Seventh MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Video Codecs Comparison - Standard Version
- Video group head: Dr. Dmitriy Vatolin
- Project head: Dr. Dmitriy Kulikov
- Measurements, analysis: Alexander Parshin, Marat Arsaev
Different Versions of Report
There are two different versions of H.264 Comparison 2011 report:
- MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Video Codecs Comparison - Standard Version (this report)
- MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Video Codecs Comparison - Pro Version (Enterprise
This is a pack of all the graphs with user-friendly systems for switching the graphs
Here is the comparison of the versions:
|Standard Version||Pro Version (Enterprise)|
|Objective Metrics (Y-SSIM)|
|Additional Metrics (Y-PSNR)||
Only few graphs
|Objective Metrics (3-SSIM, MS-SSIM)|
|ColorPlanes||Only Y from YUV||Y, U, V and overall|
|Graphs||Only some typical graphs||All the graphs for all the metrcis, codecds and presets|
|Number of figures||279||1522|
|Hint: You can remove "Extended download" service while purchasing to save money.|
|We can help you to analyze your codec|
Video Codecs that Were Tested
- DivX H.264
- Elecard H.264
- Intel SandyBridge Transcoder (GPU encoder)
- MainConcept H.264 (software)
- MainConcept H.264 (CUDA based encoder)
- Microsoft Expression Encoder
- Non H.264
- VP8 (WebM project)
- XviD (MPEG-4 ASP codec)
|Sequence||Number of frames||Frame rate||Resolution|
|Movies (SD sequences)|
Objectives and Testing Tools
H.264 Codec Testing Objectives
The main goal of this report is the presentation of a comparative evaluation of the quality of new H.264 codecs using objective measures of assessment. The comparison was done using settings provided by the developers of each codec. The main task of the comparison is to analyze different H.264 encoders for the task of transcoding video—e.g., compressing video for personal use. Speed requirements are given for a sufficiently fast PC; fast presets are analogous to real-time encoding for a typical home-use PC.
H.264 Codec Testing Tools
- The following computer configuration was used for the main tests:
- 4-cores processor: Intel Core i7 920, 2.67GHz
- OS Name: Microsoft Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
- Total Physical Memory: 12 GB
- GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580
Overall, the leader in this comparison for software encoders is x264, followed by DivX H.264, Elecard and MainConcept.
The overall ranking of the software codecs tested in this comparison is as follows:
- DivX H.264
The next codecs do not fit speed requiremnts and not listed in overall quality ratings
- Micrsoft Expression Encoder
- WebM VP8 encoder
This rank is based only on the encoders’ quality results. Encoding speed is not considered here.
Professional Versions of Comparison Report
H.264 Comparison Report Pro 2011 version contains:
- Additional objective metrics (PSNR, 3-SSIM, MS-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
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:
- DiscretePhoton team
- Elecard Ltd
- Intel Corporation
- MainConcept GmbH
- WebM project team
- x264 Development Team
The Video Group would also like to thank these companies for their help and technical support during the tests.
Special thanks to the following contributors of our previous comparisons
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.
MSU Benchmark Collection
- MSU Video Upscalers Benchmark 2022
- MSU HDR Video Reconstruction Benchmark 2022
- MSU Super-Resolution for Video Compression Benchmark 2022
- MSU Video Quality Metrics Benchmark 2022
- MSU Video Alignment and Retrieval Benchmark
- MSU Mobile Video Codecs Benchmark 2021
- MSU Video Super-Resolution Benchmark
- MSU Shot Boundary Detection Benchmark 2020
- MSU Deinterlacer Benchmark
- The VideoMatting Project
- Video Completion
- Codecs Comparisons & Optimization
- Video Quality Measurement Tool 3D
MSU Datasets Collection
- Video Filters