HEVC Video Codecs Comparison 2017

Twelfth MSU Video Codecs Comparison

Take a look at this article on the new site! Follow the link
https://videoprocessing.ai/codecs/hevc-2017.html


compression.ru 		in cooperation
with 		Lomonosov MSU
Graphics & Media Lab
(Video Group)

Video group head:
Dr. Dmitriy Vatolin

Project head:
Dr. Dmitriy Kulikov

Measurements, analysis:
Dr. Mikhail Erofeev,
Stanislav Dolganov,
Sergey Zvezdakov
Dubna State University
Institute for Information
Transmission Problems RAS
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.
UPDATE 22/01/2018
High-quality encoders (inc. VP9, AV1) comparison is released
UPDATE 11/01/2018
High-speed encoders comparison is released
UPDATE 01/12/2017
4K video encoders comparison is released
Subjective video encoders comparison is released

Part 1: FullHD content, objective comparison.
Free Version		 Part 2: 4K content,
objective comparison.
Free Version		 Part 3: FullHD content, subjective comparison.
Free Version		 Part 4: High-speed encoders (GPU and software), objective comparison.
Free Version		 Part 5: High-quality encoders (inc. VP9, AV1), objective comparison.
Free Version		 Pro Version (Enterprise).
Part1, Part2, Part3, Part4 and Part5
Objective Metrics and color-planes Only integral YUV-SSIM None Only integral YUV-SSIM SSIM and PSNR, 3 color planes (Y,U,V) and intgegral YUV
Subjective comparison None YES YES YES
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:
Ripping		 1 use case:
Fast Transcoding		 1 use case:
Ripping		 4 different use cases:
Fast Transcoding, Universal, Ripping and 4K
Number of figures 33 37 5000+
Price Free $950
Purchase Download Download Download Download Download Buy
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.

Report Overview

Video Codecs that Were Tested

Codec name Use cases HEVC Hardware/GA
1 AV1
Alliance for Open Media 		Ripping (in Part 5: High-quality encoders) No
(AV1) 		No
2 Kingsoft HEVC Encoder
Kingsoft 		Fast, Universal, Ripping Yes No
3 nj264
Nanjing Yunyan 		Fast, Universal, Ripping No
(H.264) 		No
4 nj265
Nanjing Yunyan 		Fast, Universal, Ripping Yes No
5 NVIDIA NVENC SDK
NVIDIA Corporation 		Fast (in Part 4: High-speed encoders) Yes Yes
6 SIF encoder
SIF Encoder Team 		Universal, Ripping No
(SIF) 		No
7 Telecast
Telecast Technology Corporation 		Fast (in Part 4: High-speed encoders) Yes Yes
8 uAVS2
Digital Media R&D Center, Peking University, Shenzhen Graduate School 		Fast, Universal, Ripping No
(AVS2) 		No
9 VP9
The WebM Project (Google) 		Ripping (in Part 5: High-quality encoders) No
(VP9) 		No
10 x264
x264 Developer Team 		Fast, Universal, Ripping No
(H.264) 		No
11 x265
MulticoreWare, Inc. 		Fast, Universal, Ripping Yes No

Overview

Objectives and Testing Tools

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 videoпїЅe.g., compressing video for personal use.

HEVC Codec Testing Rules

The 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 пїЅ 1080@60fps
  • Universal/Broadcast VQ пїЅ 1080p@25fps
  • Ripping/Pristine VQ пїЅ 1080p@1fps and SSIM-RD curve better than x264-veryslow

Video sequences selection

In пїЅMSU Video Codecs Comparison 2016пїЅ we introduced a new technique for test dataset sequencesпїЅ 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 encodersпїЅ 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.

Video sequecnes selection

Overall Conclusions

Overall, the leaders in this comparison are Kingsoft HEVC encoder and x265! Here are some graphs from report:
Speed/Quality trade-off for Fast use-case (YUV-SSIM metric)
Average bitrate for Universal use-case (YUV-SSIM metric)
Average bitrate for all use-cases (YUV-SSIM metric)

Professional Versions of Comparison Report

HEVC Comparison Report Pro 2017 version contains:
  • Additional objective metrics (PSNR, SSIM)
  • All metrics results for all colorplanes (Y,U,V and overall)
  • Results for all the sequences, codecs and presets used in comparison
  • Much more figures
  • etc.
    •

    Acknowledgments

    The Graphics & Media Lab Video Group would like to express its gratitude to the following companies for providing the codecs and settings used in this report:
  • SIF developer team
  • AVS2 developer team
  • Nanjing Yunyan
  • Kingsoft
    • The Video Group would also like to thank these companies for their help and technical support during the tests.

    Thanks

    Special thanks to the following contributors of our previous comparisons

    Google Intel AMD NVidia
    ATI Adobe ISPhone dicas
    KDDI R&D labs Dolby Tata Elxsi Octasic
    Qualcomm Voceweb Elgato

    Codec Analysis and Tuning for Codec Developers and Codec Users

    Computer Graphics and Multimedia Laboratory of Moscow State University:

  • 12 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.264, MPEG-4 MPEG-2, decodersпїЅ error recovery).
  • Methods and algorithms for codec comparison and analysis development, separate codecпїЅs features and codecпїЅs options analysis.

    • We could perform next task for codec developers and codec users.

    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.

    Contact Information

    See all MSU Video Codecs Comparisons

    MSU video codecs comparisons resources:

    Other Materials

    Video resources:

    3D and stereo video
    Projects on 3D and stereo video processing and analysis
    MSU Video Quality Measurement tools
    Programs with different objective and subjective video quality metrics implementation     		Codecs comparisons
    Objective and subjective quality evaluation
    tests for video and image codecs
    Ext. link: x264 parameters efficiency comparison
    Public MSU video filters
    Here are available VirtualDub and AviSynth filters. For a given type of digital video filtration we typically develop a family of different algorithms and implementations. Generally there are also versions optimized for PC and hardware implementations (ASIC/FPGA/DSP). These optimized versions can be licensed to companies. Please contact us for details via video(at)graphics.cs.msu_ru.     		Filters for companies
    We are working with Intel, Samsung, RealNetworks and other companies on adapting our filters other video processing algorithms for specific video streams, applications and hardware like TV-sets, graphics cards, etc. Some of such projects are non-exclusive. Also we have internal researches. Please let us know via video(at)graphics.cs.msu_ru if you are interested in acquiring a license for such filters or making a custom R&D project on video processing, compression, computer vision.
    Video codecs projects
    Different research and development
    projects on video codecs     		Other
    Other information
    Last updated: 12-May-2022

    Server size: 8069 files, 1215Mb (Server statistics)

    Project updated by
    Server Team and MSU Video Group

    Project sponsored by YUVsoft Corp.

    Project supported by MSU Graphics & Media Lab