Call for fourth MSU HEVC codecs comparison - 2018
Thirteenth modern video codec comparison
For real researchers, developers and professional users in field of high-end video compression
Hardware info and speed requirements is
Developers could send codec with presets to firstname.lastname@example.org
||Deadline for applications|
Participant has to send us name of codec (with name of encoding standard if not HEVC), name of company and number of presets that he wants to use.
|March, 31||Deadline for receipt of a codec with required presets|
|April, 25||Deadline for settling technical problems with codec’s functioning|
|August, 7||Draft version of report that will be sent to all participants|
|August, 14||Deadline for reception of comments to the draft|
|August, 25||Comparison report release|
Task of the Comparison
To perform comparative unbiased analysis of the current software and hardware (GPU-based) implementations of HEVC/H.265 video coding standard and compare it to the best implementations of other video coding standards (H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, VP9, VP8 and MPEG-4) using objective metrics.
Typical Scope of Test
Summary report topics:
- Objective measurements + Subjective analysis
- Encoding time
- Bitrate keeping
- Speed/Quality trade-off analysis
- Averaged objective results analysis
- Leaders in different use-cases
Comparison methodology main points:
- 2 metrics: SSIM and PSNR + New objective metrics: VMAF, NIQE
- 3 color-planes (Y,U,V) and integral metric values
- 25-30 HD video sequences (main report) + 10-12 4K video sequences (report appendix)
- prosumer-level modern hardware
- 8-10 different target bitrates (1-12 Mbps for HD and 2-16 Mbps for 4K)
- 3 various use-cases (Fast, Universal and Ripping) differ by speed/quality trade-off
- fully automatic testing system
- 5000+ result figures
Software and methodology for encoder analysis
MSU team has up to 21 years of experience in video codec analysis, testing, optimization. Here are some facts about the Previous MSU Video Codecs Comparisons:
- There were more than 400.000 downloads of previous H.264 and HEVC video codec comparisons results
- Many codec’s bugs were found and reported to developers
- More than 25 private reports for codec developers (describe weak and strong points for codec) after public report versions
- Here you can see Selected comments for MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 video codecs comparison
In addition, you can check out some useful links about previous video codec comparisons:
- MSU HEVC/H.265 Video Codec Comparison - 2017
- Eighth Annual MSU MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Video Codec Comparison
- See all our comparisons
This year encoder developers send us a bundle of same presets (with different speed/quality characteristics) for all use-cases.
Please pay attention that we will use multi-core CPU for encoding, so you can use multi-threading.
- Decoding is performed with reference decoder.
- We do not limit GOP size and intra-period.
- Before results’ publishing each developer will receive the results of its codec and competitive free codecs. Developers of each codec can write a comment (one paragraph) about the comparison results. That comment will be included in the report.
- We are willing to completely or partially delete information about some codec in the public version of comparison report only in exceptional cases (e.g. critical errors in a codec).
- The participation is free with results publishing
- You can join comparison for free if you agree that your codec’s results will be published.
- If your company wants to receive results of your codec testing with possibility to exclude it results from publication and information disclosure, you should pay for measurements and report preparing before comparison begins.
- Enterprise version of comparison report is available for direct participants for free
- All participants will receive following deliverables to verify the
results for free:
- video sequences used in comparison
- binaries of all free encoders used in comparison to verify the results
- all raw video quality metric and encoding speed data for its encoder and for all of free encoders used in comparison
Test Hardware Characteristics
Next hardware for codec testing will be used:
- CPU: Intel Socket 1151 Core i7 8700K (Coffee Lake) (3.7Ghz, 6C12T, TDP 95W)
- Mainboard: ASRock Z370M Pro4
- RAM: Crucial CT16G4DFD824A 16GB DIMM DDR4 2400MHz CL15
- OS: Windows 10 x64
Encoding speed requirements
For encoder alignment selected presets should provide following encoding
All speed requirements are for 1080p sequence encoded at 6Mbps:
- Fast/High Density — 1080@60fps
- Universal/Broadcast VQ — 1080p@25fps
- Ripping/Pristine VQ — 1080p@1fps and SSIM-RD curve better than x264-veryslow
- Presets for different speed requirements should be provided by the developers
- Codec should allow to set arbitrary bitrate of resulting stream
- Preferable codec interface - console codec version (with batch processing support — bitrate and file names must be possible to assign from the command line).
- Encoder should be compatible with reference decoder
Following deliverables should be provided by each developer:
- Codec files (CLI executable file is preferable).
- Short description of codec parameters.
- Codec’s presets.
Special thanks to the following contributors of our previous comparisons
MSU Benchmark Collection
- Video Upscalers Benchmark
- Video Deblurring Benchmark
- Video Frame Interpolation Benchmark
- HDR Video Reconstruction Benchmark
- Super-Resolution for Video Compression 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
- Deinterlacer Benchmark
- The VideoMatting Project
- Video Completion
- Codecs Comparisons & Optimization
- MSU Datasets Collection
- Metrics Research
- Video Quality Measurement Tool 3D
- Video Filters
- Other Projects