Advertisement

AVC, HEVC, VP9, AVS2 or AV1? — A Comparative Study of State-of-the-Art Video Encoders on 4K Videos

  • Zhuoran LiEmail author
  • Zhengfang DuanmuEmail author
  • Wentao LiuEmail author
  • Zhou WangEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11662)

Abstract

4K, ultra high-definition (UHD), and higher resolution video contents have become increasingly popular recently. The largely increased data rate casts great challenges to video compression and communication technologies. Emerging video coding methods are claimed to achieve superior performance for high-resolution video content, but thorough and independent validations are lacking. In this study, we carry out an independent and so far the most comprehensive subjective testing and performance evaluation on videos of diverse resolutions, bit rates and content variations, and compressed by popular and emerging video coding methods including H.264/AVC, H.265/HEVC, VP9, AVS2 and AV1. Our statistical analysis derived from a total of more than 36,000 raw subjective ratings on 1,200 test videos suggests that significant improvement in terms of rate-quality performance against the AVC encoder has been achieved by state-of-the-art encoders, and such improvement is increasingly manifest with the increase of resolution. Furthermore, we evaluate state-of-the-art objective video quality assessment models, and our results show that the SSIMplus measure performs the best in predicting 4K subjective video quality. The database will be made available online to the public to facilitate future video encoding and video quality research.

Keywords

Video compression Quality-of-experience Subjective quality assessment Objective quality assessment 4K video Ultra-high-definition (UHD) Video coding standard 

Supplementary material

481340_1_En_14_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (30 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 30 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Alliance for Open Media: AV1 codec source code repository, June 2018. https://aomedia.googlesource.com/aom
  2. 2.
    Alliance for Open Media: The alliance for open media kickstarts video innovation era with “AV1” release, March 2018. https://aomedia.org/the-alliance-for-open-media-kickstarts-video-innovation-era-with-av1-release/
  3. 3.
    Bae, S.H., Kim, J., Kim, M., Cho, S., Choi, J.S.: Assessments of subjective video quality on HEVC-encoded 4K-UHD video for beyond-HDTV broadcasting services. IEEE Trans. Broadcast. 59(2), 209–222 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bjontegaard, G.: Calculation of average PSNR differences between RD-curves. In: ITU-T Q. 6/SG16, 33th VCEG Meeting (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bjontegaard, G.: Improvements of the BD-PSNR model, VCEG-AI11. In: ITU-T Q. 6/SG16, 34th VCEG Meeting (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheon, M., Lee, J.S.: Subjective and objective quality assessment of compressed 4K UHD videos for immersive experience. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. 28(7), 1467–1480 (2018)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deshpande, S.: Subjective and objective visual quality evaluation of 4K video using AVC and HEVC compression. In: SID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers, vol. 43, pp. 481–484 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fröhlich, P., Egger, S., Schatz, R., Mühlegger, M., Masuch, K., Gardlo, B.: QoE in 10 seconds: are short video clip lengths sufficient for quality of experience assessment? In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience, pp. 242–247 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Hanhart, P., Rerabek, M., De Simone, F., Ebrahimi, T.: Subjective quality evaluation of the upcoming HEVC video compression standard. In: Applications of Digital Image Processing XXXV, vol. 8499, pp. 1–13 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ITU-R BT.500: Recommendation: methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures, January 2012Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ITU-R BT.910: Recommendation: subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications, April 2008Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li, Z., Aaron, A., Katsavounidis, I., Moorthy, A., Manohara, M.: Toward a practical perceptual video quality metric, June 2016. https://medium.com/netflix-techblog/toward-a-practical-perceptual-video-quality-metric-653f208b9652
  14. 14.
    Li, Z., Vigier, T., Callet, P.L.: A VMAF model for 4K, March 2018. ftp://vqeg.its.bldrdoc.gov/Documents/VQEG\(\_\)Madrid\(\_\)Mar18/Meeting\(\_\)Files/VQEG\(\_\)SAM\(\_\)2018\(\_\)025\(\_\)VMAF\(\_\)4K.pdfGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu, Y.: AV1 beats x264 and libvpx-vp9 in practical use case, April 2018. https://code.fb.com/video-engineering/av1-beats-x264-and-libvpx-vp9-in-practical-use-case/
  16. 16.
    Ma, K., et al.: Group MAD competition-a new methodology to compare objective image quality models. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1664–1673 (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    MultiCoreWare Inc.: x265, July 2018. https://bitbucket.org/multicoreware/x265
  19. 19.
    Pinson, M.H., Wolf, S.: A new standardized method for objectively measuring video quality. IEEE Trans. Broadcast. 50(3), 312–322 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    PKU-VCL: AVS2 technology (2018). http://www.avs.org.cn/avs2/technology.asp
  21. 21.
    PKU-VCL: AVS2 codec source code repository, January 2018. https://github.com/pkuvcl/xavs2
  22. 22.
    Rehman, A., Zeng, K., Wang, Z.: Display device-adapted video quality-of-experience assessment. In: Human Vision and Electronic Imaging XX, vol. 9394, pp. 1–11 (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Řeřábek, M., Ebrahimi, T.: Comparison of compression efficiency between HEVC/H.265 and VP9 based on subjective assessments. In: Applications of Digital Image Processing Xxxvii, vol. 9217, pp. 1–13 (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tan, T., Mrak, M., Baroncini, V., Ramzan, N.: Report on HEVC compression performance verification testing. Joint Collab. Team Video Coding (JCT-VC) (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    VideoLAN: x264, July 2018. http://git.videolan.org/git/x264
  26. 26.
    Wang, Z., Bovik, A.C.: Mean squared error: love it or leave it? A new look at signal fidelity measures. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 26(1), 98–117 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhu, Y., Song, L., Xie, R., Zhang, W.: SJTU 4K video subjective quality dataset for content adaptive bit rate estimation without encoding. In: IEEE International Symposium on Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting, pp. 1–4 (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations