DOCSLIB.ORG

H.264/MPEG-4 Advanced Video Coding Alexander Hermans

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
H.264/MPEG-4 Advanced Video Coding Alexander Hermans Seminar Report H.264/MPEG-4 Advanced Video Coding Alexander Hermans Matriculation Number: 284141 RWTH September 11, 2012 Contents 1 Introduction 2 1.1 MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Overview . .3 1.2 Structure of this paper . .3 2 Codec overview 3 2.1 Coding structure . .3 2.2 Encoder . .4 2.3 Decoder . .6 3 Main differences 7 3.1 Intra frame prediction . .7 3.2 Inter frame prediction . .9 3.3 Transform function . 11 3.4 Quantization . 12 3.5 Entropy encoding . 14 3.6 In-loop deblocking filter . 15 4 Profiles and levels 16 4.1 Profiles . 17 4.2 Levels . 18 5 Evaluation 18 6 Patents 20 7 Summary 20 1 1 Introduction Since digital images have been created, the need for compression has been clear. The amount of data needed to store an uncompressed image is large. But while it still might be feasible to store a full resolution uncompressed image, storing video sequences without compression is not. Assuming a normal frame-rate of about 25 frames per second, the amount of data needed to store one hour of high definition video is about 560GB1. Compressing each image on its own, would reduce this amount, but it would not make the video small enough to be stored on today's typical storage mediums. To overcome this problem, video compression algorithms have exploited the temporal redundancies in the video frames. By using previously encoded, or decoded, frames to predict values for the next frame, the data can be compressed with such a rate that storage becomes feasible. This approach to compress videos is also called the motion compensation approach. Like earlier standards, such as MPEG-1 [4], MPEG-2 [5] and MPEG-4 advanced simple profile (ASP) [6], the MPEG-4 advanced video coding (AVC) standard [7] is a lossy compression standard and also based on the motion compensation approach. In many ways these standards are very similar, but each consecutive standard offered a higher compression, while maintaining a similar quality. This has been achieved by improving the steps in the compression algorithm, often at the cost of a higher complexity. In general it is said that MPEG-4 AVC gives double the compression rate, at the same quality, when compared to MPEG-4 ASP. MPEG-4 AVC was developed by the Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG), together with the ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG). Since both groups have their own way of naming new compression standards, MPEG-4 AVC is also called H.264, which is the name given by VCEG. Both groups have competed in creating better video compression standards since the early nineties. VCEG created H.261 in 1988, which was the first practical video compression standard. Many of today's video compression algorithms are similar to H.261. Over the years both the VCEG and MPEG created their own standards. In 1996 they released MPEG-2 Part 2/H.262, which was also created under cooperation of both groups. Then in 2003 they released MPEG-4 AVC/H.264. In 2012 the two teams released a first draft of the High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) standard. This will be the successor to MPEG-4 AVC and again it should provide double the compression rate, when compared to MPEG-4 AVC [1]. 11920 × 1080 × 3 × 25 × 3600 = 559:872:000 Bytes | {z } |{z} |{z} |{z} pixels byte/pixel framerate seconds 2 1.1 MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Overview The MPEG-4 AVC standard was created to offer a higher compression rate, but often at the cost of a higher complexity. This compression gain is achieved by many small improvements, when compared to earlier standards. Some of these changes are better motion compensation, an image segmenta- tion into finer blocks, improved entropy encoding schemes and a mandatory deblocking filter. It is however not a single standard, but rather a family of standards. It defines a set of compression tools, which are then used or not used, based on a selected profile. There are several profiles, designed to match the standard to the user's needs. For example the baseline profile offers a low compression rate and some error resilience, while maintaining a low complexity. The main profile, on the other hand, offers high compression gain, at the cost of a high complexity. Based on these profiles the standard can be used in many fields. For example it is used to store videos on Blu-ray discs, but it is also used to stream videos on websites such as Youtube or Vimeo. 1.2 Structure of this paper Section 2 will describe a general encoder and decoder pair based on the MPEG-4 AVC standard. Here the important differences will be pointed out. These are then explained in more detail in section 3. Section 4 explains the profiles and levels, which are used to define the required capabilities of a decoder. An evaluation of the standard will be given in section 5, followed by a short discussion of some patenting issues in section 6. 2 Codec overview Before looking at the changes in detail, this section will give a high level overview of how the general encoding and decoding structure has changed in the MPEG-4 AVC standard. First the coding structure of actual data will be discussed and then a general overview of an encoder and a decoder will be shown. 2.1 Coding structure The structure in which a video is described is similar to that of earlier standards. A video sequence is split into frames, these are dissected into slices, which are groups of macroblocks. A macroblock (MB) is, as in earlier standards, a block of 16 × 16 pixels. Each macroblock contains further sub- macroblocks of 16 × 8, 8 × 16 or 8 × 8 pixels. Unlike earlier standards, these sub-macroblocks can further be refined into 8 × 4, 4 × 8 and 4 × 4 blocks. 3 The 4 × 4 pixel block is the smallest pixel block and the basic encoding unit in the MPEG-4 AVC standard. In previous standards, the 8 × 8 blocks were the smallest encoding units. Depending on the encoding format of a pixel, the luminance and chromi- nance components of a pixel change. Considering the human eye is more sensible to the luminance information, the chrominance information is stored in a sub-sampled way. For each 2x2 pixel block, each pixel has one byte of luminance information and the whole pixel block share one byte of chromi- nance for each chrominance channel (Cb and Cr). This is called the 4:2:0 format, which is also used by most of the earlier standards. For a macroblock this means that there are 16×16 pixels, with each one luminance values and together these pixels share two 8 × 8 blocks of chrominance values. Each macroblock thus consists of sixteen 4 × 4 blocks, containing luminance val- ues and four 4 × 4 blocks, containing chrominance values for each of the two channels. This gives a total of 24 4 × 4 blocks per macroblock. Initially this was the only supported format, but in later updates of the standard other encoding formats were added, such as the 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 encoding formats [8]. In the 4:4:4 format, a pixel has one byte for each of the channels. As in earlier standards, the notion of Intra-frames (I-frames), Predictive- frames (P-frames) and Bidirectional-frames (B-frames) still exists. In the MPEG-4 AVC standard the different encoding types are no longer decided on a frame level, but on a slice level. This means there are I-slices, P-slices and B-slices. I-frames, P-frames and B-frames can easily be simulated. This can be done by either just using one slice per frame, or by only using the same slice type for all the slices in a frame. Frames only containing I-slices are called instantaneous decoder refresh (IDR) frames. Once an IDR frame is decoded, no previous frames will be used for motion prediction. These frames can thus be used as random entry points. The I-slices do not use any motion prediction and offer the least com- pression gain. The macroblocks in P-slices can use motion prediction, but only from one slice in the future or the past. In previous standards, P-frames were only allowed to use the previous I-frame as a references frame for mo- tion prediction. Macroblocks in B-Slices use one slice in the future and one slice in the past for motion prediction. Unlike previous standards, it is also allowed to have both predictions in the future or the past. Furthermore B-Slices can be stored and also used for motion prediction. Macroblocks in both P-Slices and B-Slices can also be encoded without using motion prediction, if this gives better results. 2.2 Encoder As in previous standards, the encoder is not part of the actual standard. How the resulting implementation works is left to the developer, but the resulting bitstream has to be in a format specified by the standard. Still, 4 Dissect into frames, slices, Video data macroblocks and sub-blocks Intra Intra frame Encoding? prediction Inter Data pool containing Inter frame previous data prediction Integrated Quantize Transform decoder Estimated motion vectors, Lossless File/Stream parameters, encoding headers etc. Figure 1: A general MPEG-4 AVC encoder flowchart. The raw video data is first dissected down to the 4 × 4 blocks. For each block a prediction is created by either inter or intra frame prediction. The prediction is subtracted from the original data to obtain the residual data.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 20-11032 Brief of Amicus Curiae
    Case: 20-11032 Document: 00515836069 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2021 Case No. 20-11032 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AVANCI, L.L.C., a Delaware corporation; AVANCI PLATFORM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, an Irish company; NOKIA CORPORATION, a Finnish corporation; NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS U.S., L.L.C., a Delaware corporation; NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS OY, a Finnish corporation; NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY, a Finnish corporation; CONVERSANT WIRELESS LICENSING SARL, a Luxembourg corporation; OPTIS UP HOLDINGS, L.L.C., a Delaware corporation; OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C., a Delaware corporation; OPTIS WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C., a Delaware Corporation; SHARP CORPORATION, a Japanese corporation, Defendants-Appellees. _____________________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, NO. 3:19-CV-02933, HONORABLE BARBARA M. G. LYNN, CHIEF JUDGE BRIEF OF MPEG LA, L.L.C. AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE JOHN D. HOLDEN DELTON L. VANDEVER PHILIP M. TAYLOR WINDELS MARX LANE & MITTENDORF, LLP Attorneys for Amicus Curiae MPEG LA, L.L.C. 156 West 56th Street New York, New York 10019 (212) 237-1000 Case: 20-11032 Document: 00515836069 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2021 SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF INTERESTED PERSONS Continental Automotive Sys., Inc. v. Avanci L.L.C., et al. Case No. 20-11032 The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed persons and entities as described in the fourth sentence of Fifth Circuit Rule 28.2.1, in addition to those disclosed in the parties’ statements of interested persons, have an interest in the outcome of this case.
    [Show full text]
  • Kulkarni Uta 2502M 11649.Pdf
    IMPLEMENTATION OF A FAST INTER-PREDICTION MODE DECISION IN H.264/AVC VIDEO ENCODER by AMRUTA KIRAN KULKARNI Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Arlington in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON May 2012 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to take this opportunity to offer my gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. K.R. Rao, who invested his precious time in me and has been a constant support throughout my thesis with his patience and profound knowledge. His motivation and enthusiasm helped me in all the time of research and writing of this thesis. His advising and mentoring have helped me complete my thesis. Besides my advisor, I would like to thank the rest of my thesis committee. I am also very grateful to Dr. Dongil Han for his continuous technical advice and financial support. I would like to acknowledge my research group partner, Santosh Kumar Muniyappa, for all the valuable discussions that we had together. It helped me in building confidence and motivated towards completing the thesis. Also, I thank all other lab mates and friends who helped me get through two years of graduate school. Finally, my sincere gratitude and love go to my family. They have been my role model and have always showed me right way. Last but not the least; I would like to thank my husband Amey Mahajan for his emotional and moral support. April 20, 2012 ii ABSTRACT IMPLEMENTATION OF A FAST INTER-PREDICTION MODE DECISION IN H.264/AVC VIDEO ENCODER Amruta Kulkarni, M.S The University of Texas at Arlington, 2011 Supervising Professor: K.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Versatile Video Coding – the Next-Generation Video Standard of the Joint Video Experts Team
    31.07.2018 Versatile Video Coding – The Next-Generation Video Standard of the Joint Video Experts Team Mile High Video Workshop, Denver July 31, 2018 Gary J. Sullivan, JVET co-chair Acknowledgement: Presentation prepared with Jens-Rainer Ohm and Mathias Wien, Institute of Communication Engineering, RWTH Aachen University 1. Introduction Versatile Video Coding – The Next-Generation Video Standard of the Joint Video Experts Team 1 31.07.2018 Video coding standardization organisations • ISO/IEC MPEG = “Moving Picture Experts Group” (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 = International Standardization Organization and International Electrotechnical Commission, Joint Technical Committee 1, Subcommittee 29, Working Group 11) • ITU-T VCEG = “Video Coding Experts Group” (ITU-T SG16/Q6 = International Telecommunications Union – Telecommunications Standardization Sector (ITU-T, a United Nations Organization, formerly CCITT), Study Group 16, Working Party 3, Question 6) • JVT = “Joint Video Team” collaborative team of MPEG & VCEG, responsible for developing AVC (discontinued in 2009) • JCT-VC = “Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding” team of MPEG & VCEG , responsible for developing HEVC (established January 2010) • JVET = “Joint Video Experts Team” responsible for developing VVC (established Oct. 2015) – previously called “Joint Video Exploration Team” 3 Versatile Video Coding – The Next-Generation Video Standard of the Joint Video Experts Team Gary Sullivan | Jens-Rainer Ohm | Mathias Wien | July 31, 2018 History of international video coding standardization
    [Show full text]
  • ATSC Powerpoint Presentation
    ATSC Patent Portfolio License Briefing* *This presentation is for information purposes only. Actual license agreements will provide the only definitive and reliable statement V02/13/18 of license terms. Objective • A license for the convenience of users enabling them to acquire patent rights necessary for the ATSC Standard from multiple patent owners in a single transaction as an alternative to negotiating separate licenses 2 Coverage • Each patent is essential to the ATSC standard as defined in the ATSC Patent Portfolio License • Patent holders submit patents for evaluation of their essentiality by independent patent experts • Worldwide coverage including essential counterparts • Licensors include all essential ATSC patents • Copies of ATSC standard specifications developed and published by the Advanced Television Systems Committee are available at www.atsc.org/standards.html 3 Coverage • Attachment 1 to the License is a list of patents updated quarterly to add new essential ATSC patents o See www.mpegla.com (Current Pools, ATSC, Patent List) • New Licensors and essential patents may be added at no additional royalty during the current term, and coverage is provided for the entire term of license • The ATSC License does not provide coverage for essential MPEG-2 patents. A separate joint license for MPEG-2 patents is available from MPEG LA at www.mpegla.com (Current Pools, MPEG-2, Agreement). 4 Current Patent Owners Essential Patent Holders currently include: • Cisco Technology, Inc.* • JVC KENWOOD Corporation* • Koninklijke Philips N.V.*
    [Show full text]
  • MPEG LA News Release
    MPEG LA News Release NEWS RELEASE For Immediate Release CONTACT: Lawrence Horn MPEG LA, LLC 301.986.6660 301.986.8575 Fax [email protected] Development of Joint Patent License for H.264/MPEG-4 AVC Makes Progress Meeting of Essential Patent Holders Convened by MPEG LA Puts License on Fast Track (Denver, Colorado, USA - 7 July 2003) MPEG LA convened a meeting of essential H.264/MPEG-4 AVC patent and patent application holders in Washington, DC on June 23 and June 24 to begin the process of determining joint licensing terms. Parties with patents or patent applications determined by MPEG LA’s patent experts to be essential to the H.264/AVC standard (“standard”) were invited to participate. The essential patent and patent application holders are keenly aware of the intense marketplace interest in knowing the terms of a joint license for this important new technology as soon as possible, and the very positive and cooperative consensus-building atmosphere of their first meeting suggests that this goal is achievable. The meeting included discussion on an overall framework for a license, and a second meeting will be held July 31 to discuss proposed licensing terms in an effort to achieve their goal of reaching agreement on joint license terms during the fourth quarter 2003. Parties with patents or patent applications determined by MPEG LA’s patent experts to be essential to the H.264/AVC standard (“standard”) so far include Columbia University, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute of Korea (ETRI), France Télécom, Fujitsu, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, Philips, Polycom, Robert Bosch GmbH, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, Thomson, Toshiba, and Victor Company of Japan (JVC).
    [Show full text]
  • Security Solutions Y in MPEG Family of MPEG Family of Standards
    1 Security solutions in MPEG family of standards TdjEbhiiTouradj Ebrahimi [email protected] NET working? Broadcast Networks and their security 16-17 June 2004, Geneva, Switzerland MPEG: Moving Picture Experts Group 2 • MPEG-1 (1992): MP3, Video CD, first generation set-top box, … • MPEG-2 (1994): Digital TV, HDTV, DVD, DVB, Professional, … • MPEG-4 (1998, 99, ongoing): Coding of Audiovisual Objects • MPEG-7 (2001, ongo ing ): DitiDescription of Multimedia Content • MPEG-21 (2002, ongoing): Multimedia Framework NET working? Broadcast Networks and their security 16-17 June 2004, Geneva, Switzerland MPEG-1 - ISO/IEC 11172:1992 3 • Coding of moving pictures and associated audio for digital storage media at up to about 1,5 Mbit/s – Part 1 Systems - Program Stream – Part 2 Video – Part 3 Audio – Part 4 Conformance – Part 5 Reference software NET working? Broadcast Networks and their security 16-17 June 2004, Geneva, Switzerland MPEG-2 - ISO/IEC 13818:1994 4 • Generic coding of moving pictures and associated audio – Part 1 Systems - joint with ITU – Part 2 Video - joint with ITU – Part 3 Audio – Part 4 Conformance – Part 5 Reference software – Part 6 DSM CC – Par t 7 AAC - Advance d Au dio Co ding – Part 9 RTI - Real Time Interface – Part 10 Conformance extension - DSM-CC – Part 11 IPMP on MPEG-2 Systems NET working? Broadcast Networks and their security 16-17 June 2004, Geneva, Switzerland MPEG-4 - ISO/IEC 14496:1998 5 • Coding of audio-visual objects – Part 1 Systems – Part 2 Visual – Part 3 Audio – Part 4 Conformance – Part 5 Reference
    [Show full text]
  • Multiple Reference Motion Compensation: a Tutorial Introduction and Survey Contents
    Foundations and TrendsR in Signal Processing Vol. 2, No. 4 (2008) 247–364 c 2009 A. Leontaris, P. C. Cosman and A. M. Tourapis DOI: 10.1561/2000000019 Multiple Reference Motion Compensation: A Tutorial Introduction and Survey By Athanasios Leontaris, Pamela C. Cosman and Alexis M. Tourapis Contents 1 Introduction 248 1.1 Motion-Compensated Prediction 249 1.2 Outline 254 2 Background, Mosaic, and Library Coding 256 2.1 Background Updating and Replenishment 257 2.2 Mosaics Generated Through Global Motion Models 261 2.3 Composite Memories 264 3 Multiple Reference Frame Motion Compensation 268 3.1 A Brief Historical Perspective 268 3.2 Advantages of Multiple Reference Frames 270 3.3 Multiple Reference Frame Prediction 271 3.4 Multiple Reference Frames in Standards 277 3.5 Interpolation for Motion Compensated Prediction 281 3.6 Weighted Prediction and Multiple References 284 3.7 Scalable and Multiple-View Coding 286 4 Multihypothesis Motion-Compensated Prediction 290 4.1 Bi-Directional Prediction and Generalized Bi-Prediction 291 4.2 Overlapped Block Motion Compensation 294 4.3 Hypothesis Selection Optimization 296 4.4 Multihypothesis Prediction in the Frequency Domain 298 4.5 Theoretical Insight 298 5 Fast Multiple-Frame Motion Estimation Algorithms 301 5.1 Multiresolution and Hierarchical Search 302 5.2 Fast Search using Mathematical Inequalities 303 5.3 Motion Information Re-Use and Motion Composition 304 5.4 Simplex and Constrained Minimization 306 5.5 Zonal and Center-biased Algorithms 307 5.6 Fractional-pixel Texture Shifts or Aliasing
    [Show full text]
  • The H.264 Advanced Video Coding (AVC) Standard
    Whitepaper: The H.264 Advanced Video Coding (AVC) Standard What It Means to Web Camera Performance Introduction A new generation of webcams is hitting the market that makes video conferencing a more lifelike experience for users, thanks to adoption of the breakthrough H.264 standard. This white paper explains some of the key benefits of H.264 encoding and why cameras with this technology should be on the shopping list of every business. The Need for Compression Today, Internet connection rates average in the range of a few megabits per second. While VGA video requires 147 megabits per second (Mbps) of data, full high definition (HD) 1080p video requires almost one gigabit per second of data, as illustrated in Table 1. Table 1. Display Resolution Format Comparison Format Horizontal Pixels Vertical Lines Pixels Megabits per second (Mbps) QVGA 320 240 76,800 37 VGA 640 480 307,200 147 720p 1280 720 921,600 442 1080p 1920 1080 2,073,600 995 Video Compression Techniques Digital video streams, especially at high definition (HD) resolution, represent huge amounts of data. In order to achieve real-time HD resolution over typical Internet connection bandwidths, video compression is required. The amount of compression required to transmit 1080p video over a three megabits per second link is 332:1! Video compression techniques use mathematical algorithms to reduce the amount of data needed to transmit or store video. Lossless Compression Lossless compression changes how data is stored without resulting in any loss of information. Zip files are losslessly compressed so that when they are unzipped, the original files are recovered.
    [Show full text]
  • For Immediate Release CONTACT
    For Immediate Release CONTACT: Tom O’Reilly MPEG LA, LLC Tel: 303.200.1710 Fax: 301.986.8575 [email protected] MPEG LA Offers HEVC Patent Portfolio License License for High Efficiency Video Coding Standard with Patents from 23 Enterprises Is MPEG LA’s Latest (DENVER, CO, US – 29 September 2014) – MPEG LA, LLC today announced the availability of the HEVC Patent Portfolio License (“HEVC License”). The joint license includes patents that are essential to the High Efficiency Video Coding standard (HEVC, also known as H.265 and MPEG-H Part 2) designed to improve video coding and transmission efficiency for the benefit of Internet, television, and mobile service providers and consumers with increased speed and capacity. HEVC is also expected to deliver next generation higher resolution HDTV video by broadcast, streaming, download, and 4K Blu-ray™ for 4K and 8K Ultra High Definition TV. “The market is ready for an HEVC License,” said MPEG LA President and CEO Larry Horn, “and MPEG LA is proud to offer one. We applaud the cooperation and hard work of HEVC patent owners to make this important technology available through an efficient licensing alternative.” “The HEVC License is yet another example of the role the MPEG LA® Licensing Model plays in making licenses available on reasonable terms under standard-essential patents (SEPs) for emerging technologies,” added Bill Geary, Vice President of Business Development at MPEG LA. Copies of the HEVC license agreement may be obtained at http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/HEVC/Pages/AgreementExpress.aspx. A summary of the license agreement may be found at http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/HEVC/Pages/Agreement.aspx.
    [Show full text]
  • CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE Optimized AV1 Inter
    CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE Optimized AV1 Inter Prediction using Binary classification techniques A graduate project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Software Engineering by Alex Kit Romero May 2020 The graduate project of Alex Kit Romero is approved: ____________________________________ ____________ Dr. Katya Mkrtchyan Date ____________________________________ ____________ Dr. Kyle Dewey Date ____________________________________ ____________ Dr. John J. Noga, Chair Date California State University, Northridge ii Dedication This project is dedicated to all of the Computer Science professors that I have come in contact with other the years who have inspired and encouraged me to pursue a career in computer science. The words and wisdom of these professors are what pushed me to try harder and accomplish more than I ever thought possible. I would like to give a big thanks to the open source community and my fellow cohort of computer science co-workers for always being there with answers to my numerous questions and inquiries. Without their guidance and expertise, I could not have been successful. Lastly, I would like to thank my friends and family who have supported and uplifted me throughout the years. Thank you for believing in me and always telling me to never give up. iii Table of Contents Signature Page ................................................................................................................................ ii Dedication .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • For Immediate Release CONTACT
    For Immediate Release CONTACT: Tom O’Reilly MPEG LA, LLC Tel: 303.200.1710 Fax: 301.986.8575 [email protected] MPEG LA Expands HEVC License Coverage (DENVER, CO, US – 25 April 2016) – MPEG LA, LLC has announced that the coverage of its HEVC Patent Portfolio License has been updated to conform with recent revisions to the HEVC standard as defined in Recommendation ITU-T H.265 v3 (4/2015). In addition to the coverage earlier provided to Licensees, the License has been expanded to provide coverage for the 3D Main profile. The current royalty rates remain unchanged. The HEVC Patent Portfolio License, introduced on September 29, 2014, is offered for the convenience of HEVC users enabling them to obtain coverage under essential patents owned by multiple patent holders in a single license as an alternative to negotiating separate licenses. Interested parties may request a copy of the License at http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/HEVC/Pages/AgreementExpress.aspx. MPEG LA’s objective is to provide worldwide access to as much HEVC essential intellectual property as possible for the benefit of licensees. Any party that believes it has a patent which is essential to the HEVC standard as defined in Recommendation ITU-T H.265 v3 (4/2015) is welcome to submit its patent(s) for an evaluation of essentiality by MPEG LA’s patent experts and inclusion in the License if determined to be essential. Interested parties may request a copy of the terms and procedures governing patent submissions by going to http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/HEVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx.
    [Show full text]
  • ITC Confplanner DVD Pages Itcconfplanner
    Comparative Analysis of H.264 and Motion- JPEG2000 Compression for Video Telemetry Item Type text; Proceedings Authors Hallamasek, Kurt; Hallamasek, Karen; Schwagler, Brad; Oxley, Les Publisher International Foundation for Telemetering Journal International Telemetering Conference Proceedings Rights Copyright © held by the author; distribution rights International Foundation for Telemetering Download date 25/09/2021 09:57:28 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/581732 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF H.264 AND MOTION-JPEG2000 COMPRESSION FOR VIDEO TELEMETRY Kurt Hallamasek, Karen Hallamasek, Brad Schwagler, Les Oxley [email protected] Ampex Data Systems Corporation Redwood City, CA USA ABSTRACT The H.264/AVC standard, popular in commercial video recording and distribution, has also been widely adopted for high-definition video compression in Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance and for Flight Test applications. H.264/AVC is the most modern and bandwidth-efficient compression algorithm specified for video recording in the Digital Recording IRIG Standard 106-11, Chapter 10. This bandwidth efficiency is largely derived from the inter-frame compression component of the standard. Motion JPEG-2000 compression is often considered for cockpit display recording, due to the concern that details in the symbols and graphics suffer excessively from artifacts of inter-frame compression and that critical information might be lost. In this paper, we report on a quantitative comparison of H.264/AVC and Motion JPEG-2000 encoding for HD video telemetry. Actual encoder implementations in video recorder products are used for the comparison. INTRODUCTION The phenomenal advances in video compression over the last two decades have made it possible to compress the bit rate of a video stream of imagery acquired at 24-bits per pixel (8-bits for each of the red, green and blue components) with a rate of a fraction of a bit per pixel.
    [Show full text]