MSU UGC Subjective Express Comparison 2020
|Video group head:||Dr. Dmitriy Vatolin|
|Project head:||Dr. Dmitriy Kulikov|
Dr. Mikhail Erofeev,
- Codecs analysis and tuning for codec developers and codec users
- Leave a feedback
- Contact information
In MSU UGC Subjective Express Comparison 2020, we analyzed 8 software codecs on UGC content.
For both parts of the report, 10 sequences were selected from YouTube UGC dataset. For objective report we used SSIM, PSNR and VMAF. In the subjective part of the report we conducted an experiment on the Subjectify.us platform.
According to the results of the research, PAV1 outperforms other codecs by YUV-SSIM, while Kingsoft is the best by Y-VMAF and subjective score.
(YUV-PSNR avg. MSE)
UGC Express Report
Objective comparison of hardware-accelerated video encoders
Released on December, 19
Full version for free
PAV1, Kingsoft, D265, SVT-AV1, SVT-HEVC, SVT-VP9, x264, x265
10 FullHD video sequences from YouTube UGC
1 fps encoding
Objective and subjective comparisons
900+ interactive charts
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
- CPU: Intel Socket 1151 Core i7 8700K (Coffee Lake) (3.7Ghz, 6C12T, TDP 95W)
- Mainboard: ASRock Z370M Pro4
- RAM: Crucial CT16G4DFD824A 2x16GB (totally 32 GB) DIMM DDR4 2400MHz CL15
- OS: Windows 10 x64
For this comparison we used video sequences from YouTube UGC dataset.
Codec Analysis and Tuning for Codec Developers and Codec Users
Computer Graphics and Multimedia Laboratory of Moscow State University:
- 15+ 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.265, H.264, AV1, VP9, MPEG-4, MPEG-2, decoders' error recovery).
- Methods and algorithms for codec comparison and analysis development, separate codec's features and codec's options analysis.
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 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.
Special thanks to the following contributors of our previous comparisons
Leave a feedback
Graphics & Media Lab
|Dubna State University|
Institute for Information
Transmission Problems RAS
Subscribe to report updates
Materials about MSU Codec Comparison
See all MSU Video Codecs Comparisons
MSU video codecs comparisons resources:
- Introduction to Video Codecs Comparison
- Lossless Video Codecs 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)
- Fourteen Video Codec Comparison (HEVC) (Sept 2019)
- Cloud Encoding Servoces Comparison 2019 (Dec 2019)
- Fifteen Video Codec Comparison (HEVC) (Dec 2020)
- Sixteen Video Codec Comparison (Dec 2021)
- Seventeen Video Codecs Comparisons
- Codec Analysis for Companies:
Server size: 8069 files, 1215Mb (Server statistics)
Project sponsored by YUVsoft Corp.
Project supported by MSU Graphics & Media Lab