HEVC Video Codecs Comparison 2018
Thirteen MSU Video Codecs Comparison
MSU Graphics & Media Lab (Video Group)
|
If you want to receive notifications about our reports, please 
|
- 2018 report parts
- High Quality (AV1) Report results (Released!)
- 4K Report results
- Subjective Report results
- Main Report (objective) results
- Video codecs that were tested in 2018
- Objectives and testing rules
- Codec analysis and tuning for codec developers and codec users
- Thanks
- Contact information
2018 Report Parts
|
High Quality (AV1) Report Comparison on FullHD video sequences with ultra slow/high quality presets Released on April, 4 |
7 codecs AV1, VP9, SIF, sz265, x265, sz264, x264 |
Free version
Enterprise version You will receive all Enterprise Reports (High Quality, 4K, Subjective and FullHD) 
Alternative payment method |
| 5 FullHD video sequences | ||
|
Special Use Case 120 seconds per frame, encoding presets determined by codecs developers |
||
|
10 objective metrics YUV-SSIM, Y-SSIM, U-SSIM, V-SSIM, YUV-PSNR, Y-PSNR, U-PSNR, V-PSNR, Y-VMAF(v0.6.1), Y-VMAF(v0.6.1 Phone) |
||
|
HTML and PDF documents 150+ interactive charts and 48 pages |
||
|
4K Report Comparison on high-resolution video sequences Released on January, 15 |
6 codecs HW265, sz265, Tencent Shannon Encoder, x265, sz264, x264 |
Free version
Enterprise version You will receive all Enterprise Reports (High Quality, 4K, Subjective and FullHD)
Alternative payment method |
| 10 4K video sequences | ||
|
Special Use Case 25 fps, encoding presets determined by codecs developers |
||
|
5 objective metrics YUV-SSIM, Y-SSIM, YUV-PSNR, Y-PSNR, Y-VMAF(v.0.6.1) |
||
|
HTML and PDF documents 535 interactive charts and 46 pages |
||
|
Subjective Report Subjective comparison conducted on Subjectify.us platform Released on November, 19 |
10 codecs Kingsoft HEVC Encoder, SIF Encoder, sz264, sz265, Tencent Shannon Encoder, UC265, VITEC HEVC GEN2+ Encoder, VP9, x264, x265 |
Free version
Enterprise version You will receive all Enterprise Reports (High Quality, 4K, Subjective and FullHD)
Alternative payment method |
| 473 unique observers 22542 valid answers |
||
|
5 video sequences Short fragments from Crowd run, Ducks Take Off, Mountain bike, Playground, Red Kayak |
||
|
Ripping Use Case At least 1 FPS |
||
|
6 metrics Subjective score and 5 objective: YUV-SSIM, Y-SSIM, YUV-PSNR, Y-PSNR, Y-VMAF(v.0.6.1) |
||
|
HTML and PDF documents 118 interactive charts and 34 pages |
|
Main Report (objective) Fast, Universal and Ripping use cases measured on FullHD videos Released on September, 4 |
Free version | Enterprise version | |
| Use cases | Universal (partially) | Fast, Universal, Ripping | |
| Per-sequence-results | 2 of 28 sequences (only Universal use case) | All 28 sequences for all use cases (in interactive charts) | |
| Metric: YUV-SSIM |
|
|
|
| Description of video sequences |
|
|
|
| Codec info (developer, version number, website link) |
|
|
|
| Other objective metrics (in addition to YUV-SSIM) |
|
Y-VMAF, Y-SSIM, U-SSIM, V-SSIM, YUV-PSNR, Y-PSNR, U-PSNR, V-PSNR |
|
| Per-frame metrics results | Only YUV-SSIM for 2 sequences, universal use case (14 charts) |
All metrics for all sequences and use cases (5000+ charts) |
|
| Relative quality analysis | |
|
|
| Download links for video sequences | |
|
|
| Encoders presets description | |
|
|
| PDF report | 62 pages | 119 pages | |
| HTML report | 28 interactive charts | 7000+ interactive charts | |
| Price | Free | $950 | |
|
You will receive all Enterprise Reports (High Quality, 4K, Subjective and FullHD)
Alternative payment method |
Video Codecs that were Tested in 2018
| Codec name | Use cases | HEVC | Hardware/GA | |
| 1 |
AV1
Alliance for Open Media | Ripping (in Ultra-ripping report) |
 (AV1) |
|
| 2 |
HW265
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. |
Fast, Universal, Ripping |
|
|
| 3 |
Intel MFX (GA)
Intel Corporation |
Fast, Universal |
|
|
| 4 |
Intel MFX (SW)
Intel Corporation |
Fast, Universal, Ripping |
|
|
| 5 |
Kingsoft HEVC Encoder
Kingsoft |
Fast, Universal, Ripping |
|
|
| 6 |
SIF encoder
SIF Encoder Team |
Ripping |
(SIF) |
|
| 7 |
sz264
Nanjing Yunyan |
Fast, Universal, Ripping |
(H.264) |
|
| 8 |
sz265
Nanjing Yunyan |
Fast, Universal, Ripping |
|
|
| 9 |
Tencent Shannon Encoder
Tencent |
Fast, Universal, Ripping |
|
|
| 10 |
UC265
Ucodec Inc. |
Fast, Universal, Ripping |
|
|
| 11 |
VITEC HEVC GEN2+
Vitec |
Fast |
|
|
| 12 |
VP9
The WebM Project (Google) |
Ripping |
(VP9) |
|
| 13 |
x264
x264 Developer Team |
Fast, Universal, Ripping |
(H.264) |
|
| 14 |
x265
MulticoreWare, Inc. |
Fast, Universal, Ripping |
|
|
High Quality (AV1) Report
The leaders of high quality comparison:
- First place: AV1
- Second place: VP9, x265 and sz265
- Third place: sz264 and x264
Below is a short summary with 3 of graphs from general report.
Rate-distortion results of the competitors at Fire sequence:
Download free HTML report
Purchase Enterprise version to see all comparison results. Enterprise version is free for all buyers of Enterprise Main, Subjective and 4K reports.
4K Report
The leaders of comparison on 4K videos:
- First place: HW265 (Huawei) and Tencent Shannon Encoder
- Second place: sz265
- Third place: x265
Below is a short summary with 3 of 535 graphs from general report.
Rate-distortion results of the competitors at House Demolition sequence:
Subjective Report
Below is a short summary with 3 of 118 graphs from general report.
According to the results of subjective comparison, the best codecs are the following:
- First place: Tencent Shannon Encoder and VITEC HEVC GEN2+ Encoder
- Second place: VP9 and x265
- Third place: Kingsoft HEVC Encoder
The winners determine from mean quality scores, but there is no absolute winner in the comparison, since different encoders take first place at different test video sequences: for example, on Crowd Run (short) three encoders show Pareto-optimal results: VITEC HEVC GEN2+ Encoder, x265 and VP9.
Tencent Shannon Encoder shows the best quality option for Red Kayak (short) sequence.
You can also download subjective comparison rules (PDF, 3.9 MB).
Main Report (objective)
According to just quality scores (YUV-SSIM), the best codecs (among those we evaluated for all three use cases) are the following:
- First place: HW265
- Second place: Tencent Shannon Encoder
- Third place: Intel MSDK HEVC (SW) and Kingsoft HEVC Encoder
We tested three encoded use cases (see the description in section Test Hardware Characteristics). The universal-encoding use case has five Pareto optimal encoders in terms of mean speed and quality: UC265, Intel MSDK HEVC (SW), Intel MSDK HEVC (GA), Tencent Shannon Encoder and HW265. Nevertheless, the differences emerge for particular sequences and use cases.
Free report contains the results for two of 28 sequences, and results of all sequences and use cases are available in enterprise version.
Here is one of the RD-charts:
Download Free Report
Objectives and Testing Rules
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.
Test Hardware Characteristics
- CPU: Intel Socket 1151 Core i7 8700K (Coffee Lake) (3.7Ghz, 6C12T, TDP 95W)
- Mainboard: ASRock Z370M Pro4
- RAM: Crucial CT16G4DFD824A 16GB DIMM DDR4 2400MHz CL15
- OS: Windows 10 x64
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
See more on Call-for-codecs 2018 page
Video Sequences Selection
We have updated video database from which we choose sample videos for encoders' comparison. In this year, we analyzed 539765 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 942 new 4K videos and 2346 new FullHD videos.
We also completed list of selected sequences with high-quality videos from media.xiph.org.
This year test data set consists of 28 sequences: 5 from the old data set, 16 new ones from Vimeo and 7 from xiph.org. 25 sequences from the old data set were excluded. The average bitrate for all sequences in the final set is 449.72 Mbps, median – 192.02 Mbps. "Hera" (90 Mbps), "Television studio" (92 Mbps) and "Foggy beach" (93 Mbps) sequences have minimal bitrates. The complete list of sequences and description of selection process appears in PDF report.
Codec Analysis and Tuning for Codec Developers and Codec Users
Computer Graphics and Multimedia Laboratory of Moscow State University:
- 14+ years working in the area of video codec analysis and tuning using objective quality metrics and subjective comparisons.
- 27+ reports of video codec comparisons and analysis (H.265, H.264, AV1, VP9, 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.
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.Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Information
 |
Subscribe to report updates
Materials about MSU Codec Comparison
Call for HEVC codecs 2019 See all MSU Video Codecs Comparisons
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)
- Twelfth Video Codec Comparison (HEVC) (Aug 2017)
- Thirteen Video Codec Comparison (HEVC) (Aug 2018) (New!)
- Codec Analysis for Companies:
Other Materials
Video resources:
Add to Del.icio.us
Digg It
reddit
| Last updated: 05-April-2019 |
|
|
Project updated by
Server Team and MSU Video Group
Project sponsored by YUVsoft Corp.
Project supported by MSU Graphics & Media Lab