HEVC Video Codecs Comparison
(Tenth MSU Video Codecs Comparison)

Take a look at this article on the new site! Follow the link
https://videoprocessing.ai/codecs/hevc-2015.html


compression.ru 		in cooperation
with 		Lomonosov MSU
Graphics & Media Lab
(Video Group)

Video group head:
Dr. Dmitriy Vatolin

Project head:
Dr. Dmitriy Kulikov

Measurements, analysis:
Mikhail Erofeev,
Vladimir Yanushkovsky
Dubna State University
Institute for Information
Transmission Problems RAS

UPDATE 22/02/2016 4K video encoders comparison is anounced
There is Pro Version of HEVC Comparison 2015 report:

 Free Version Free 4K video Version Pro Version (Enterprise) Pro+ Version (Enterprise + 4K video analysis)
Objective Metrics SSIM SSIM, PSNR
Different types of analysis
 Encoding quality, encoding speed, bitarte handling, speed/quality analysis etc. Encoding quality, encoding speed, bitarte handling, speed/quality analysis etc. (some graphs)
ColorPlanes Y Y, U, V and overall
Graphs Some graphs All the graphs for all the metrcis, codecs and presets
Test video sequences 20 HD video (only description) 11 4K video (only description) 20 HD video (available for download) 20 HD video (available for download) + 11 4K video
Hardware used for analysis Desktop and
Server configurations		 Desktop configurations Desktop and
Server configurations
Tested uses-cases 3 different use cases:
Fast Transcoding, Universal and Ripping (some graphs)		 1 use case 10 fps ecnoding(some graphs) 3 different use cases:
Fast Transcoding, Universal and Ripping 		3 different use cases:
Fast Transcoding, Universal and Ripping + 1 use case 10 fps ecnoding
Number of figures 29 11 5000+ 5500+
Price Free $850 $995
Purchase Download Download Buy Buy
Hint: You can remove "Extended download" service while purchasing to save money.
We can help you to analyze your codec

Pro version of comparison will be available immediately after report purchasing.

Report Overview

Video Codecs that Were Tested

  • HEVC
  • f265 H.265 Encoder
  • Intel MSS HEVC GAcc
  • Intel MSS HEVC Software
  • Ittiam HEVC Hardware Encoder
  • Ittiam HEVC Software Encoder
  • Strongene Lentoid HEVC Encoder
  • SHBP H.265 Real time encoder
  • x265
    •
  • Non HEVC
  • InTeleMax TurboEnc
  • SIF Encoder
  • VP9 Video Codec
  • x264
    •

    Overview

    Objectives and Testing Tools

    HEVC Codec Testing Objectives

    The main goal of this report is the presentation of a comparative evaluation of the quality of new HEVC codecs and codecs of other standards using objective measures of assessment. The comparison was done using settings provided by the developers of each codec. Nevertheless, we required all presets to satisfy minimum speed requirement on the particular use case. The main task of the comparison is to analyze different encoders for the task of transcoding video—e.g., compressing video for personal use.

    HEVC Codec Testing Rools

    The comparison was performed on two platforms:
  • Desktop—Core i7 4770R @3.9 GHz, RAM 4 GB, Windows 8.1
  • Server—Xeon E5 2697v3, RAM 64 GB, Windows Server 2012
    •  For both platforms we considered three key use cases with different speed requirements.
  • Desktop
    • Ripping—no minimum speed
    • Universal—minimum 10 FPS
    • Fast transcoding—minimum 30 FPS
  • Server
    • Ripping—no minimum speed
    • Universal—minimum 30 FPS
    • Fast transcoding—minimum 60 FPS

    • Overall Conclusions

    Overall, the leaders in this comparison are x265, Intel MSS Hevc and x264! Here are some overall graphs from report:
    Speed/Quality trade-off for Riping use-case (Y-SSIM metric)
    Average bitrate for Fast transcoding use-case (Y-SSIM metric)
    Average bitrate for Fast transcoding use-case (Y-SSIM metric)

    Professional Versions of Comparison Report

    HEVC Comparison Report Pro 2015 version contains:
  • Additional objective metrics (PSNR, SSIM)
  • All metrics results for all colorplanes (Y,U,V and overall)
  • Results for all the sequences, codecs and presets used in comparison
  • Much more figures
  • etc.
    •

    Acknowledgments

    The Graphics & Media Lab Video Group would like to express its gratitude to the following companies for providing the codecs and settings used in this report:
  • InTeleMax, Inc.
  • Intel Corporation
  • Ittiam Sysytems (P) Ltd.
  • Strongene Ltd.
  • ”System house ”Business partners” company
  • SIF Encoder developper team
  • The WebM Project team
  • x264 developer team
  • MulticoreWare, Inc.
    • The Video Group would also like to thank these companies for their help and technical support during the tests.

    Thanks

    Special thanks to the following contributors of our previous comparisons

    Google Intel AMD NVidia
    ATI Adobe ISPhone dicas
    KDDI R&D labs Dolby Tata Elxsi Octasic
    Qualcomm Voceweb Elgato

    Codec Analysis and Tuning for Codec Developers and Codec Users

    Computer Graphics and Multimedia Laboratory of Moscow State University:

  • 10 years working in the area of video codec analysis and tuning using objective quality metrics and subjective comparisons.
  • 20+ reports of video codec comparisons and analysis (H.264, MPEG-4 MPEG-2, decoders’ error recovery).
  • Methods and algorithms for codec comparison and analysis development, separate codec’s features and codec’s options analysis.

    • We could perform next task for codec developers and codec users.

    Strong and Weak Points of Your Codec

  • Deep encoder parts analysis (ME, RC on GOP, mode decision, etc).
  • Weak and strong points for your encoder and complete information about encoding quality on different content types.
  • Encoding Quality improvement by the pre and post filtering (including technologies licensing).

    • Independent Codec Estimation Comparing to Other Codecs for Different Use-cases

  • Comparative analysis of your encoder and other encoders.
  • We have direct contact with many codec developers.
  • You will know place of your encoder between other newest well-known encoders (compare encoding quality, speed, bitrate handling, etc.).
    •

    Encoder Features Implementation Optimality Analysis

    We perform encoder features effectiveness (speed/quality trade-off) analysis that could lead up to 30% increase in the speed/quality characteristics of your codec. We can help you to tune your codec and find best encoding parameters.

    Contact Information

    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