Rate-Distortion and Complexity Comparison of HEVC and VVC Video Encoders

Siqueira, Ícaro; Corrêa, Guilherme; Grellert, Mateus

doi:10.1109/lascas45839.2020.9069036

Cited by 38 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Table 1 highlights the key differences between the existing comparisons and ours. Related works can be classified into three categories: 1) RD comparisons [19], [20]; 2) complexity comparisons [21], [22]; and 3) RDC comparisons [23]- [26].…”

Section: Prior Comparisons Between Vvc and Hevcmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The codecs were benchmarked with the SIMD optimizations that were enabled in the default configurations. This approach favors VTM over HM because SIMDoptimized functions account for a larger relative share in VTM, e.g., enabling them in VTM5.0 decreases the encoding time by a third [23]. Nevertheless, our approach follows that of JVET [26].…”

Section: Complexity Profiling Setupmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative Rate-Distortion-Complexity Analysis of VVC and HEVC Video Codecs

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Versatile Video Coding (VVC/H.266) is the next-generation international video coding standard and a successor to the widespread High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC/H.265). This paper analyzes the rate-distortion-complexity characteristics of the VVC reference software (VTM10.0) by using HEVC reference software (HM16.22) as an anchor. In this independent study, the rate-distortion performance of VTM was benchmarked against HM with the objective PSNR, SSIM, and VMAF quality metrics and the associated encoder and decoder complexities were profiled at function level using Intel VTune Profiler on Intel Xeon E5-2699 v4 22-core processors. For a fair comparison, all our experiments were conducted under the VTM common test conditions (CTC) that define 10-bit configurations of the VTM codec for the addressed All Intra (AI), Random Access (RA), and Low Delay B (LB) conditions. The VTM CTC test set was also extended with complementary 4K UHD sequences to elaborate RD characteristics with higher resolutions. According to our evaluations, VTM improves the average coding efficiency over HM, depending on quality metric, by 23.0-23.9% under the AI condition, 33.1-36.6% under the RA condition, and 26.7-29.5% under the LB condition. However, the coding gain of VTM comes with 34.0×, 8.8×, and 7.5× encoding complexity over that of HM under the AI, RA, and LB conditions, respectively. The corresponding overhead of the VTM decoder stays steady at 1.8× across all conditions. This study also pinpoints the most complex parts of the VTM codec and discusses practical implementation aspects of prospective real-time VVC encoders and decoders.INDEX TERMS Common test conditions (CTC), HEVC test model (HM), High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC), objective quality analysis, performance profiling, rate-distortion-complexity (RDC), UVG dataset, Versatile Video Coding (VVC), video codec, VVC test model (VTM). I. INTRODUCTIONUR society is surrounded by a myriad of media applications where digital video is of the essence. According to Cisco, the global IP video traffic will increase fourfold from 2017 and account for 82% of all IP traffic by 2022 [1]. Moreover, Comcast estimates that the prevailing COVID-19 crisis has increased Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and videoconferencing by 210-285% and other video consumption by 20-40% over that of the prepandemic period [2]. This snowballing growth is mainly driven by the omnipresent connectivity and proliferation of advanced multimedia solutions that support emerging bandwidth-greedy formats like 4K/8K Ultra High Definition (UHD) or 360-degree omnidirectional videos.

show abstract

Section: Prior Comparisons Between Vvc and Hevcmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Complexity Profiling Setupmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Rate-Distortion-Complexity Analysis of VVC and HEVC Video Codecs

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An additional 20% to 30% bit rate load is required in comparison with the results shown in Tab. 3 [52], [53].…”

Section: Results Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using modern video coding methods, such as the VVC, the values shown in the Tab. 3 [52], [53] and the 2-layer LDM configuration number 2, it is possible to transmit a High Definition (HD) content in the UL (SN R UL = 15.6 dB) and a 2160p60 HDR content in the LL (SN R LL = 26.3 dB).…”

Section: Results Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation of a 3-layer LDM Broadcast System Backward-compatible with ISDB-TB

Rabaca¹,

Jerji²,

Akamine³

2021

RADIOENGINEERING

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an implementation of a 3layer transmitter and receiver using Layer Division Multiplexing (LDM), in Software Defined Radio (SDR). The main idea of this work is to show another point of view of the traditional LDM technique that uses two layers. This proposal uses an attenuated intermediate layer, called Middle Layer (ML), between the highest power layer, called Upper Layer (UL), and the most attenuated layer, called Lower Layer (LL). The UL is fully compatible with the Integrated Services Digital Broadcasting Terrestrial -Version B (ISDB-T B ). The ML, with greater robustness, and LL, with higher capacity, use powerful channel coders, a custom frame size and an adapted bit interleaver. With the use of this modified LDM, it is possible to develop a system with different robustness levels between layers and with lower layers that complement each other, to achieve bit rates that allow for the deployment of High Definition Television (HDTV), in the UL, and Ultra High Definition Television (UHDTV), in the ML and LL. In addition, a system was also implemented with three layers, but with the ML with higher capacity and the LL with greater robustness. The performance of the 3-layer system was compared with the 2-layer LDM technique and there was an improvement in the system modularity, without a decrease in the bit rate.

show abstract

“…In [2], a preliminary report based on the former JVET reference encoder shows that the high coding efficiency of VVC comes at the cost of a significant increase in computing requirements. More recently, the authors presented in [3] a comparison between VVC and HEVC in terms of coding efficiency and computational cost and showed that VVC allows for bitrate savings of 44% in comparison to HEVC considering the same image quality, at the cost of a complexity increase of up to 16 times. Although the analysis in [3] was presented in terms of total running time in comparison to HEVC, measuring the specific computational cost related to each coding tool and feature is also very important to help the development and design of efficient fast implementations of VVC codecs, allowing the standard adoption in forthcoming years.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complexity and Coding Efficiency Assessment of the Versatile Video Coding Standard

Siqueira

Corrêa

Grellert

2021

2021 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Versatile Video Coding standard was finalized by the Joint Video Exploration Team in July 2020 and is currently considered the state-of-the-art video compression technology. VVC significantly improves coding efficiency compared to HEVC thanks to several new features and tools that incur a large increase in computational cost. This paper presents a complexity and coding efficiency assessment of VVC divided into three analyses, focusing on: (1) the impact of using SIMD optimizations in the VVC Test Model software, (2) the impact of limiting partitioning structures when encoding, and (3) the computational cost associated to each encoding tool in VVC. Experimental results show that SIMD optimizations accelerate the encoding time by 40%, on average, and that limiting the available partitioning structures can decrease encoding time between 40% and 73%. The software profiling revealed that inter-frame prediction is responsible for almost half of the total encoding time. Finally, the paper also presents an analytic discussion on tools and partitioning possibilities that are rarely chosen in the mode decision process despite their high impact in coding complexity.

show abstract

Rate-Distortion and Complexity Comparison of HEVC and VVC Video Encoders

Cited by 38 publications

References 2 publications

Comparative Rate-Distortion-Complexity Analysis of VVC and HEVC Video Codecs

Comparative Rate-Distortion-Complexity Analysis of VVC and HEVC Video Codecs

Implementation of a 3-layer LDM Broadcast System Backward-compatible with ISDB-TB

Complexity and Coding Efficiency Assessment of the Versatile Video Coding Standard

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About