Compression Performance Analysis in HEVC

  • Ali Tabatabai
  • Teruhiko Suzuki
  • Philippe Hanhart
  • Pavel Korshunov
  • Touradj Ebrahimi
  • Michael Horowitz
  • Faouzi Kossentini
  • Hassene Tmar
Part of the Integrated Circuits and Systems book series (ICIR)


In this chapter, performance analysis of HEVC (Recommendation ITU-T H.265 | ISO/IEC 23008-2) in comparison with AVC (Recommendation ITU-T H.264 | ISO/IEC 14996-10) in terms of both objective as well as subjective quality assessments are given. Because of the increased flexibility offered by HEVC, methods to select the best coding parameters, in a rate-distortion sense, are also described. Special care has been taken to apply a unified approach when conducting subjective and objective quality evaluation between HEVC and AVC. Our overall evaluation study results show the coding efficiency of HEVC to be about twice higher than that of AVC.



Regarding Sect. 9.4, the authors wish to thank 4EVER consortium, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Kamerawerk GmbH and Technicolor for providing the original video test sequences used for visual testing. Our special thanks and gratitude go also to T. K. Tan, of NTT Docomo, for his help and support in the preparation of coded video test sequences used for subjective performance evaluations in Sect. 9.4. Subjective evaluations performed at EPFL were possible thanks to the Swiss National Foundation for Scientific Research (FN 200021-143696-1), EC funded Network of Excellence VideoSense, and COST Action IC1003 European Network on Quality of Experience in Multimedia Systems and Services QUALINET. Efforts by Hiromi Nemoto for set up and conducting subjective evaluations at EPFL are also acknowledged.


  1. 1.
    Bjntegaard G (2001) Calculation of average PSNR differences between RD-curves, ITU-T SG16 Q6 Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG), Document VCEG-M33, Austin, Apr. 2001Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bossen F (2011) Excel template for BD-rate calculation based on Piece-wise Cubic Interpolation, JCT-VC ReflectorGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bossen F (2013) Common test conditions and software reference configurations, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC), Document JCTVC-L1110, Geneva, Jan. 2014Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cover TM, Thomas JA (1991) Elements of information theory, Chapter 13. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Flierl M, Girod B (2003) Generalized B pictures and the draft H.264/AVC video compression standard. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 13(7):587--597Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H.264/MPEG-4 AVC Reference Software, Joint Model 18.5:
  7. 7.
    Hanhart P, Ebrahimi T (2014) Calculation of average coding efficiency based on subjective quality scores. J Visual Commun Image Represent 25(3):555--564Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hanhart P, Rerabek M, De Simone F, Ebrahimi T (2012) Subjective quality evaluation of the upcoming HEVC video compression standard. In: Proc. SPIE. 8499, Applications of Digital Image Processing XXXV, no. 84990V, Oct. 2012Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hanhart P, Rerabek M, Korshunov P, Ebrahimi T (2013) Subjective evaluation of HEVC intra coding for still image compression. In: Seventh international workshop on Video Processing and Quality Metrics for Consumer Electronics (VPQM), Scottsdale, ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horowitz M, Kossentini F, Mahdi N, Xu S, Guermazi H, Tmar H, Li B, Sullivan GJ, Xu J (2012) Informal subjective quality comparison of video compression performance of the HEVC and H.264/MPEG-4 AVC standards for low-delay applications. In: Proc. SPIE. 8499, Applications of Digital Image Processing XXXV, no. 84990W, Oct. 2012Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ITU-R Rec. BT.500-11 (2006) Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television picturesGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    ITU-T Rec. P.910 (2008) Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applicationsGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    ITU-R BT.2022 (2012) General viewing conditions for subjective assessment of quality of SDTV and HDTV television pictures on flat panel displaysGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    ITU-R BT.500-13 (2012) Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television picturesGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McCann K, Bross B, Han WJ, Kim IK, Sugimoto K, Sullivan GJ (2013), High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Test Model 13 (HM 13) Encoder Description, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC), Document JCTVC-O1002, Geneva, Oct. 2013Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11. HM12.1 Reference Software: and
  17. 17.
    Karczewicz M, Ye Y, Chong I (2008) Rate distortion optimized quantization, ITU-T SG16 Q6 Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG), Document VCEG-AH21, Antalya, Jan. 2008Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nguyen T, Marpe D (2012) Performance analysis of HEVC based Intra coding for still image compression. In: PCS2012, May 2012, pp 233--236Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ohm J-R, Sullivan GJ, Schwarz H, Tan TK, Wiegand T (2012) Comparison of the coding efficiency of video coding standards --including High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC). IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 22(12):1669--1684Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ortega A, Ramchandran K (1999) Rate-distortion methods for image and video compression: an overview. IEEE Signal Process J 23--50Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schwarz H, Marpe D, Wiegand T (2005) Hierarchical B pictures, Joint Video Team (JVT), Document JVT-P014, Poznan, July 2005Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sullivan GJ, Wiegand T (1999) Rate-distortion optimization for video compression. IEEE Signal Process J 74 -90Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    VideoLANx264 SW library (2013) Version core l35 r2345, 30 July 2013

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ali Tabatabai
    • 1
  • Teruhiko Suzuki
    • 1
  • Philippe Hanhart
    • 2
  • Pavel Korshunov
    • 2
  • Touradj Ebrahimi
    • 2
  • Michael Horowitz
    • 3
  • Faouzi Kossentini
    • 3
  • Hassene Tmar
    • 3
  1. 1.Sony CorporationTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)LausanneSwitzerland
  3. 3.eBrisk Video, Inc.VancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations