Eighth MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Video Codecs Comparison - Standard Version
Now it contains Appendixes with GPU encoders comparsion and Very High Speed Encoders comparison.
Different Versions of ReportThere are two different versions of H.264 Comparison 2012 report: Here is the comparison of the versions:
|Standard Version||Pro Version (Enterprise)|
|Objective Metrics (Y-SSIM)|
|Additional Metrics (Y-PSNR)||
Only few graphs
|Objective Metrics (3-SSIM, MS-SSIM)|
|ColorPlanes||Only Y from YUV||Y, U, V and overall|
|Graphs||Only some typical graphs||All the graphs for all the metrcis, codecds and presets|
|Number of figures||207||2092|
|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
|Sequence||Number of frames||Frame rate||Resolution|
|VideoConference (5 sequences)|
|Movies (10 SD sequences)|
|HDTV sequences (16 sequences)|
Objectives and Testing Tools
H.264 Codec Testing ObjectivesThe 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 videoóe.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
Overall ConclusionsOverall, 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:
- DivX H.264
- Intel Ivy Bridge QuickSync
- MainConcept CUDA
This rank is based only on the encodersí quality results. Encoding speed is not considered here.
Professional Versions of Comparison Report
H.264 Comparison Report Pro 2012 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 —odecs 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:
|Last updated: 09-September-2019|
Project updated by
Server Team and MSU Video Group
Project sponsored by YUVsoft Corp.
Project supported by MSU Graphics & Media Lab