Hot news:

If you find a spelling error, please select an incorrect text and press Ctrl+Enter. Thank you!

Compression project >> Video Area Home

Call for third MSU HEVC codecs comparison - 2018

Thirteenth modern video codec comparison
For real researchers, developers and professional users in field of high-end video compression

MSU Graphics & Media Lab (Video Group)

Important Dates


March, 5 Deadline for applications
Participant has to send us name of codec (with name of encoding standard if not HEVC), name of company and number of presets that he wants to use.

March, 31 Deadline for receipt of a codec with required presets
April, 25 Deadline for settling technical problems with codec’s functioning
August, 7 Draft version of report that will be sent to all participants
August, 14 Deadline for reception of comments to the draft
August, 25 Comparison report release


Task of the Comparison



To perform comparative unbiased analysis of the current software and hardware (GPU-based) implementations of HEVC/H.265 video coding standard and compare it to the best implementations of other video coding standards (H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, VP9, VP8 and MPEG-4) using objective metrics.

Typical Scope of Test


Summary report topics: Comparison methodology main points:

Software and methodology for encoder analysis


MSU team has up to 21 years of experience in video codec analysis, testing, optimization. Here are some facts about the Previous MSU Video Codecs Comparisons:
  • There were more than 400.000 downloads of previous H.264 and HEVC video codec comparisons results
  • Many codec's bugs were found and reported to developers
  • More than 25 private reports for codec developers (describe weak and strong points for codec) after public report versions
  • Here you can see Selected comments for MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 video codecs comparison
  • In addition, you can check out some useful links about previous video codec comparisons:
  • MSU HEVC/H.265 Video Codec Comparison - 2017
  • Eighth Annual MSU MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Video Codec Comparison
  • See all our comparisons

  • Comparison Rules


    This year encoder developers send us a bundle of same presets (with different speed/quality characteristics) for all use-cases. Please pay attention that we will use multi-core CPU for encoding, so you can use multi-threading.
  • Decoding is performed with reference decoder.
  • We do not limit GOP size and intra-period.
  • Before results' publishing each developer will receive the results of its codec and competitive free codecs. Developers of each codec can write a comment (one paragraph) about the comparison results. That comment will be included in the report.
  • We are willing to completely or partially delete information about some codec in the public version of comparison report only in exceptional cases (e.g. critical errors in a codec).
  • The participation is free with results publishing
  • You can join comparison for free if you agree that your codec's results will be published.
  • If your company wants to receive results of your codec testing with possibility to exclude it results from publication and information disclosure, you should pay for measurements and report preparing before comparison begins.
  • Enterprise version of comparison report is available for direct participants for free
  • All participants will receive following deliverables to verify the results for free:
  • video sequences used in comparison
  • binaries of all free encoders used in comparison to verify the results
  • all raw video quality metric and encoding speed data for its encoder and for all of free encoders used in comparison

  • Test Hardware Characteristics


    This comparison we plan to use different hardware-platforms (desktop and server).
    Specific characteristics of the equipment will be announced later.

    Codec Requirements


  • Presets for different types of video sequences should be provided by the developers
  • Codec should allow to set arbitrary bitrate of resulting stream
  • Preferable codec interface - console codec version (with batch processing support — bitrate and file names must be possible to assign from the command line).
  • Encoder should be compatible with reference decoder

  • Encoding speed requirements


    Encoder speed requirements (for different presets) will be announced later.

    Developers Deliverables


    Following deliverables should be provided by each developer:
  • Codec files (CLI executable file is preferable).
  • Short description of codec parameters.
  • Codec's presets.

  • Thanks


    Special thanks to the following contributors of our previous comparisons

    Google Intel AMD NVidia
    ATI Adobe ISPhone dicas
    KDDI R&D labs Dolby Tata Elxsi Octasic
    Qualcomm Voceweb Elgato

    Contact Information


    Call for HEVC codecs 2018
    See all MSU Video Codec Comparisons

    MSU video codecs comparisons resources:


    Other Materials


    Video resources:

    Bookmark this page:   Add to Del.icio.us Add to Del.icio.us     Digg It Digg It     reddit reddit

     
    Last updated: 13-February-2018

    Search (Russian):
    Server size: 8069 files, 1215Mb (Server statistics)

    Project updated by
    Server Team and MSU Video Group


    Project sponsored by YUVsoft Corp.

    Project supported by MSU Graphics & Media Lab