MSU HDR Video Reconstruction Benchmark: HLG
The most comprehensive comparison of HDR video reconstruction methods
Nikolay Safonov
Key features of the Benchmark
- Comparison of 14 methods of HDR video reconstruction
- A new private dataset for testing. 20 different scenes: fireworks, flowers, soccer and others
- 10 metrics for restoration quality assessment
- HDR video player for self-assessment of quality
- Subjective comparison
- Split comparison of video restoration with two most popular gamma curves: PQ (soon), HLG
Leaderboard
Click on the labels to sort the table.
In the methodology you can read brief information
about all metrics and subjective study.
You can scroll the table to see all the results.
Rank | Model | Subjective | HDR-VDP-3 | HDR-VQM | HDR-PSNR | HDR-SSIM | PQ-NIQE | PQ-PSNR | PQ-SSIM | PQ-VMAF | Shifted HDR-PSNR | FovVideoVDP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | GT | 4.9064 | 0.0000 | 10.0000 | inf | 1.0000 | 5.6412 | inf | 1.0000 | 100.0000 | inf | 10.0000 |
2 | DeepHDR | 3.7604 | 0.1000 | 8.0572 | 33.5266 | 0.9907 | 5.0832 | 21.9155 | 0.9584 | 89.5382 | 37.0040 | 9.3205 |
3 | Maxon | 3.6044 | 0.0622 | 8.2153 | 45.6478 | 0.9949 | 4.9400 | 35.1188 | 0.9846 | 89.9478 | 45.3267 | 9.8374 |
4 | HDRCNN | 3.3537 | 0.1919 | 6.3880 | 33.0200 | 0.9663 | 4.9391 | 21.2604 | 0.8539 | 50.5080 | 35.0804 | 9.8778 |
5 | SingleHDR | 3.2459 | 0.2630 | 8.4180 | 34.2871 | 0.9845 | 5.5764 | 25.8042 | 0.9606 | 70.6792 | 42.5944 | 9.8305 |
6 | HDRTV | 2.7886 | 0.1296 | 6.9813 | 35.9721 | 0.9918 | 5.4744 | 22.4636 | 0.9555 | 85.6109 | 26.8880 | 9.8788 |
7 | KovOliv | 2.3654 | 0.1329 | 7.4724 | 32.4223 | 0.9937 | 4.8269 | 20.1295 | 0.9389 | 91.3118 | 28.9170 | 9.8861 |
8 | Huo | 1.7939 | 0.2103 | 8.9004 | 30.0900 | 0.9720 | 4.9126 | 23.3886 | 0.9527 | 82.4653 | 44.4314 | 9.2408 |
9 | HDRUnet | 1.3770 | 0.1830 | 6.6857 | 34.9894 | 0.9845 | 6.7712 | 24.7347 | 0.9388 | 92.1209 | TBP* | TBP* |
10 | ExpNet | 1.0268 | 0.1942 | 7.5910 | 34.0555 | 0.9892 | 5.2161 | 24.2994 | 0.9321 | 61.6722 | 40.8574 | 9.8887 |
11 | KUnet | 0.6530 | 0.2126 | 6.1543 | 32.5082 | 0.9838 | 7.3623 | 24.1380 | 0.9236 | 77.6478 | TBP* | TBP* |
12 | twostageHDR | 0.4650 | 0.1350 | 6.6004 | 31.6717 | 0.9864 | 7.7687 | 22.4022 | 0.9139 | 46.1830 | TBP* | TBP* |
13 | Kuo | TBP* | 0.0579 | 8.6776 | 40.7642 | 0.9954 | 5.0287 | 34.9679 | 0.9862 | 94.0270 | 47.4612 | 9.8880 |
14 | HuoPhys | TBP* | 0.1518 | 7.0618 | 32.6570 | 0.9946 | 5.0754 | 18.7458 | 0.9383 | 90.0419 | 22.1553 | 9.8866 |
15 | Akyuz | TBP* | 0.2521 | 6.4114 | 28.1420 | 0.9917 | 4.7872 | 14.6789 | 0.8535 | 71.5814 | 23.3069 | 9.8799 |
TBP* – to be published
Charts
In this section you can observe the values of different metrics for each individual video and the average values. In the "Video" selector, you can observe the names of the videos. For your convenience, the Dataset tab has a preview of each video and its full name match.
Metric: Video:
Results
In this section, you can quickly evaluate the quality of the algorithms yourself. The video player below show you the HDR video if your device supports this technology. We recommend opening this video via Google Chrome or Safari.
Method:
Visualization
This section presents a visualization of the result of each of the algorithms.
- The first line is a preview
- The second line is a tonemapped crop
- The third and fourth lines are the two exposures, which show in detail the differences in the dark and bright areas
Please note that we do not show GT exposures, as this information makes it possible to obtain the HDR version of the GT video.
Video:
Model 1: Model 2: Model 3:
Drag a red rectangle in the area, which you want to crop.
GT
GT
HDRTVNet
HDRCNN
Your method submission
Verify the restoration ability of your HDR Video Reconstruction algorithm and compare it with state-of-the-art solutions. You can see information about all other participants here.
1. Download input data
|
Download SDR videos |
|
2. Apply your algorithm |
Convert SDR videos to HDR using your algorithm. You can also send us the code of your method or the executable file and we will run it ourselves. |
|
3. Send us result |
Send us an email to itm-benchmark@videoprocessing.ai
with the following information:
|
You can verify the results of current participants or estimate the performance of your method on public samples of our dataset (clips "Dog" and "Rolex"). Send us an email with a request to share them with you.
Contacts
We would highly appreciate any suggestions and ideas on how to improve our benchmark. For questions and propositions, please contact us: itm-benchmark@videoprocessing.ai
Also you can subscribe to updates on our benchmark:
MSU Video Quality Measurement Tool
Widest Range of Metrics & Formats
- Modern & Classical Metrics SSIM, MS-SSIM, PSNR, VMAF and 10+ more
- Non-reference analysis & video characteristics
Blurring, Blocking, Noise, Scene change detection, NIQE and more
Fastest Video Quality Measurement
- GPU support
Up to 11.7x faster calculation of metrics with GPU - Real-time measure
- Unlimited file size
Main MSU VQMT page on compression.ru
-
MSU Benchmark Collection
- Super-Resolution for Video Compression Benchmark
- Video Colorization Benchmark
- Defenses for Image Quality Metrics Benchmark
- Learning-Based Image Compression Benchmark
- Super-Resolution Quality Metrics Benchmark
- Video Saliency Prediction Benchmark
- Metrics Robustness Benchmark
- Video Upscalers Benchmark
- Video Deblurring Benchmark
- Video Frame Interpolation Benchmark
- HDR Video Reconstruction Benchmark
- No-Reference Video Quality Metrics Benchmark
- Full-Reference Video Quality Metrics Benchmark
- Video Alignment and Retrieval Benchmark
- Mobile Video Codecs Benchmark
- Video Super-Resolution Benchmark
- Shot Boundary Detection Benchmark
- The VideoMatting Project
- Video Completion
- Codecs Comparisons & Optimization
- VQMT
- MSU Datasets Collection
- Metrics Research
- Video Quality Measurement Tool 3D
- Video Filters
- Other Projects