Analysis of Emerging Video Codecs: Coding Tools, Compression Efficiency

Tanou, Julien Le; Blestel, Médéric

doi:10.5594/jmi.2019.2937736

Cited by 15 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, the most recent publication [21] reported that for the same bit rate, AV1 and HM show an insignificant difference in perceptual quality, while VTM performs significantly better than AV1 and HM. They also used a random-access configuration for their experiments, and their findings matched the observations of [8, 19], although the chosen test sets and the selected encoder configurations for AV1 were different.…”

Section: Problem Statementsupporting

confidence: 53%

“…Further recent publications are [8, 9, 19, 21], and they reported objective or subjective quality fully, or partially, or both, in different scenarios. The first among the recent publications [19] includes a subjective evaluation of the video coding schemes in an adaptive streaming application.…”

Section: Problem Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Their outcome indicated that AV1 performs slightly better than HEVC objectively, while the subjective quality is similar to HEVC's delivered quality. The second [8] has a similar outcome to that of [19], although they used JEM as representative of VVC. In that study, the authors reported an objective compression efficiency improvement of about 10% for AV1 relative to HM, but their subjective evaluation showed that AV1 and HM performed very similarly.…”

Section: Problem Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Compression efficiency analysis of AV1, VVC, and HEVC for random access applications

Nguyễn¹,

Marpe²

2021

SIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AOM Video 1 (AV1) and Versatile Video Coding (VVC) are the outcome of two recent independent video coding technology developments. Although VVC is the successor of High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) in the lineage of international video coding standards jointly developed by ITU-T and ISO/IEC within an open and public standardization process, AV1 is a video coding scheme that was developed by the industry consortium Alliance for Open Media (AOM) and that has its technological roots in Google's proprietary VP9 codec. This paper presents a compression efficiency evaluation for the AV1, VVC, and HEVC video coding schemes in a typical video compression application requiring random access. The latter is an important property, without which essential functionalities in digital video broadcasting or streaming could not be provided. For the evaluation, we employed a controlled experimental environment that basically follows the guidelines specified in the Common Test Conditions of the Joint Video Experts Team. As representatives of the corresponding video coding schemes, we selected their freely available reference software implementations. Depending on the application-specific frequency of random access points, the experimental results show averaged bit-rate savings of about 10–15% for AV1 and 36–37% for the VVC reference encoder implementation (VTM), both relative to the HEVC reference encoder implementation (HM) and by using a test set of video sequences with different characteristics regarding content and resolution. A direct comparison between VTM and AV1 reveals averaged bit-rate savings of about 25–29% for VTM, while the averaged encoding and decoding run times of VTM relative to those of AV1 are around 300% and 270%, respectively.

show abstract

Section: Problem Statementsupporting

confidence: 53%

Section: Problem Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Problem Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Compression efficiency analysis of AV1, VVC, and HEVC for random access applications

Nguyễn¹,

Marpe²

2021

SIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The experimental setup used in these series of experiments is depicted in Table 3. Encoding parameters were selected to allow for a fair comparison between the involved video codecs and are aligned with the relative literature [36]- [40]. Selected quantization parameters values for constant quality encoding, typical in video compression performance comparison studies, were {27, 35, 46, 55} for AV1, VP9 and {22, 27, 32, 37} for VVC, HM, and x265, thus considering a wide range of representative bandwidths.…”

Section: B Video Codecs Performance Evaluation Setupmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Battle of the Video Codecs in the Healthcare Domain - A Comparative Performance Evaluation Study Leveraging VVC and AV1

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Video compression is the core technology in mobile (mHealth) and electronic (eHealth) health video streaming applications. With global video traffic projected to reach 82% of all Internet traffic by 2022, there is a strong need to develop efficient compression algorithms to accommodate expected future growth. For the first time in decades, and especially since ISO/IEC MPEG and ITU-T VCEG expert groups strategically joined forces to develop the highly successful H.264/AVC standard, we have two distinct initiatives competing for the best performing video codec. On the one hand, we have the Alliance for Open Media (AOM) that support a new, royalty free video codec generation, termed AV1, based on VP8 and VP9 efforts. On the other hand, the Joint Video Exploration Team (JVET) has been developing the Versatile Video Codec (VVC) as the successor of the High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) standard. At the same time, the breadth of applications utilizing video codecs, involving significant content variability and moving across the video resolution ladder, to satisfy different constraints, have resulted in mixed literature results, with respect to the best performing codec. In this paper, we compare the performance of emerging VVC and AV1 codecs, along with popular HEVC implementations, namely the HEVC Test Model (HM) and x265, as well as earlier, VP9 codec, and investigate their suitability for medical applications. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first performance comparison of emerging VVC and AV1 video codecs for use in the healthcare domain. Experimental evaluation based on three datasets (ultrasound, emergency scenery, and general-purpose videos) demonstrate that VVC outperforms all rival codecs while AV1 achieves better compression efficiency than HEVC in all cases but low-resolution (560 × 448@40Hz) ultrasound videos of the common carotid artery. Furthermore, the use of video despeckling prior to ultrasound video compression can provide significant bitrate savings.INDEX TERMS Video codecs, video signal processing, video coding, video compression, video quality, video despeckling, video streaming, adaptive video streaming, versatile video coding, AV1, HEVC, mHealth, eHealth. I. INTRODUCTIONVideo codecs are currently experiencing unparalleled levels of growth driven by unprecedented video traffic demands that are projected to reach 82% of all Internet traffic by The associate editor coordinating the review of this manuscript and approving it for publication was Xinfeng Zhang.

show abstract

“…Of course, the resulting data can be extended to more sequences at the same resolution. For similar comparative analysis see [9,13,14]. By using such QP values the corresponding PSNR YUV values were calculated according to the following expression…”

Section: Experimental Data Set For the Codec Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodology for Modeling and Comparing Video Codecs: HEVC, EVC, and VVC

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Online videos are the major source of internet traffic, and are about to become the largest majority. Increasing effort is aimed to developing more efficient video codecs. In order to compare existing and novel video codecs, this paper presents a simple but effective methodology to model their performance in terms of Rate Distortion (RD). A linear RD model in the dB variables, Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio (PSNR) and Bitrate (BR), easily allows us to estimate the difference in PSNR or BR between two sets of encoding conditions. Six sequences from the MPEG test set with the same resolution, encoded at different BR and different Quantization Parameters, were used to create the data set to estimate each RD model. Three codecs (HEVC, EVC, and VVC) were compared with this methodology, after estimating their models. Fitting properties of each model and a performance comparison between the models are finally shown and discussed.

show abstract

Analysis of Emerging Video Codecs: Coding Tools, Compression Efficiency

Cited by 15 publications

References 9 publications

Compression efficiency analysis of AV1, VVC, and HEVC for random access applications

Compression efficiency analysis of AV1, VVC, and HEVC for random access applications

The Battle of the Video Codecs in the Healthcare Domain - A Comparative Performance Evaluation Study Leveraging VVC and AV1

Methodology for Modeling and Comparing Video Codecs: HEVC, EVC, and VVC

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About