Download - The H.265/MPEG-HEVC Standard

Fraunhofer

Heinrich Hertz Institute

Fraunhofer


Fraunhofer Heinrich Hertz Institute, Einsteinufer 37, 10587 Berlin www.hhi.fraunhofer.de

The H.265/MPEG-HEVC Standard

IMTC Annual Member Meeting – Redmond, WA, October 16, 2014

Fraunhofer


© 20.10.2014 2

High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)

HEVC 1.0 – Low Delay Performance

HEVC 2.0 – The Extensions

HEVC Evolving fast

Summary & Outlook

Outline

Benjamin Bross

Fraunhofer


© 20.10.2014 3

• Most recent joint video coding standard from ITU VCEG and ISO/IEC

MPEG: ITU-T Rec. H.265 ISO/IEC 23008-2 MPEG-H Part 2 HEVC

• Fraunhofer HHI contributed key techniques (Coding Block and

Residual Quadtree, Prediction Block Merging, Transform Coding,

CABAC,...)

• 50% bitrate reduction compared to H.264/AVC High Profile

• Version 1 finalized in Jan. 2013 with 3 profiles (all 4:2:0):

Main (8bit), Main 10 (10 bit), Main Still Picture

High-Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)

Benjamin Bross

Fraunhofer


©

HEVC 1.0 – Performance

20.10.2014 4 Benjamin Bross

What is the coding efficiency for different coding applications?

• Entertainment for TV/Movies (Broadcast, VoD, Storage)

Hierarchical B-pictures, structural delay, 1s random access

• Interactive for Videoconferencing

No picture reordering, low delay

Fraunhofer


©

Several studies reporting bitrate savings of H.265/HEVC HM

Reference Encoder for the same objective/subjective quality:



AVC HP VP9 AVC HP VP9 Encoder

Sequences Objective

[PSNR] Subjective

[MOS] Objective

[PSNR] Subjective

[MOS] Objective

[PSNR] Objective

[PSNR] AVC VP9

[1] Ohm2012 35% 49% 40% JSVM JCT-VC

[2] Grois2013 39% 43% x264 WebM JCT-VC

(Class A,B,E, F)

[3] Rerabek2014 39% 53% 36% 49% JM WebM 4K


(Class E)

Entertainment (Random Access) Interactive (Low Delay)

Fraunhofer


©

Several studies reporting bitrate savings of H.265/HEVC HM

Reference Encoder for the same objective/subjective quality:



AVC HP VP9 AVC HP VP9 Encoder

Sequences Objective

[PSNR] Subjective

[MOS] Objective

[PSNR] Subjective

[MOS] Objective

[PSNR] Objective

[PSNR] AVC VP9

[1] Ohm2012 35% 49% 40% JSVM JCT-VC


(Class A,B,E, F)

[3] Rerabek2014 39% 53% 36% 49% JM WebM 4K


(Class E)

Entertainment (Random Access) Interactive (Low Delay)

Fraunhofer


©



Low Delay performance study from Grois et al [4]:

• Tested publicly available encoders:

• H.265/HEVC HM reference encoder

• H.264/AVC x264 r2334

• VP9 WebM v1.2.0-3088-ga81bd12

• IPPP coding structure (I-picture followed by P-pictures)

• Three JCT-VC 720p60 class E test sequences

Fraunhofer


©



• Encoder settings for a fair comparison:

• x264 settings for optimized PSNR

• VP9 settings recommended by Google

• VP9 not optimized for 1-pass additional 2-pass results provided

• Constant quantizer with QP 22, 27, 32, 37 Bitrates from 0.2 to 4 Mbps

• Bitrate savings in Bjøntegaard Delta (BD) rate based on PSNR for the 4 rate points

Pre-print of a paper to be published in SPIE Proceedings, vol. 9217, Applications of Digital Image Pro-

cessing XXXVII

very close, while the difference in BD-BR savings [24] of the VP9 encoder vs. x264 encoder for the FourPeople video

sequence are 2.5% in favour of VP9.

In addition, Table 7 presents detailed experimental results with regard to the HEVC bit-rate savings for the same ob-

jective quality, such as the PSNRYUV.

Figure 2. 2-pass Encoding Mode: R-D curves and corresponding bit-rate saving plots for the tested Class E sequences, which

are representing different video conferencing scenarios.

Table 7. HEVC Bit-Rate Savings for Equal PSNRYUV (Compared to VP9 and x264 High Profile Encoders, 2-Pass Mode)

HEVC vs. VP9 (in %) HEVC vs. x264 (in %) Sequences/QPs 22 27 32 37 BD-BR 22 27 32 37 BD-BR

FourPeople 16.8 28.7 33.5 39.6 -31.1 30.1 34.2 31.2 40.3 -32.7

Johnny 21.4 34.5 32.0 36.8 -34.0 35.3 53.8 56.9 60.0 -50.6

KristenAndSara 19.3 31.7 36.0 36.8 -32.6 35.8 41.1 47.4 53.8 -43.4

Averages 19.2 31.6 33.8 37.7 -32.6 33.7 43.0 45.2 51.4 -42.2

Total Average 30.6 -32.6 43.3 -42.2

Fraunhofer


©



• For same objective quality (PSNR), VP9 and x264 have significant bitrate overhead:

• VP9 48% more than HM

• x264 73% more than HM

• 2nd pass encoding does not gain much for low delay

• Runtime differences by factor ~103 between x264 and reference encoders (HM and VP9)

1

10

100

1000

10000

0 20 40 60 80E

nc

od

ing

Sp

ee

du

p

Bitrate overhead to HEVC HM in BD-rate [%]

VP9 (1-pass)

VP9 (2-pass)

x264 (1-pass)

x264 (2-pass)

Fraunhofer


©



Some thoughts on the software encoders used in the comparison...

• Only publicly available free encoders (reproducibility)

• 2-pass encoding in VP9 faster than 1-pass encoding

• All three encoders represent different degrees of software optimizations

• Extremely slow reference implementations for HEVC and VP9

• (Commercial) real-time encoders optimized for low delay are expected to achieve the coding efficiency of reference encoders much faster than in the past HEVC evolving fast

Fraunhofer


©

What comes after version 1?

The following HEVC extensions are already finalized or to be finalized:

• Range Extensions in April 2014

Higher bit-depths (>10bit), More chroma formats (4:4:4, 4:2:2),...

• Multiview (MV) in July 2014

• Scalable Coding in July 2014

• 3D-HEVC (MV + Depth Data) to be finalized in 2015

HEVC 2.0 – The Extensions


Fraunhofer


©

HEVC Evolving fast (2013)


2015

January

JCT-VC Meeting,

Geneva

HEVC version 1 finalized

April.

NAB,

Las Vegas

September.

IBC,

Amsterdam

HHI 4K/UHD live

SW decoder

HHI HD live SW encoder

2013 2014

Fraunhofer


©

HEVC Evolving fast (2014)


2015

September.

IBC,

Amsterdam

2013 2014

February,

MWC,

Barcelona

HHI 4K/UHD live SW

encoder

HHI HEVC over LTE

HHI Encoding in 4K/UHD 50p

live soccer broadcast

April,

Allianz

Arena,

Munich

WWDC,

Cupertino

iPhone 6 with

H.265/HEVC En-

/Decoder

Fraunhofer


©

• Several studies confirmed the 50% bitrate reduction compared to

H.264/AVC with the HM reference encoder (same subjective quality)

• Significant bitrate reductions compared to H.264/AVC and VP9 also

reported for low delay applications

• Only 1.5 years after finalization of HEVC, real-time encoders are

approaching coding efficiency of the HM encoder

• Fraunhofer HHI continues research on HEVC real-time solutions like

4K/UHD high-efficiency encoder and HD low-delay encoder

HEVC Summary & Outlook


Fraunhofer


©

[1] Ohm et al, “Comparison of the Coding Efficiency of Video Coding Standards –

Including High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) ”, IEEE Trans. CSVT, Dec. 2012

[2] Grois et al, “Performance comparison of H.265/MPEG-HEVC, VP9, and

H.264/MPEG-AVC encoders”, PCS 2013

[3] Rerabek et al, “Comparison of compression efficiency between HEVC/H.265 and

VP9 based on subjective assessments”, SPIE Proc. 9217, 2014

[4] Grois et al, “Comparative Assessment of H.265/MPEG-HEVC, VP9, and

H.264/MPEG-AVC Encoders for Low-Delay Video Applications”, SPIE Proc. 9217,

2014



Fraunhofer


©

Thank you very much!

Further Information:

[email protected]

hevc.hhi.fraunhofer.de



http://hevc.hhi.fraunhofer.de