Seventh MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Video Codecs Comparison - Standard Version

Different Versions of Report

There are two different versions of H.264 Comparison 2011 report:

Here is the comparison of the versions:

Standard Version Pro Version (Enterprise)
Objective Metrics (Y-SSIM) YES YES
Additional Metrics (Y-PSNR) NO
Only few graphs
YES
Objective Metrics (3-SSIM, MS-SSIM) NO YES
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
Prices Free $895
Purchase Download pdf 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

Overview

Sequences

Table 1. Summary of video sequences <table BORDER STYLE="border-collapse: collapse" CELLSPACING=1 CELLPADDING=7 WIDTH=570 bordercolor="#CCCCCC" style="text-align: center;"> Sequence Number of frames Frame rate Resolution <td colspan=4> VideoConference</td> Videoconference CIF 1374 30 352x288 VideoConference 4CIF 3600 30 640x480 VideoConference 720p 1500 30 1280x720 <td colspan=4> Movies (SD sequences) </td> Ice Age 2014 24 720x480 City 600 60 704x576 Crew 600 60 704x576 Indiana Jones 5000 30 704x288 Harbour 600 60 704x576 Ice Skating 480 60 704x576 Soccer 600 60 704x576 Race Horses 300 30 832x480 State Enemy 6500 24 720x304 Party Scene 500 50 832x480 <td colspan=4> HDTV sequences</td> Park Joy 500 50 1280x720 Riverbed 250 25 1920x1080 Rush Hour 500 25 1920x1080 Blue Sky 217 25 1920x1080 Station 313 25 1920x1080 217 25 1920x1080 Stockholm 604 50 1280x720 Sunflower 500 25 1920x1080 Tractor 690 25 1920x1080 Bunny 600 24 1920x1080 Dream 600 24 1920x1080 Troy 300 24 1920x1072 </table>

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

Overall Conclusions

Overall, the leader in this comparison for software encoders is x264, followed by DivX H.264, Elecard and MainConcept.

Average bitrate for Movies and HDTV for all presets

The overall ranking of the software codecs tested in this comparison is as follows:

  1. x264
  2. DivX H.264
  3. Elecard
  4. MainConcept
  5. XviD
  6. DiscretePhoton

The next codecs do not fit speed requiremnts and not listed in overall quality ratings

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:

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:

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:

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

Strong and Weak Points of Your Codec

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

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.

Contacts

E-mail: videocodec-testing@graphics.cs.msu.ru

20 Jan 2012
See Also
Automatic local color correction in S3D video
Stereo video may contain a huge color discrepancy. Most of the problems are hard to eliminate because of possible different distortions in each area in the frame.
Call for HEVC codecs 2019
Fourteen modern video codec comparison
HEVC Video Codecs Comparison 2018 (Thirteen MSU Video Codec Comparison)
13th MSU video codecs comparison
HEVC Video Codecs Comparison 2017 (Twelfth MSU Video Codec Comparison)
12th MSU video codecs comparison
MSU Video Codec Comparisons (6 test of lossless, MPEG-4 and MPEG-4 AVC)
Call for HEVC codecs 2018
Site structure