First Annual MSU MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Video Codec Comparison

For professional users and codec authors

Return to first H.264/AVC comparison home page!

Part 2. PSNR/Bitrate diagrams

Y-PSNR/Bit rate, Delta-Y-PSNR/Bit rate, U-PSNR/Bit rate and V-PSNR/Bit rate diagrams

Bankomatdi sequence

Conclusions:

• DivX codec is worse than H.264 codecs on the low bit rates.
• Ateme codec has shown best results on the average and high bit rates.
• Diagrams are similar for U and V components.

Battle sequence

Conclusions:

• DivX codec is much worse than Videosoft, Fraunhofer and Ateme codecs on the low bit rates.
• Ateme codec is the best on the average and high bit rates.
• Diagrams are similar for U and V components.

Bbc3di sequence

Conclusions:

• DivX codec is much worse than the other codecs except Moonlight on the low bit rates.
• Ateme and Videosoft codecs are the best on the average and high bit rates.
• Diagrams are similar for U and V components.

Foreman sequence

Conclusions:

• DivX codec is much worse than the other codecs except MainConcept on the low bit rates.
• Videosoft codec is the best on the average and high bit rates.
• Moonlight, Fraunhofer and Ateme codecs act similarly on the high bit rates.
• Diagrams are similar for U and V components except for the fact that Fraunhofer showed better result on the V component and AVC showed better result on the U component.

Susidi sequence

Conclusions:

• DivX codec is much worse than Ateme codec on the low bit rates.
• DivX codec is the best on the average and high bit rates.
• Diagrams are similar for U and V components except for the fact that Fraunhofer showed better result on the V component and AVC showed better result on the U component.