special thanks to the following contributors of our previous comparisons
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Codec Analysis and Tuning for Codec Developers and Codec Users
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Computer Graphics and Multimedia Laboratory of Moscow State University:
10 years working in the area of video codec analysis and tuning using objective quality metrics and subjective comparisons.
20+ reports of video codec comparisons and analysis (H.264, MPEG-4 MPEG-2, decoders’ error recovery).
Methods and algorithms for codec comparison and analysis development, separate codec’s features and codec’s options analysis.
We could perform next task for codec developers and codec users.
Strong and Weak Points of Your Codec
Deep encoder parts analysis (ME, RC on GOP, mode decision, etc).
Weak and strong points for your encoder and complete information about encoding quality on different content types.
Encoding Quality improvement by the pre and post filtering (including technologies licensing).
Independent Codec Estimation Comparing to Other Codecs for Different Use-cases
Comparative analysis of your encoder and other encoders.
We have direct contact with many codec developers.
You will know place of your encoder between other newest well-known encoders (compare encoding quality, speed, bitrate handling, etc.).
Encoder Features Implementation Optimality Analysis
We perform encoder features effectiveness (speed/quality trade-off) analysis that could lead up to 30% increase in the speed/quality characteristics of your codec. We can help you to tune your codec and find best encoding parameters.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Contact Information
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
See all MSU Video Codecs Comparisons
MSU video codecs comparisons resources:
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Other Materials
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]