RUSSIAN VERSION HERE!

First Annual MSU H.264/MPEG-4 AVC
Video Codecs Comparison

For professional users and codec authors

MSU Graphics & Media Lab (Video Group)

Take a look at this article on the new site! Follow the link
https://videoprocessing.ai/codecs/mpeg4-avc-h264-2004.html

See NEW VERSION on Fourth Annual H.264/AVC comparison page!

Also see Selected Comments for First Annual MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Video Codecs Comparison!

Project head: Dr. Dmitriy Vatolin
Testing, charts, analysis: Dmitriy Kulikov, Alexander Parshin
Translating: Daria Kalinkina
Verification: Stanislav Soldatov

About comparison

We would like to thank Moonlight Cordless LTD, Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits IIS and Ateme for kindly providing us their codecs for this test.

Tested codecs:
  • Mpegable AVC Codec
  • Moonlight H.264 Video Codec
  • MainConcept H.264 Codec
  • Fraunhofer IIS Codec
  • Ateme MPEG-4 AVC / H.264 Codec
  • Videosoft H.264 Codec
  • DivX Pro 5.1.1 Codec (NOT 264! Used for comparison with H.264 codecs as well tuned codec from previous generation MPEG-4 ASP)
MSU H.264/MPEG-4 AVC Codecs Comparison (3.69Mb, PDF)

Current plans:
  • Codec speed comparison.
  • Codec compatibility comparison.
  • Adding more H.264 codecs to the comparison.
See also Old codec cpmparison (May 2003) and Lossless codecs comparison (Jan 2005)

Main goals

The main idea is to compare the results provided by the new codecs when they are used by an ordinary user for home video compression. As a rule, such users prefer simple and popular programs to play DVD movies or digitize signal from tuner. Also they rarely change default codec's settings. We understand that it is very hard to create codecs that would work well on different sequences using the same settings, but this situation is rather common.

Taking the peculiarities of H.264 standard into consideration (such as long time of coding when all possibilities are used) we are going to use 2 presets: "tuned" and "fast". First one is used to get maximum quality, second one is used to ensure fast processing. These presets will be provided by the codecs developers. Both time and quality will be measured. This will allow codecs to show their possibilities in terms of quality and us to compare speed in a more correct way.

Main parts of the comparison:

  1. Comparison in Y-PSNR, U-PSNR and V-PSNR metrics.
  2. Per frame comparison.
  3. Bit rate handling (does your movie fit on the CD?).
  4. Visual comparison.
  5. Informal codecs comparison.

Comparison with PSNR metric

PSNR - is a metric used to compare 2 pictures: the more per pixel difference between the pictures is the less is PSNR value. We use the average value of the per frame PSNR metric to compare two sequences. So the higher is the codec's line on the graph the better is the quality of compression performed by this codec.

Y-PSNR is the difference in brightness component, U-PSNR and V-PSNR are the differences in hue components.


On this picture V-PSNR values are shown. The higher the line is the better is the quality.

Visual codec comparison

In most cases the PSNR value is in accordance with the compression quality. But sometimes this metric does not reflect presence of some important visual artefacts. For example, we can't estimate the quality of the blocking artefacts compensation performed by some codec using only PSNR metric. Also in some cases it is difficult to say whether 2 dB difference is significant or not.

That is why we use visual comparison of some frames in addition to the PSNR images. This won`t help us to understand the whole situation, but will allow to demonstrate some interesting features of the codec (e.g. block artifacts compensation).

Ateme
Ateme H.264 		Divx 3.1
Divx 5.1.1
These pictures present the same frame compressed by two different codecs with the same bitrate. One can see that Ateme H.264 codec provides a better compensation of the blocking artifacts.

Content of HTML version

  • Introduction
  • Thanks
  • Overview
  • Goal and testing rules
  • Sequences
  • Codecs
  • PSNR/Bitrate diagrams
  • Y-PSNR/Bitrate diagrams
  • Delta-Y-PSNR/Bitrate diagrams
  • UV-PSNR/Bitrate diagrams
  • Additional testing
  • Average brightness shift diagrams
  • Bitrate handling diagrams
  • Per frame sequences comparison
  • Visual comparison of H.264 and DivX codecs
  • Final part
  • Informal codecs comparison
  • Common conclusion

    • Download


    If you are interested in your codecs' testing or tuning, please write to us at

    E-mail: 

    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