Study and Performance Comparison of HEVC and … · Study and Performance Comparison of HEVC and...

Uma Sagar Madhugiri DayanandaEmail: [email protected]

UTA ID: 1001002964

Study and Performance Comparison of HEVC and H.264 Video Encoders

Final Presentation – Spring 2014Course: EE5359 – Multimedia Processing

• Scope of Project

• HEVC Video Coding Standard

• H.264 Video Coding Standard

• Comparison Metrics

• Profiles for Comparison

• Test Sequences

• Configuration of HM 13.0 and JM 18.6

• Results

• Conclusion

• References

• Acronyms and Abbreviations

Contents

• This project aims at studying the state-of-the-art HighEfficiency Video Coding(HEVC)[12] and H.264/AdvancedVideo Coding(AVC)[13] codecs and gaining anunderstanding of various techniques in video encoding suchas prediction, transform, quantization and coding.

• Comparison of these video encoders based on variousperformance metrics such as computational time, PSNR, BD-Bitrate and BD-PSNR are carried out in all-intra and randomaccess modes.

• HM 13.0[24] and JM 18.6[25] reference software for HEVCand H.264 respectively are used for this purpose.

Scope of the Project

• High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) [12] is an internationalstandard for video compression developed by the workinggroup of ISO/IEC MPEG (Moving Picture Experts Group) and ITU-T VCEG (Video Coding Experts Group).

• The main goal of HEVC standard is to significantly improvecompression performance compared to existing standards(such as H.264/Advanced Video Coding [13]) in the range of50% bit rate reduction [5] at the same visual quality.

• HEVC is designed to address existing applications ofH.264/MPEG-4 AVC and to focus on two key issues: increasedvideo resolution and increased used of parallel processingarchitectures [5].

Introduction to HEVC

Block Diagram of HEVC CODEC [17]

• Partitioning each picture into multiple units

• Predicting each unit using inter or intra prediction, andsubtracting the prediction from the unit

• Transforming and quantizing the residual (the differencebetween the original picture unit and the prediction)

• Entropy encoding the transform output, prediction information,mode information and headers.

Steps in HEVC Encoding

Block Diagram of HEVC Encoder [9]

• Entropy decoding and extracting the elements of the codedsequence

• Rescaling and inverting the transform stage

• Predicting each unit and adding the prediction to the output ofthe inverse transform

• Reconstructing a decoded video image.

Steps in HEVC Decoding

Block Diagram of HEVC Decoder [31]

• H.264/Advanced Video Coding (AVC) [13] is video codingstandard of the ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group and theISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group.

• The main goals of the H.264/AVC standard were to enhancecompression performance and provision of a network-friendlyvideo representation addressing conversational (videotelephony) and non-conversational (storage, broadcast, orstreaming) applications [8].

H.264/Advanced Video Coding Standard

Block Diagram of H.264 CODEC [18]

• The encoder processes a frame of video in units of a macro-block (16x16 displayed pixels). It forms a prediction of themacro-block based on previously-coded data, either from thecurrent frame (intra prediction) or from other frames that havealready been coded and transmitted (inter prediction). Theencoder subtracts the prediction from the current macro-blockto form a residual.

• A block of residual samples is transformed using a 4x4 or 8x8integer transform, an approximate form of the Discrete CosineTransform (DCT) [34].

• The output of the transform, a block of transform coefficients, isquantized, i.e. each coefficient is divided by an integer value.

• The values produced in these processes are encoded to formthe compressed bit stream.

Encoding in H.264

Block Diagram of H.264 Encoder [10]

• A video decoder receives the compressed H.264 bit stream,decodes each of the syntax elements and extracts theinformation such as quantized transform coefficients, predictioninformation, etc.

• This information is then used to reverse the coding process andrecreate a sequence of video images.

Decoding in H.264

Block Diagram of H.264 Decoder [10]

• Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR)

• BD-Bitrate

• BD-PSNR

• Computational time as a measure of implementation complexity

Metrics to be used for comparison of CODECs

The following profiles for HEVC and H.264 respectively will be used for comparison in this project:

• HM 13.0 main profile [5]: This profile allows for a bit depth of 8-bitsper sample with 4:2:0 chroma sampling, which is the mostcommon type of video used with consumer devices.

• JM 18.6 high profile [8]: This profile allows for a bit depth of 8-bitsper sample with 4:2:0 chroma sampling. It is used for broadcastand disc storage applications, particularly for high-definitiontelevision applications (for example, this is the profile adopted bythe Blu-ray Disc storage format and the HDTV broadcast service).

Profiles for Comparison

Test Sequence Resolution Frame rate

RaceHorses_416x240_30.yuv 416 x 240 30

BasketballDrill_832x480_50.yuv 832 x 480 50

KristenAndSara_1280x720_60.yuv 1280 x 720 60

ParkScene_1920x1080_24.yuv 1920 x 1080 24

Test SequencesThe following test sequences [23] are used for the study in the

project:

Test Sequences

RaceHorses_416x240_30.yuv BasketballDrill_832x480_50.yuv

ParkScene_1920x1080_24.yuv

Test Sequences

KristenAndSara_1280x720_60.yuv

Test Configurations – All Intra Mode

QPI

time

0 1 3 5 72 64 8

IDR Picture

QPI ・・・・・

Graphical presentation of Intra-only configuration [39]

Test Configurations – Random Access Mode

Graphical presentation of Random access configuration [39]

QPIQPBL1=QPI+1

QPBL2=QPI+2

QPBL3=QPI+3

QPBL4=QPI+4

GPB(Generalized P

and B) Picture

time

Referenced B

Picture

Non-referenced B

Picture

0

5 6 7 8

3 4

2

1

IDR or Intra

Picture

Referenced B

Picture

• Main all-intra profile settings

• Command line parameters for using HM 13.0 encoder:

TAppEncoder [-h] [-c config.cfg] [--parameter=value]

• Sample command line parameters for HM 13.0 encoder:

C:\Documents\HM_13_HEVC\bin\vc10\Win32\Release>TAppEncoder.exe -c encoder_intra_main.cfg -wdt 832 -hgt 480 -fr 50 -f 10 -iBasketballDrill_832x480_50.yuv

Configuration of HM 13.0

IntraPeriod = 1 Period of I-Frame ( -1 = only first)

GOPSize = 1 GOP Size (number of B slice = GOPSize-1)

QP Quantization parameter(0-51), 22, 27, 32 or 37 is used at a time

• High all-intra profile settings

Configuration of JM 18.6

FramesToBeEncoded = 20 Number of frames to be coded

FrameRate = 50 Frame Rate per second (0.1-100.0)

ProfileIDC = 100 Profile IDC (66=baseline, 77=main, 88=extended; FREXT

Profiles: 100=High, 110=High 10, 122=High 4:2:2,

244=High 4:4:4, 44=CAVLC 4:4:4 Intra, 118=Multi-view

High Profile, 128=Stereo High Profile)

IntraProfile = 1 Activate Intra Profile for FRExt (0: false, 1: true)

LevelIDC = 40 Level IDC (e.g. 20 = level 2.0)

IntraPeriod = 1 Period of I-pictures (0=only first)

QPISlice = 22 Quantization parameter for I Slices (0-51) (22, 27, 32 or

37 is used at a time)

• Command line parameters for using JM 18.6 encoder:

lencod [-h] [-d defenc.cfg] {[-f curenc1.cfg]...[-f curencN.cfg]} {[-p EncParam1=EncValue1]...[-p EncParamM=EncValueM]}

• Sample command line parameters for JM 18.6 encoder:

C:\ H.264\01_JM 18.6\JM Software\JM 18.6\JM\bin>lencod.exe –f encoder_high.cfg -p InputFile = "C:\Users\Desktop\BasketballDrill_832x480_50.yuv" –p SourceWidth=832 -p SourceHeight=480

Configuration of JM 18.6

RaceHorses_416x240_30.yuv, Number of frames encoded = 20

HEVC, Main All-intra profile H.264, High All-intra profile

QP PSNR in dB Bit rate in kbpsEncoding time in

secondsPSNR in dB Bit rate in kbps

Encoding time in

seconds

22 42.5720 5057.16 38.942 42.5096 6100.91 40.350

27 38.6146 3152.10 31.973 38.425 3846.35 34.613

32 34.9992 1814.89 26.551 34.7295 2238.22 30.114

37 31.9718 979.584 23.452 31.913 1291.26 26.404

Results: All-intra Mode

BasketballDrill_832x480_50.yuv, Number of frames encoded = 20


QP PSNR in dB Bit rate in kbps Encoding time in

seconds

PSNR in dB Bit rate in kbps Encoding time in

seconds

22 42.3716 20407.88 137.080 42.2071 27612.22 141.971

27 39.0915 11014.04 121.178 38.6897 15152.94 120.309

32 36.2986 5847.02 98.149 35.9167 8225.54 103.683

37 33.9144 3200.72 84.450 33.6168 4732.34 93.305

ParkScene_1920x1080_24.yuv, Number of frames encoded = 20




Encoding time in

seconds

22 42.1277 49000.6272 672.179 42.0305 60931.83 128.042

27 39.3244 26468.7648 541.421 39.0987 33353.53 106.798

32 36.7479 13760.0640 468.735 36.4413 17731.82 94.365

37 34.4159 6776.3232 419.828 34.2227 9554.87 88.086

Results: All-intra ModeKristenAndSara_1280x720_60.yuv, Number of frames encoded = 20




Encoding time in

seconds

22 45.3544 21763.1280 232.462 45.2825 34380.02 45.760

27 43.1139 13024.7280 218.169 42.8397 21592.03 40.806

32 40.6635 7883.6640 188.127 40.2345 13614.43 37.768

37 38.1338 4769.9760 203.367 37.7711 8983.22 35.900

R-D plots

R-D plot for RaceHorses_416x240_30.yuv sequence in all-intra mode

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 700030

32

34

36

38

40

42

44R-D plot for Race Horses Test Sequence

Bitrate(Kbit/sec)

PS

NR

(dB

)

H.264

HEVC

R-D plots

R-D plot for BasketballDrill_832x480_50.yuv sequence in all-intra mode

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

x 104

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43R-D plot for Basketball drill Test Sequence

Bitrate(Kbit/sec)

PS

NR

(dB

)

H.264

HEVC

R-D plots

R-D plot for KristenAndSara_1280x720_60.yuvsequence in all-intra mode

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

x 104

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46R-D plot for KristenAndSara Test Sequence

Bitrate(Kbit/sec)

PS

NR

(dB

)

H.264

HEVC

R-D plots

R-D plot for ParkScene_1920x1080_24.yuv sequence in all-intra mode

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

x 104

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43R-D plot for Park Scene Test Sequence

Bitrate(Kbit/sec)

PS

NR

(dB

)

H.264

HEVC

BD-Bitrate Comparison in All-intra mode

RaceHorses_416x240_30.yuv BasketballDrill_832x480_50.yuv KristenAndSara_1280x720_60.yuv ParkScene_1920x1080_24.yuv

BD-Bitrate (%) -21.7502 -34.3692 -47.058 -28.1203

-50

-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

BD

-Bira

te %

Test Sequences

% BD-Bitrate of HEVC and H.264

BD-PSNR Comparison in All-intra mode

RaceHorses_416x240_30.yuv BasketballDrill_832x480_50.yuvKristenAndSara_1280x720_60.yu

vParkScene_1920x1080_24.yuv

BD-PSNR (dB) 1.509 1.9314 3.2036 1.2485

1.509

1.9314

3.2036

1.2485

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

BD

-PSN

R in

dB

Test Sequences

BD-PSNR Comparison of HEVC and H.264

Comparison of Encoding Time in All-intra mode

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

22 27 32 37

En

co

din

g t

ime

in s

ec

on

ds

Quantization Parameter

Comparison of Encoding time between HEVC and H.264 for Race Horses Test Sequence

Encoding time in seconds for HEVC Encoding time in seconds for H.264


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

22 27 32 37

En

co

din

g t

ime

in S

ec

on

ds


Comparison of Encoding time between HEVC and H.264 for Basket Ball Drill Test Sequence



0

50

100

150

200

250

22 27 32 37

En

co

din

g T

ime

in

Se

co

nd

s


Comparison of Encoding time between HEVC and H.264 for KristenAndSara Test

Sequence



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

22 27 32 37

En

co

din

g T

ime

in

se

co

nd

s


Comparison of Encoding time between HEVC and H.264 for Park Scene Test Sequence


RaceHorses_416x240_30.yuv, Number of frames encoded = 20

HEVC, Main Profile, Random Access H.264, High Profile, Random Access



Encoding time in

seconds

22 39.7490 1505.02 168.766 40.2073 2049.46 114.218

27 36.1523 769.05 142.296 36.4668 1063.16 108.264

32 33.0258 392.10 121.389 33.7828 628.01 107.418

37 30.4964 203.61 114.431 30.7851 317.75 103.331

Results: Random Access Mode

BasketballDrill_832x480_50.yuv, Number of frames encoded = 20




Encoding time in

seconds

22 41.4220 3479.84 483.657 41.8238 5909.52 373.645

27 38.4933 1698.98 404.454 38.6733 2881.68 363.388

32 35.7846 841.90 352.771 35.8981 1448.78 341.996

37 33.5674 447.10 323.220 33.3300 742.12 320.481

KristenAndSara_1280x720_60.yuv, Number of frames encoded = 20


QP PSNR in dB Bit rate in kbps Encoding time in seconds PSNR in dB Bit rate in kbps Encoding time in seconds

22 44.4383 2676.0000 703.941 44.2062 3740.76 459.124

27 42.6707 1227.7680 629.886 42.2390 1727.02 431.474

32 40.6380 666.7920 600.960 39.9612 922.97 408.706

37 38.3784 381.4800 573.958 37.5176 536.57 404.473

Results: Random Access Mode

ParkScene_1920x1080_24.yuv, Number of frames encoded = 20




Encoding time in

seconds

22 40.7442 8410.77 2217.322 41.1195 28723.88 1442.802

27 38.4090 3671.82 1842.406 38.2227 10391.96 1293.122

32 36.1320 1698.69 1649.413 36.3136 5724.94 1241.135

37 34.0683 792.30 1381.113 33.9822 2732.38 1751.023

R-D plots

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 220030

32

34

36

38

40

42R-D plot for Race Horses Test Sequence

Bitrate(Kbit/sec)

PS

NR

(dB

)

H.264

HEVC

R-D plots

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 600033

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42R-D plot for BasketBallDrill Test Sequence

Bitrate(Kbit/sec)

PS

NR

(dB

)

H.264

HEVC

R-D plots

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 400037

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45R-D plot for KristenAndSara Test Sequence

Bitrate(Kbit/sec)

PS

NR

(dB

)

H.264

HEVC

R-D plots

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

x 104

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42R-D plot for Park Scene Test Sequence

Bitrate(Kbit/sec)

PS

NR

(dB

)

H.264

HEVC

BD-Bitrate Comparison in Random Access mode



BD-Bitrate(%) -25.0485 -37.876 -40.5843 -66.8356

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0%

BD

-Bitra

te

Test Sequences

% BD-Bitrate of HEVC and H.264

BD-PSNR Comparison in Random Access mode



BD-PSNR (dB) 1.3663 1.9692 1.671 3.2428

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

BD

-PSN

R in

dB

Test Sequences

BD-PSNR of HEVC and H.264

Comparison of Encoding Time in Random access mode

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

22 27 32 37

En

co

din

g t

ime

in s

ec

on

ds


Comparison of Encoding time of HEVC and H.264 for RaceHorses Test sequence



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

22 27 32 37

En

co

din

g t

ime

in s

ec

on

ds


Comparison of Encoding time of HEVC and H.264 for BasketBallDrill Test sequence



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

22 27 32 37

En

co

din

g t

ime

in s

ec

on

ds


Comparison of Encoding time of HEVC and H.264 for KristenAndSara

test sequence



0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

22 27 32 37

En

co

din

g t

ime

in s

ec

on

ds


Comparison of Encoding time of HEVC and H.264 for ParkScene test

sequence


• RD plots in All-intra and Random-access mode indicate that for agiven PSNR, HEVC has low bitrate when compared to H.264 and thusHEVC is better than H.264.

• Main profile in HEVC has an average BD-bitrate savings of 24% (all-intramode) and 42.58% (Random Access mode)over high profile in H.264.

• Main profile in HEVC has an average increase in BD-PSNR of 1.4 dB (all-intra mode) and 2.062 dB (Random Access mode)over high profile inH.264.

• Encoding time for HEVC is significantly greater than H.264 for higherresolution sequences and indicate that HEVC encoder is morecomplex than H.264 encoder in all-intra and random access mode.

Conclusions

• There is significant bit rate reduction in random access modewhen compared to all-intra mode in HEVC and H.264 for all testsequences.

• The encoding time increases in random access mode whencompared to all-intra mode, due to motion estimation but thisleads to significant reduction in bitrate with increase incomplexity.

Conclusions

Exploration of topics such as using parallel processing architectureswith HEVC and Transcoding between HEVC and H.264 videocodecs can be done.

Further Work

References

[1] I.E.G. Richardson, “Video Codec Design: Developing Image and Video Compression Systems”, Wiley, 2002.

[2] K.R. Rao, D.N. Kim and J.J. Hwang, “Video Coding Standards: AVS China, H.264/MPEG-4 Part 10, HEVC, VP6, DIRAC and VC-1”, Springer, 2014.

[3] I.E.G. Richardson, “H.264 and MPEG-4 Video Compression”, Hoboken, NJ, Wiley, 2003.

[4] I.E.G. Richardson, “The H.264 advanced video compression standard”, 2nd Edition, Hoboken, NJ, Wiley, 2010.

[5] G.J Sullivan et al, “Overview of the High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Standard”, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology,Vol.22, No. 12, pp. 1649-1668, Dec 2012.

[6] F. Bossen et al, “HEVC Complexity and Implementation Analysis”, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, Vol. 22, No. 12, pp.1685-1696, Dec. 2012.

[7] J. R. Ohm et al, “Comparison of the Coding Efficiency of Video Coding Standards—Including High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)”, IEEE Transactionson Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, Vol. 22, No. 12, pp. 1669-1684, Dec. 2012.

[8] T. Wiegand et al, “Overview of the H.264/AVC Video Coding Standard”, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, Vol. 13, No. 7, pp. 560-576, Jul. 2003.

[9] D. Marpe et al, “The H.264/MPEG4 advanced video coding standard and its applications”, IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 44, pp. 134-143, Aug.2006.

[10] A. Puri et al, “Video coding using the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC compression standard”, Signal Processing: Image Communication, vol. 19, pp. 793-849, Oct.2004.

[11] X. Li et al, “Rate-complexity-distortion evaluation for hybrid video coding”, IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), pp. 685-690,Jul. 2010.

[12] B. Bross et al, “High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Text Specification Draft 10”, Document JCTVC-L1003, ITU-T/ISO/IEC Joint Collaborative Team onVideo Coding (JCT-VC), Mar. 2013 available on http://phenix.it-sudparis.eu/jct/doc_end_user/current_document.php?id=7243

[13] JVT Draft ITU-T recommendation and final draft international standard of joint video specification (ITU-T Rec. H.264-ISO/IEC 14496-10 AVC), March 2003, JVT-G050 availableon http://ip.hhi.de/imagecom_G1/assets/pdfs/JVT-G050.pdf

[14] J. Vanne et al, “Comparative Rate-Distortion-Complexity Analysis of HEVC and AVC Video Codecs”, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, Vol.22, No. 12, pp. 1885-1898, Dec. 2012.

[15] G. Bjontegaard, “Calculation of Average PSNR Differences between RD Curves”, document VCEG-M33, ITU-T SG 16/Q 6, Austin, TX, Apr. 2001.

[16] D. Grois et al, “Performance Comparison of H.265/ MPEG-HEVC, VP9, and H.264/ MPEG-AVC Encoders”, available on:http://iphome.hhi.de/marpe/download/Performance_HEVC_VP9_X264_PCS_2013_preprint.pdf

[17] HEVC tutorial by I.E.G. Richardson: http://www.vcodex.com/h265.html

[18] H.264 tutorial by I.E.G. Richardson: https://www.vcodex.com/h264.html

[19] HEVC white paper-Ittiam Systems: http://www.ittiam.com/Downloads/en/documentation.aspx

[20] HEVC white paper-Ateme: http://www.ateme.com/an-introduction-to-uhdtv-and-hevc

[21] HEVC white paper-Elemental Technologies: http://www.elementaltechnologies.com/lp/hevc-h265-demystified-white-paper

[22] White paper on PSNR-NI: http://www.ni.com/white-paper/13306/en/

[23] Test Sequences: ftp://ftp.kw.bbc.co.uk/hevc/hm-11.0-anchors/bitstreams/

[24] Access to HM 13.0 Reference Software: http://hevc.hhi.fraunhofer.de/

[25] Access to JM 18.6 Reference Software: http://iphome.hhi.de/suehring/tml/

[26] Website on PSNR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_signal-to-noise_ratio

[27] Website on SSIM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_similarity

References(Continued)

http://www.vcodex.com/h265.html

http://www.ittiam.com/Downloads/en/documentation.aspx

http://www.ateme.com/an-introduction-to-uhdtv-and-hevc

http://www.elementaltechnologies.com/lp/hevc-h265-demystified-white-paper

http://www.ni.com/white-paper/13306/en/

ftp://ftp.kw.bbc.co.uk/hevc/hm-11.0-anchors/bitstreams/

http://hevc.hhi.fraunhofer.de/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_signal-to-noise_ratio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_similarity

[28] Access the website http://www-ee.uta.edu/Dip/Courses/EE5359/ and refer to the project by S. Kulkarni on “Transcoding from H.264/AVC to HighEfficiency Video Coding (HEVC)”, University of Texas, Arlington, Spring 2013.

[29] Access the website http://www-ee.uta.edu/Dip/Courses/EE5359/ and refer to the project by H. B. Jain on “Comparative and performance analysis ofHEVC and H.264 intra frame coding and JPEG 2000”, University of Texas, Arlington, Spring 2013.

[30]Access the website http://www-ee.uta.edu/Dip/Courses/EE5359/ and refer to the thesis by S. Vasudevan on “Fast intra prediction and fast residualquad-tree encoding implementation in HEVC”, University of Texas, Arlington, 2013.

[31] C. Fogg, “Suggested figures for the HEVC specification”, ITU-T / ISO-IEC Document: JCTVC J0292r1, July 2012.

[32] Z. Wang et al, “Image Quality Assessment: From Error Visibility to Structural Similarity”, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 600-612,Apr. 2004.

[33] G. Sullivan et al, “Standardized Extensions of High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)”, IEEE Journal of selected topics in Signal Processing, Vol. 7, No. 6,pp. 1001-1016, Dec. 2013.

[34] N. Ahmed, T. Natarajan and K.R. Rao, “Discrete Cosine Transform”, IEEE Transactions on Computers, Vol. C-23, pp. 90-93, Jan. 1974.

[35] Special Issue on emerging research and standards in next generation video coding, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology(CSVT), vol.22, pp. 1646-1909, Dec. 2012.

[36] Special Issue on emerging research and standards in next generation video coding, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology (CSVT), Vol.23, pp. 2009-2142, Dec. 2013.

[37] “Introduction to the Issue on Video Coding: HEVC and Beyond”, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, Vol.7, pp.931-1151, Dec. 2013.

[38] S. Vasudevan and K.R. Rao, “Combination method of fast HEVC Encoding”, IEEE ECTI-CON-2014, Korat, Thailand, May 2014.

[39] HM Encoder Description: http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/standards/mpeg-h/high-efficiency-video-coding/high-efficiency-video-coding-hevc-test-model-9-hm-9

[40] H.264/AVC Software Reference Manual: http://iphome.hhi.de/suehring/tml/JM%20Reference%20Software%20Manual%20(JVT-AE010).pdf

References(Continued)

http://www-ee.uta.edu/Dip/Courses/EE5359/



AVC: Advanced Video Coding.

BD-BR: Bjontegaard Delta Bitrate.

BD-PSNR: Bjontegaard Delta Peak Signal to Noise Ratio.

CABAC: Context Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding.

CTB: Coding Tree Block.

CTU: Coding Tree Unit.

CU: Coding Unit.

DBF: De-blocking Filter.

DCT: Discrete Cosine Transform.

HEVC: High Efficiency Video Coding.

HM: HEVC Test Model.

IEC: International Electro-technical Commission.

ISO: International Organization for Standardization.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

JCT-VC: Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding.

JM: H.264 Test Model.

JPEG: Joint Photographic Experts Group.

MPEG: Moving Picture Experts Group.

MSE: Mean Square Error.

PB: Prediction Block.

PSNR: Peak Signal to Noise Ratio.

QP: Quantization Parameter

SAO: Sample Adaptive Offset.

SSIM: Structural Similarity Index.

TB: Transform Block.

TU: Transform Unit.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Study and Performance Comparison of HEVC and … · Study and Performance Comparison of HEVC and...

Documents

Transcript of Study and Performance Comparison of HEVC and … · Study and Performance Comparison of HEVC and...