Hot news:

If you find a spelling error, please select an incorrect text and press Ctrl+Enter. Thank you!

Compression project >> Video Area Home

HEVC Video Codecs Comparison 2018

Thirteen MSU Video Codecs Comparison

MSU Graphics & Media Lab (Video Group)

Video group head: Dr. Dmitriy Vatolin

Project head: Dr. Dmitriy Kulikov

Measurements, analysis: Dr. Mikhail Erofeev,
Anastasia Antsiferova,
Sergey Zvezdakov,
Denis Kondranin


Welcome to 2018 HEVC video codecs comparison page!
If you want to receive notifications about our reports, please
subscribe


2018 Report Parts

Main Report
Fast, Universal and Ripping use cases measured on FullHD videos
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 YES YES
Description of video sequences YES YES
Codec info (developer, version number, website link) YES YES
Other objective metrics (in addition to YUV-SSIM) None YES
Y-VMAF, Y-SSIM, U-SSIM, V-SSIM, YUV-PSNR, Y-PSNR, U-PSNR, V-PSNR
Per-frame metrics results None
Only YUV-SSIM for 2 sequences, universal use case (14 charts)
YES
All metrics for all sequences and use cases (5000+ charts)
Relative quality analysis None YES
Download links for video sequences None YES
Encoders presets description None YES
PDF report 62 pages 119 pages
HTML report 28 interactive charts 7000+ interactive charts
Price Free $950
Download Buy
Alternative payment method
Subjective Report
(approximately the end of September 2018)
Subjective comparison conducted on Subjectify.us platform
4K Report Comparison on high-resolution video sequences
Ultra Ripping + AV1 Comparison on extremely slow (high quality) presets
Global Codecs Trends Re-comparison of previously participated codecs versions on one platform and set of video sequences

Video Codecs that are Tested in 2018

Codec name Use cases HEVC Hardware/GA
1 AV1
Alliance for Open Media
Ripping (in Ultra-ripping report) None
(AV1)
No
2 HW265
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Fast, Universal, Ripping YES No
3 Intel MFX (GA)
Intel Corporation
Fast, Universal YES Yes
4 Intel MFX (SW)
Intel Corporation
Fast, Universal, Ripping YES No
5 Kingsoft HEVC Encoder
Kingsoft
Fast, Universal, Ripping YES No
6 SIF encoder
SIF Encoder Team
Ripping None
(SIF)
No
7 sz264
Nanjing Yunyan
Fast, Universal, Ripping None
(H.264)
No
8 sz265
Nanjing Yunyan
Fast, Universal, Ripping YES No
9 Tencent Shannon Encoder
Tencent
Fast, Universal, Ripping YES No
10 UC265
Ucodec Inc.
Fast, Universal, Ripping YES No
11 VITEC HEVC GEN2+
Vitec
Fast YES Yes
12 VP9
The WebM Project (Google)
Ripping None
(VP9)
No
13 x264
x264 Developer Team
Fast, Universal, Ripping None
(H.264)
No
14 x265
MulticoreWare, Inc.
Fast, Universal, Ripping YES No

Main Report


According to just quality scores (YUV-SSIM), the best codecs (among those we evaluated for all three use cases) are the following:

Loading...

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.

Loading...
Hint: click on codec's name in the legend to add or remove it.

Here is one of the RD-charts:

Loading...
Hint: click on codec's name in the legend to add or remove it.

Download Main 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

For this platform we considered three key use cases with different speed requirements:

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.

Video sequences selection

Codec Analysis and Tuning for Codec Developers and Codec Users


Computer Graphics and Multimedia Laboratory of Moscow State University:

We could perform next tasks 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 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


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 Telecast
Huawei MainConcept Vitec Tencent

Contact Information


Subscribe to report updates


Materials about MSU Codec Comparison


Call for HEVC codecs 2018
See all MSU Video Codec Comparisons

MSU video codecs comparisons resources:


Other Materials


Video resources:

Bookmark this page:   Add to Del.icio.us Add to Del.icio.us     Digg It Digg It     reddit reddit

 
Last updated: 15-October-2018

Search (Russian):
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