HEVC Video Codecs Comparison 2017
(Twelfth MSU Video Codecs Comparison)
We are sorry for the mistake with x265 codec version in our report.
It happened due to partly change of the version from previous 2016 report. Actually, the results are represented for the newest version that was available during our measurements (2.3+23-97435a0870befe35).
Now the version is corrected in all parts of the report.
|Part 1: FullHD content, objective comparison.
|Part 2: 4K content,
|Part 3: FullHD content, subjective comparison.
|Part 4: High-speed encoders (GPU and software), objective comparison.
|Part 5: High-quality encoders (inc. VP9, AV1), objective comparison.
|Pro Version (Enterprise).
Part1, Part2, Part3, Part4 and Part5
|Objective Metrics and color-planes||Only integral YUV-SSIM||Only integral YUV-SSIM||SSIM and PSNR, 3 color planes (Y,U,V) and intgegral YUV|
|Different types of analysis
||Encoding quality, encoding speed, bitrate handling, speed/quality analysis etc. (some graphs)||Encoding quality and speed/quality analysis for subjective comparison||Encoding quality, encoding speed, bitrate handling, speed/quality analysis etc. (some graphs)||Encoding quality, encoding speed, bitrate handling, speed/quality analysis, subjective comparison etc.|
|Graphs||Some graphs||All the graphs for all the sequences, codecs and presets|
|Test video sequences||31 HD video (only description)||10 4K video (only description)||4 video (only description)||31 HD video (only description)||31 HD video + 10 4K video (available for download)|
|Tested uses-cases||3 different use cases:
Fast Transcoding, Universal and Ripping (some graphs)
|1 use case:
4K preset(some graphs)
|1 use case:
|1 use case:
|1 use case:
|4 different use cases:
Fast Transcoding, Universal, Ripping and 4K
|Number of figures||33||37||5000+|
|Hint: You can remove "Extended download" service while purchasing to save money.|
|We can help you to analyze your codec|
Pro version of comparison will be available immediately after report purchasing.
Video Codecs that Were Tested
Objectives and Testing Tools
HEVC Codec Testing ObjectivesThe 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.
HEVC Codec Testing RoolsThe comparison was performed on Corei7 6700K (Skylake) @4Ghz, RAM 8GB, Windows8.1. For this platform we considered three key use cases with different speed requirements.
- Fast/High Density – 1080@60fps
- Universal/Broadcast VQ – 1080p@25fps
- Ripping/Pristine VQ – 1080p@1fps and SSIM-RD curve better than x264-veryslow
Video sequences selection
In “MSU Video Codecs Comparison 2016” we introduced a new technique for test dataset sequences’ selection. This technique was designed to create dataset containing representative set of sequences that encoders are facing in everyday life. In this report we use the same methodology for video sequences selection, but we have dramatically updated video database from which we sample videos for encoders’ comparison. We analyzed over 512,000 videos hosted at Vimeo looking for 4K and FullHD videos with high bitrates (50 Mbps was selected as a lower bitrate boundary). This enabled us to find and download, 662 new 4K videos and 1993 new FullHD videos.
Overall ConclusionsOverall, the leaders in this comparison are Kingsoft HEVC encoder and x265! Here are some graphs from report:
Professional Versions of Comparison Report
HEVC Comparison Report Pro 2017 version contains:
Codec Analysis and Tuning for Codec Developers and Codec Users
Computer Graphics and Multimedia Laboratory of Moscow State University:We could perform next task for codec developers and codec users.
Strong and Weak Points of Your Codec
Independent Codec Estimation Comparing to Other Codecs for Different Use-cases
Encoder Features Implementation Optimality AnalysisWe 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.
MSU video codecs comparisons resources:
- Introduction to Video Codecs Comparison
- Lossless Video Ñodecs Comparison 2004 (October 2004)
- MPEG-4 SP/ASP Video Codecs Comparison (March 2005)
- JPEG 2000 Image Codecs Comparison (September 2005)
- First Annual MPEG-4 AVC/ H.264 Video Codecs Comparison (January 2005)
- Second Annual MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Video Codec Comparison (December 2005)
- Subjective Comparison of Modern Video Codecs (February 2006)
- MPEG-2 Video Decoders Comparison (May 2006)
- WMP and JPEG2000 Comparison (October 2006)
- Third Annual MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Comparison (December 2006) (All versions for free!)
- Lossless Video Codecs Comparison 2007 (March 2007)
- Fourth Annual MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Comparison (December 2007) (All versions for free!)
- Options Analysis of MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Codec x264 (December 2008)
- Fifth MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Comparison (May 2009) (All versions for free!)
- Sixth MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Comparison (May 2010)
- Seventh MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Comparison (May 2011)
- Eighth MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Comparison (May 2012)
- Ninth MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Comparison (Dec 2013)
- Tenth Video Codec Comparison (HEVC) (Oct 2015)
- Eleventh Video Codec Comparison (HEVC) (Aug 2016)
- Eleventh Video Codec Comparison (HEVC) (Aug 2017) (New!)
- Codec Analysis for Companies:
|Last updated: 08-March-2018|
Project updated by
Server Team and MSU Video Group
Project sponsored by YUVsoft Corp.
Project supported by MSU Graphics & Media Lab