Video Codecs Comparison Part 2: PSNR Diagrams
Project head: Dmitriy Vatolin Testing: Sergey Grishin Translating: Daria Kalinkina, Stanislav Soldatov Preparing: Nikolai Trunichkin
9 testing sequences! 11 days (260 hours) total compression time! 33 tested codecs! 2430 resulting sequences!
May 2003 CS MSU Graphics&Media Lab Video Group http://www.compression.ru/video/
VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003 Video Codecs Comparison Part 2: PSNR Diagrams For All Video Codecs 15 May 2003
Contents
Contents ...... 2 Disclaimer...... 4 Lossless codecs ...... 5 Microsoft codec`s versions ...... 7 Y-PSNR / Frame Size Diagrams...... 12 MPEG4 ...... 13 Microsoft 3688 v3, Divx 3.1, Divx 4.02, Divx 5.02 and Xvid 2.1...... 13 Microsoft v1 & v2 & v3, Divx 4.02, 3IVX D4...... 17 JPEG ...... 21 NON-STANDART...... 23 Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 & 5.11, VP 3.1 и Motion Wavelets ...... 23 VSS H.264, VSS 1.2, Intel I.263, VP 3.1, Cinepak by Radius, Visicron Static & Dynamic...... 26 Strategy of Drop Frames ...... 30 MPEG4 ...... 31 Microsoft 3688 v3, Divx 3.1, Divx 4.02, Divx 5.02 and Xvid 2.1...... 31 Microsoft v1 & v2 & v3, Divx 4.02, 3IVX D4...... 34 JPEG ...... 36 NON-STANDART...... 45 Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 & 5.11, VP 3.1 and Motion Wavelets ...... 45 VSS H.264, VSS 1.2, Intel I.263, VP 3.1, Cinepak by Radius, Visicron Static & Dynamic...... 46 U-PSNR Diagrams...... 48 MPEG4 Microsoft 3688 v3, Divx 3.1, Divx 4.02, Divx 5.02 and Xvid 2.1 ...... 48 Microsoft v1 & v2 & v3, Divx 4.02, 3IVX D4...... 54 JPEG ...... 56 NON-STANDART...... 58 Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 & 5.11, VP 3.1 and Motion Wavelets ...... 58 VSS H.264, VSS 1.2, Intel I.263, VP 3.1, Cinepak by Radius, Visicron Static & Dynamic...... 60 Y-Difference Diagrams ...... 64 MPEG4 ...... 65 Microsoft 3688 v3, Divx 3.1, Divx 4.02, Divx 5.02 and Xvid 2.1...... 65 Microsoft v1 & v2 & v3, Divx 4.02, 3IVX D4...... 68 JPEG ...... 71 NON-STANDART...... 75 Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 & 5.11, VP 3.1 and Motion Wavelets ...... 75
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 2 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
VSS H.264, VSS 1.2, Intel I.263, VP 3.1, Cinepak by Radius, Visicron Static & Dynamic...... 78 Bitrate Handle Diagrams...... 81 MPEG4 ...... 82 Microsoft 3688 v3, Divx 3.1, Divx 4.02, Divx 5.02 and Xvid 2.1...... 82 Microsoft v1 & v2 & v3, Divx 4.02, 3IVX D4...... 85 JPEG ...... 87 NON-STANDART...... 89 Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 & 5.11, VP 3.1 and Motion Wavelets ...... 89 VSS H.264, VSS 1.2, Intel I.263, VP 3.1, Cinepak by Radius, Visicron Static & Dynamic...... 91 Outline ...... 94
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 3 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
Disclaimer
Attention! For some codecs new versions are available that was not in- cluded into this test.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 4 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
Lossless codecs
Y-axis on the two diagrams given below represents the compression index - that is the size of the source sequence divided by the size of the compressed sequence.
Коэффициент сжатия для RGB 2.75
2.55
2.35
2.15
| 1.95 сжатия 1.75
1.55
Коэффициент 1.35
1.15
0.95
0.75 bankomatdi battle bbc3di bus foreman helicopterdi NDDP7di susidi tensdi Фильм
LEAD JPEG CamStudio GZIP(1) CamStudio GZIP(9) HuffYUV 2.1.1(predict left/no decorr.) HuffYUV 2.1.1(predict left) HuffYUV 2.1.1(predict gradient) Pegasus PicVideo JPEG AVIzlib(hi speed) MSUlab beta
Коэффициент сжатия для YUV
3.25
2.75 |
2.25 сжатия
1.75 Коэффициент
1.25
0.75 bankomatdi battle bbc3di bus foreman helicopterdi NDDP7di susidi tensdi Фильм
LEAD JPEG CamStudio GZIP(fastest) CamStudio GZIP(better compression) HuffYUV 2.1.1(predict gradient) HuffYUV 2.1.1(predict left) HuffYUV 2.1.1(predict median) Pegasus PicVideo JPEG MSUlab beta
Conclusions: • In the RGB color space Huffyuv 2.1.1 has a better compression index and in the YUV color space MSUlab beta has a better compression index.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 5 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
Y-axis on the two diagrams given below represents the compression index of a co- dec divided by the compression index of the Huffyuv codec. So there it can be eas- ily seen, which codecs on which sequences reach a higher compression index than Huffyuv.
Сравнение с Huff predict gradient (RGB)
1.40
1.20
1.00 Huff | Huff к
0.80 сжатия . коэф
0.60
0.40 Отношение
0.20
- bankomatdi battle bbc3di bus foreman helicopterdi NDDP7di susidi tensdi Фильм
LEAD JPEG CamStudio GZIP(1) CamStudio GZIP(9) HuffYUV 2.1.1(predict left/no decorr.) HuffYUV 2.1.1(predict left) HuffYUV 2.1.1(predict gradient) Pegasus PicVideo JPEG AVIzlib(hi compression) AVIzlib(hi speed) AVIzlib(normal) MSUlab beta
Сравнение с Huff predict median (YUV) 1.45
1.25 Huff | Huff
к 1.05
сжатия
0.85
0.65 корэффициентов
0.45 Отношение
0.25 bankomatdi battle bbc3di bus foreman helicopterdi NDDP7di susidi tensdi Фильм
LEAD JPEG CamStudio GZIP(fastest) CamStudio GZIP(better compression) HuffYUV 2.1.1(predict gradient) HuffYUV 2.1.1(predict left) HuffYUV 2.1.1(predict median) Pegasus PicVideo JPEG AVIzlib(hi compression) MSUlab beta
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 6 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
Microsoft codec`s versions Diagrams given in this section represent different hacked versions of the Microsoft codec. As it can be easily seen, all codecs in this group work almost identically. Small difference is probably caused by the changed default options, what in some cases improved the result.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 7 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
Y-PSNR 45
40
35
30 Y-PSNR
25
20
15 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v1 MS_3688_v2 MS_3688_v3 Angel Potion KS v1 KS v2 KS v3 Microsoft v1 Microsoft v2 U-PSNR 44
42
40
38
36 U-PSNR
34
32
30
28 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v1 MS_3688_v2 MS_3688_v3 Angel Potion KS v1 KS v2 KS v3 Microsoft v1 Microsoft v2
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 8 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
Y-PSNR 45
40
35
30 Y-PSNR Y-PSNR
25
20
15 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v1 MS_3688_v2 MS_3688_v3 Angel Potion KS v1 KS v2 KS v3 Microsoft v1 Microsoft v2 Y-PSNR 45
40
35
30 Y-PSNR Y-PSNR
25
20
15 4 4 4 4 4 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 1.2 .10 1.3 .10 1.4 .10 Frame size (with drop frames) MS_3688_v1 MS_3688_v2 MS_3688_v3 Angel Potion KS v1 KS v2 KS v3 Microsoft v1 Microsoft v2
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 9 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
Y-difference 0.5
0
0.5
1
Y-difference 1.5
2
2.5
3 0123456789 Number of measurement MS_3688_v1 MS_3688_v2 MS_3688_v3 Angel Potion KS v1 KS v2 KS v3 Microsoft v1 Microsoft v2 Bitrate handle
1.1
1
Bitrate handle Bitrate 0.9
0.8
0.7 0123456789 Number of measurement MS_3688_v1 MS_3688_v2 MS_3688_v3 Angel Potion KS v1 KS v2 KS v3 Microsoft v1 Microsoft v2
Conclusions:
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 10 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
• Similar way of functioning is evident for this group. • Small differences might be caused by the changes in the default settings and some small adjustments made to the original codec. • Microsoft v3, KS v3 and Angel Potion (to a lesser degree) codecs proved to have some advantages before the other codecs. Among these advantages are the usage of drop frames and good Y-PSNR metric on low bitrate. Other codecs work almost identically.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 11 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
Y-PSNR / Frame Size Diagrams These diagrams are good for demonstrating the dependence of the quality of the compressed sequence on its size. Average values of metric and frame size are used as coordinates of the basic points of the diagrams. So each branch contains ten points, which relate to the different bitrate values.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 12 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
MPEG4
Microsoft 3688 v3, Divx 3.1, Divx 4.02, Divx 5.02 and Xvid 2.1
40
35
30 Y-PSNR Y-PSNR
25
20
4 4 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v3 DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid Picture 1. Sequence BANKOMATDdi Conclusions: • Div 3.1 works a little bit worse than Microsoft on low bitrate. • Codecs work almost identically if the frame size is around 2-4kb. • Branches for Divx 4.02 and Divx 5.02 begin at the 3kb frame size. So this is the minimum bitrate which these codecs can compress with (having default settings). • Low motion and fast motion versions of Divx 3.1 behave similarly on low bi- trate and start to behave differently on the high one. Fast motion version, having a bit smaller PSNR, has a significantly smaller frame size. The bat- tle, helicopterdi and nddp7di sequences showed the same result.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 13 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
40
35
30
25
Y-PSNR Y-PSNR 20
15
10
5 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v3 DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid
Picture 2. Sequence BBC3di Conclusion: • Beginning from the 4 kb frame size branches for low motion and fast motion are identical. • Divx 5.02 works a little better than Divx 4.02 on this sequence. • Bending of the Xvid 2.1 branch is caused by decreasing of the frame size on low bitrate. Frame size is decreasing beginning from bitrate value of 100 kbps and is increasing beginning from bitrate value of 938 kbps.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 14 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
40
35
30 Y-PSNR Y-PSNR
25
20 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 1.8 .10 2 .10 2.2 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v3 DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid Picture 3. Sequence BUS
42
40
38
36 Y-PSNR Y-PSNR
34
32
30 4 4 4 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 1.2 .10 1.3 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v3 DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid Picture 4. Sequence FOREMAN Fast motion works worse than low motion on both foreman and bus sequences.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 15 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
35
30 Y-PSNR Y-PSNR
25
20
4 4 4 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v3 DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid Picture 5. Sequence TENSdi
40
35
30 Y-PSNR Y-PSNR 25
20
15 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 Frame size DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid Picture 6. Sequence SUSIdi Fast motion works much better than low motion on this clip. Having almost the same metric, frame after fast motion has the size, which is four times as small as the size of the frame after low motion.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 16 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
Microsoft v1 & v2 & v3, Divx 4.02, 3IVX D4
40
35
30 PSNR PSNR
25
20 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 1.8 .10 2 .10 2.2 .10 2.4 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v1 MS_3688_v2 MS_3688_v3 DivX 4.02 3IVX D4 Picture 7. Sequence BUS Conclusions: • Microsoft v1, v2, v3 work almost identically. • Microsoft keeps low bitrate. • The sequence, compressed by Microsoft, has a better quality than se- quences compressed by the other codecs from this group. • Divx 4.02 does not keep low bitrate, so several points in the beginning turn into one. • Quality of the sequence, compressed by Divx 4.02, is almost identical with the one, compressed by Microsoft, on low bitrate and with the one, com- pressed by 3IVX D4, on high bitrate. • 3IVX D4 changes bitrate a bit when it is set to a low value. All these features are also true for all the diagrams, which were omitted.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 17 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
40
35
30 PSNR PSNR 25
20
15 4 4 4 4 4 0 5000 1 .10 1.5 .10 2 .10 2.5 .10 3 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v1 MS_3688_v2 MS_3688_v3 DivX 4.02 3IVX D4 Picture 8. Sequence HELICOPTERdi Here quality of the sequence compressed by Microsoft v2 is worse than quality of the sequences compressed by Microsoft v1 and v3.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 18 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
40
35
30
25 PSNR PSNR
20
15
10 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v1 MS_3688_v2 MS_3688_v3 DivX 4.02 3IVX D4 Picture 9. Sequence NDDP7di
40
35
30
25 PSNR PSNR
20
15
10 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v1 MS_3688_v2 MS_3688_v3 DivX 4.02 3IVX D4 Picture 10. Sequence TENSdi Conclusions: • Low position of the branches related to Microsoft v1 (see pictures 9, 10) is caused by some error that occurred during compression/decompression of these sequences. The same error occurred with the bbc3di sequence; a
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 19 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
frame from this sequence is given in the description of the Microsoft codec (see “Methodology” section). • Picture 10 demonstrates that that the quality of the sequence compressed by Divx 4.02 is better than the others. • Picture10 also demonstrates that 3IVX D4 significantly exceeds the bitrate on the tesndi sequence.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 20 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
JPEG
35
30
25 PSNR PSNR
20
15 4 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 Frame size Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J Picture 11. Sequence BANKOMATDdi
40
35
30 PSNR PSNR 25
20
15 4 4 4 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 1.2 .10 1.3 .10 Frame size Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J Picture 12. Sequence BATTLE
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 21 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
45
40
35 PSNR PSNR 30
25
20 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 1.8 .10 2 .10 2.2 .10 Frame size Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J Picture 13. Sequence FOREMAN
35
30
25 PSNR PSNR
20
15 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 Frame size Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J Picture 14. Sequence HELICOPTERdi Conclusions: • MM JPEG v2 has the worst quality in this group. • MM JPEG v2 does not keep low bitrate. For some sequences its branches turned into one point, which means that this codec used one bitrate value with all the 10 different bitrate settings. • Visicron J has a better quality than MM JPEG2000 on the tensdi sequence. Perhaps that’s because MM JPEG2000 is oriented on video conferences and tensdi has some characteristic for such a video stream features. CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 22 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
NON-STANDART
Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 & 5.11, VP 3.1 и Motion Wavelets
35
30 PSNR PSNR 25
20
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 .10 2 .10 3 .10 4 .10 5 .10 6 .10 7 .10 8 .10 Frame size Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 Ligos Indeo Video 5.11 VP 3.1 Motion Wavelets Aware Picture 15. Sequence BANKOMATDdi Conclusions: • Length of the branch for Motion Wavelets indicates that this codec does not keep the bitrate and generates sequences with very high bitrate. This is also true for all other sequences. • Ligos 4.5 works a little bit worse than Ligos 5.11. This tendency can be ob- served on all the tested sequences. • VP 3.1 is the best in this group.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 23 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
45
40
35
30 PSNR PSNR
25
20
15 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 Frame size Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 Ligos Indeo Video 5.11 VP 3.1 Motion Wavelets Aware
Picture 16. Sequence BATTLE Here the branch for Motion Wavelets turns into the point. It means that this codec compresses the sequence with the same bitrate for all the bitrate settings.
40
35
30 PSNR PSNR
25
20
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5000 1 .10 1.5 .10 2 .10 2.5 .10 3 .10 3.5 .10 4 .10 4.5 .10 5 .10 Frame size(with drop frames) Intel Indeo Video R 3.2 Ligos Indeo Video 3.2 Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 Ligos Indeo Video 5.11 VP 3.1 Motion Wavelets Aware Picture 17. Sequence BUS Here Ligos 3.2 works much worse than its later versions.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 24 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
35
30
25 PSNR PSNR
20
15 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 01.10 2 .10 3 .10 4 .10 5 .10 6 .10 7 .10 8 .10 9 .10 1 .10 Frame size Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 Ligos Indeo Video 5.11 VP 3.1 Motion Wavelets Aware Picture 18. Sequence HELICOPTERdi Abrupt changes of metric on low bitrate indicate instability of the Ligos 4.5 & 5.11 codecs’ work.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 25 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
VSS H.264, VSS 1.2, Intel I.263, VP 3.1, Cinepak by Radius, Visicron Static & Dynamic
40
35
30 PSNR PSNR
25
20 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 01.10 2 .10 3 .10 4 .10 5 .10 6 .10 7 .10 Frame size VSS 1.2 VP 3.1 Cinepak by Radius Visicron Static Visicron Dynamic VSS H.264 Picture 19. Sequence BANKOMATDdi Conclusions: • Cinepak by Radius greatly increases the bitrate and its branch badly affects the clarity of the diagram. That’s why the branch for this codec is further mostly omitted. • Visicron works almost in the same way in the Static and Dynamic modes; the corresponding branches are very close to each other.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 26 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
40
35
30
25 PSNR PSNR 20
15
10
5 4 4 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 1.2 .10 Frame size VSS 1.2 VP 3.1 Visicron Static Visicron Dynamic VSS H.264 Picture 20. Sequence BBC3di Failure of the branch for Visicron Dynamic is caused by the error which occurred during the compression (for description of this error see the “Methodology” sec- tion).
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 27 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
45
40
35
30 PSNR PSNR
25
20
15 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 5000 1 .10 1.5 .10 2 .10 2.5 .10 3 .10 3.5 .10 Frame size VSS 1.2 Intel I.263 VP 3.1 Cinepak by radius Visicron Static Visicron Dynamic VSS H.264 Picture 21. Sequence BUS
40
35 PSNR PSNR
30
25 4 4 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 1.2 .10 Frame size VSS 1.2 VP 3.1 Visicron Static Visicron Dynamic VSS H.264 Picture 22. Sequence NDDP7di
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 28 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
Conclusions: • Cinepak by Radius does not increase bitrate a lot on the sequences with low resolution. But the quality is still rather bad. • Intel I.263, which works only on the bus and foreman sequences, achieves rather good results. Although Visicron and VP 3.1 still have a better quality. • Quality of VP 3.1 is close to the quality of VSS 1.2, but the branch for VP 3.1 is stably located lower than the branch for VSS 1.2. • Visicron has the same quality as VSS 1.2 on the same bitrate. But since Visicron keeps the bitrate better, the branch for VSS 1.2 is located a little bit more on the right and VSS 1.2 reaches a better quality on high bitrate.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 29 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
Strategy of Drop Frames
Drop frame is a frame that is not compressed by codec. Instead of compressing it codec replaces this frame with the last compressed frame. Unlike the previously shown diagram type, PSNR/Frame Size (with drop frames) diagrams show de- pendence of Y-YUV PSNR metric on real average frame size – that is the result of dividing the size of the sequence on the number of non-drop frames. Codec gen- erates drop frames on order to keep the bitrate specified in its options (in other words to reduce the size of the compressed sequence). Frequently codecs gener- ate several drop frames one after another, what affects the film rather unpleas- antly: a static picture appears instead of the dynamic scene (slide show effect). On the PSNR/Frame Size (with drop frames) diagram one can easily see the bitrate, beginning from which codec stops generating drop frames. This bitrate relates to the point, beginning from which curves on the with/without drop frames diagrams concur with each other. But this bitrate actually can’t be a criterion of codec’s qual- ity estimation, because some codecs generate drop frames correctly and make their presence in the sequence. These diagrams do not show positions of the drop frames in the video sequence, and therefore it is impossible to estimate how cor- rectly drop frames were used. When comparing video codecs in this section one should pay attention to how close to the Y-axis branches of the diagram with drop frames are located. The more on the left the branch is the less average frame size the video sequence has and therefore the greater fps there is at the output. So those codecs, whose branches are located more on the left, provide better fps at the output with the same quality.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 30 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
MPEG4
Microsoft 3688 v3, Divx 3.1, Divx 4.02, Divx 5.02 and Xvid 2.1
40
35
30 Y-PSNR Y-PSNR
25
20
4 4 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v3 DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid
44
42
40 PSNR PSNR 38
36
34 4 4 4 4 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 1.2 .10 1.3 .10 Frame size(with drop frames) MS_3688_V3 DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid Picture 23. Sequence BANKOMATdi
Conclusions: CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 31 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
• Only Microsoft v3 and Divx 3.1 generate drop frames. • The branch for Microsoft v3 is more on the left on high and low bitrate; hav- ing the same quality Microsoft v3 has a greater FPS at the output. • The branch for Divx 3.1 is more on the left on average bitrate and thus Divx 3.1 has a greater FPS. • The bend of the branch for Xvid 2.1 is caused not by the drop frames` us- age but by some specific change of the average frame size. • Divx 4.02 and Divx 5.02 do not generate drop frames and thus increase low bitrate.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 32 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
35
30 Y-PSNR Y-PSNR
25
20
4 4 4 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v3 DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid
45
40 PSNR PSNR
35
30 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 Frame size(with drop frames) MS_3688_V3 DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid Picture 24. Sequence TENSdi Divx 3.1 did not generate any drop frames in this sequence and this is the only sequences in which it happened.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 33 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
Microsoft v1 & v2 & v3, Divx 4.02, 3IVX D4
45
40
35
30 PSNR PSNR
25
20
15 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v1 MS_3688_v2 MS_3688_v3 DivX 4.02 3IVX D4
45
40
35
30 PSNR PSNR
25
20
15 4 4 4 4 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 1.2 .10 1.3 .10 Frame size(with drop frames) MS_3688_V1 MS_3688_V2 MS_3688_V3 DivX 4.02 3IVX D4 Picture 25. Sequence BATTLE Conclusions: • Only Microsoft codecs use drop frames in this group. • Superiority of Microsoft v3 is evident for this group.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 34 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
40
35
30 PSNR PSNR
25
20 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 1.8 .10 2 .10 2.2 .10 2.4 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v1 MS_3688_v2 MS_3688_v3 DivX 4.02 3IVX D4
40
35
30 PSNR PSNR
25
20 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 1.8 .10 2 .10 2.2 .10 2.4 .10 Frame size(with drop frames) MS_3688_V1 MS_3688_V2 MS_3688_V3 DivX 4.02 3IVX D4 Picture 26. Sequence BUS Conclusions: • Microsoft codecs do not use drop frames on the sequences with low resolu- tion like bus and foreman. Since the size of the frame is rather small it is possible to keep bitrate without generating drop frames.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 35 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
JPEG
35
30
25 PSNR PSNR
20
15 4 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 Frame size Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J
35
30
25 PSNR PSNR
20
15 4 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 Frame size(with drop frames) Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J Picture 27. Sequence BANKOMATDdi
[SV1]Conclusions: • Only Visicron J uses drop frames in this group. So it can’t be compared with the other codecs.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 36 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
40
35
30 PSNR PSNR 25
20
15 4 4 4 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 1.2 .10 1.3 .10 Frame size Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J
40
35
30 PSNR PSNR 25
20
15 4 4 4 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 1.2 .10 1.3 .10 Frame size(with drop frames) Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J Picture 28. Sequence BATTLE
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 37 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
30
25
20 PSNR PSNR 15
10
5 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 Frame size Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J
30
25
20 PSNR PSNR 15
10
5 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 Frame size(with drop frames) Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J Picture 29. Sequence BBC3di
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 38 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
40
35
30 PSNR PSNR 25
20
15 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 1.8 .10 2 .10 2.2 .10 Frame size Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J
40
35
30 PSNR PSNR 25
20
15 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 1.8 .10 2 .10 2.2 .10 Frame size(with drop frames) Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J Picture 30. Sequence BUS
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 39 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
45
40
35 PSNR PSNR 30
25
20 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 1.8 .10 2 .10 2.2 .10 Frame size Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J
45
40
35 PSNR PSNR 30
25
20 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 1.8 .10 2 .10 2.2 .10 Frame size(with drop frames) Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J Picture 31. Sequence FOREMAN
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 40 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
35
30
25 PSNR PSNR
20
15 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 Frame size Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J
35
30
25 PSNR PSNR
20
15 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 Frame size(with drop frames) Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J Picture 32. Sequence HELICOPTERdi
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 41 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
40
35
30 PSNR PSNR
25
20 4 4 4 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 1.2 .10 1.3 .10 Frame size Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J
40
35
30 PSNR PSNR
25
20 4 4 4 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 1.2 .10 1.3 .10 Frame size(with drop frames) Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J Picture 33. Sequence NDDP7di
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 42 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
38
36
34
32 PSNR PSNR 30
28
26
24 4 4 4 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 1.2 .10 1.3 .10 Frame size Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J
40
35 PSNR PSNR
30
25 4 4 4 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 1.2 .10 1.3 .10 Frame size(with drop frames) Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J Picture 34. Sequence SUSIdi
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 43 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
28
26
24
22 PSNR PSNR
20
18
16 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 Frame size Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J
28
26
24
22 PSNR PSNR
20
18
16 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 Frame size(with drop frames) Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J Picture 35. Sequence TENSdi
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 44 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
NON-STANDART
Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 & 5.11, VP 3.1 and Motion Wavelets
35
30 PSNR PSNR 25
20
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 .10 2 .10 3 .10 4 .10 5 .10 6 .10 7 .10 8 .10 Frame size Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 Ligos Indeo Video 5.11 VP 3.1 Motion Wavelets Aware
35
30 PSNR PSNR 25
20
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 .10 2 .10 3 .10 4 .10 5 .10 6 .10 7 .10 8 .10 Frame size(with drop frames) Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 Ligos Indeo Video 5.11 VP 3.1 Motion Wavelets by Aware Picture 36. Sequence BANKOMATDdi Conclusions: • VP 3.1 and Motion Wavelets do not generate drop frames. • Ligos 5.11 has the superiority; its branch is located more on the left.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 45 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
VSS H.264, VSS 1.2, Intel I.263, VP 3.1, Cinepak by Radius, Visicron Static & Dynamic
40
35
30 PSNR PSNR
25
20 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 01.10 2 .10 3 .10 4 .10 5 .10 6 .10 7 .10 Frame size VSS 1.2 VP 3.1 Cinepak by Radius Visicron Static Visicron Dynamic VSS H.264
40
35
30 PSNR PSNR
25
20 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 01.10 2 .10 3 .10 4 .10 5 .10 6 .10 7 .10 Frame size(with drop frames) VSS 1.2 VP 3.1 Cinepak by Radius Visicron Static VIsicron Dynamic VSS H.264 Picture 37. Sequence BANKOMATDdi Conclusions: • Cinepak by Radius doesn’t use drop frames. But it doesn’t need this, con- sidering the bitrate it compresses with.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 46 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
45
40
35
30 PSNR PSNR
25
20
15 4 4 4 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 1.2 .10 1.3 .10 Frame size VSS 1.2 VP 3.1 Visicron Static Visicron Dynamic VSS H.264
45
40
35
30 PSNR PSNR
25
20
15 4 4 4 4 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 1.2 .10 1.3 .10 Frame size(with drop frames) VSS 1.2 VP 3.1 Visicron Static VIsicron Dynamic VSS H.264 Picture 38. Sequence BATTLE
Conclusions: • Only Visicron codecs use drop frames. • Visicron Dynamic has a smaller average frame size and therefore a greater FPS at the output. • These statements are true for all the other sequences as well. CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 47 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
U-PSNR Diagrams
MPEG4 Microsoft 3688 v3, Divx 3.1, Divx 4.02, Divx 5.02 and Xvid 2.1
45
40
35
30 Y-PSNR
25
20
15 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v3 DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid
45
40 U-PSNR U-PSNR
35
30 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v3 DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid
Picture 39. Sequence BATTLE
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 48 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
40
35
30 Y-PSNR Y-PSNR 25
20
15 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 1.8 .10 2 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v3 DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid
44
42
40 U-PSNR U-PSNR
38
36 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 1.8 .10 2 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v3 DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid Picture 40. Sequence HELICOPTERdi
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 49 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
40
35 Y-PSNR Y-PSNR
30
25 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v3 DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid
46
44
42 U-PSNR U-PSNR 40
38
36 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v3 DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid Picture 41. Sequence NDDP7di
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 50 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
35
30 Y-PSNR Y-PSNR
25
20
4 4 4 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v3 DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid
45
40 U-PSNR U-PSNR
35
30 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v3 DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid Picture 42. Sequence TENSdi
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 51 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
40
35
30 Y-PSNR Y-PSNR 25
20
15 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 Frame size DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid
45
40
35 U-PSNR U-PSNR
30
25 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 Frame size DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid Picture 43. Sequence SUSIdi
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 52 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
Conclusions: • Divx 3.1, 5.02 & 4.02 and Microsoft v3 stably keep quality of the color com- ponents. This is true for all the sequences. • Xvid 2.1 keeps color components rather well on the sequences with noise like susidi, tensdi, nddp7di, and works worse than other codecs on the dif- ferent sequences.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 53 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
Microsoft v1 & v2 & v3, Divx 4.02, 3IVX D4
40
35
30 PSNR PSNR
25
20 4 4 4 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 1.2 .10 1.3 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v1 MS_3688_v2 MS_3688_v3 DivX 4.02 3IVX D4
U-PSNR 44
42
40 U-PSNR U-PSNR
38
36 4 4 4 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 1.2 .10 1.3 .10 Frame size MS_3688_v1 MS_3688_v2 MS_3688_v3 DivX 4.02 3IVX D4 Picture 44. Sequence BANKOMATDdi
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 54 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
Conclusions: • Microsoft codecs keep the U-component 5dB better than the Y-component on high bitrate and 15-20 dB better on low bitrate. • All the codecs keep color components better than the Y-component. Divx 4.02 and 3IVX D4 keep U-component 4-5 dB better than the Y-component. • These statements are true for all the other sequences as well.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 55 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
JPEG
35
30
25 PSNR PSNR
20
15 4 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 Frame size Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J
44
42
40
38
U-PSNR U-PSNR 36
34
32
30 4 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 Frame size Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J Picture 45. Sequence BANKOMATDdi Conclusions: • MM JPEGv2 keeps the U-component 5-15dB better than the Y-component. • Visicron and MM JPEG2000 keep the U-component 5-7dB better than the Y-component on high bitrate and 10-15dB better on low bitrate.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 56 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
40
35
30 PSNR PSNR 25
20
15 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 1.8 .10 2 .10 2.2 .10 Frame size Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J
46
44
42
40
U-PSNR U-PSNR 38
36
34
32 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10 1.2 .10 1.4 .10 1.6 .10 1.8 .10 2 .10 2.2 .10 Frame size Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J Picture 46. Sequence BUS Conclusion: • Visicron J has a better U-PSNR on low bitrate, while MM JPEG2000 has a better U-PSNR on high bitrate. • All the codecs from this group keep the U-component better than the Y- component.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 57 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
NON-STANDART
Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 & 5.11, VP 3.1 and Motion Wavelets
40
35
30 Y-PSNR Y-PSNR
25
20
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5000 1 .10 1.5 .10 2 .10 2.5 .10 3 .10 3.5 .10 4 .10 4.5 .10 5 .10 Frame size Intel Indeo Video R 3.2 Ligos Indeo Video 3.2 Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 Ligos Indeo Video 5.11 VP 3.1 Motion Wavelets Aware
46
44
42 U-PSNR U-PSNR 40
38
36 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 5000 1 .10 1.5 .10 2 .10 2.5 .10 3 .10 3.5 .10 4 .10 4.5 .10 5 .10 Frame size Intel Indeo Video R 3.2 Ligos Indeo Video 3.2 Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 Ligos Indeo Video 5.11 VP 3.1 Motion Wavelets Aware Picture 47. Sequence BUS
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 58 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
Conclusions: • Ligos 3.2 & 4.5 and VP 3.1 keep the U-component better than the Y- component. As it has been already said, this is usual for video codecs and is caused by the fact that human eye is more sensitive to the changes in color that to the changes in brightness. • Motion Wavelets and Ligos 5.11 keep both components similarly. • These codecs behave almost in the same way on the other sequences, so all the rest diagrams were omitted.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 59 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
VSS H.264, VSS 1.2, Intel I.263, VP 3.1, Cinepak by Radius, Visicron Static & Dynamic
40
35
30 PSNR PSNR
25
20 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 01.10 2 .10 3 .10 4 .10 5 .10 6 .10 7 .10 Frame size VSS 1.2 VP 3.1 Cinepak by Radius Visicron Static Visicron Dynamic VSS H.264
44
42
40 U-PSNR U-PSNR 38
36
34 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 01.10 2 .10 3 .10 4 .10 5 .10 6 .10 7 .10 Frame size VSS 1.2 VP 3.1 Cinepak by Radius Visicron Static Visicron Dynamic VSS H.264
Picture 48. Sequence BANKOMATDdi
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 60 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
45
40
35
30 PSNR PSNR
25
20
15 4 4 4 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 1.2 .10 1.3 .10 Frame size VSS 1.2 VP 3.1 Visicron Static Visicron Dynamic VSS H.264
45
40 U-PSNR U-PSNR
35
30 4 4 4 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 1.2 .10 1.3 .10 Frame size VSS 1.2 VP 3.1 Visicron Static Visicron Dynamic VSS H.264 Picture 49. Sequence BATTLE Conclusions: • The branch for VSS 1.2 is located lower (and therefore VSS 1.2 has a worse U-PSNR) than the branches for VP 3.1 and Visicron on most se- quences.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 61 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
40
35
30
25 PSNR PSNR 20
15
10
5 4 4 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 1.2 .10 Frame size VSS 1.2 VP 3.1 Visicron Static Visicron Dynamic VSS H.264
40
38
36
34 U-PSNR U-PSNR
32
30
28 4 4 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 .10 1.1 .10 1.2 .10 Frame size VSS 1.2 VP 3.1 Visicron Static Visicron Dynamic VSS H.264 Picture 50. Последоваетльность BBC3di Conclusions: • Visicron is the best to keep the U-component on low bitrate; VP 3.1 is the best to keep it on high bitrate.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 62 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
45
40
35 PSNR PSNR
30
25 4 4 4 4 4 0 5000 1 .10 1.5 .10 2 .10 2.5 .10 3 .10 Frame size VSS 1.2 Intel I.263 VP 3.1 Cinepak by radius Visicron Static Visicron Dynamic VSS H.264
46
44
42 U-PSNR U-PSNR 40
38
36 4 4 4 4 4 0 5000 1 .10 1.5 .10 2 .10 2.5 .10 3 .10 Frame size VSS 1.2 Intel I.263 VP 3.1 Cinepak by radius Visicron Static Visicron Dynamic VSS H.264
Picture 51. Sequence FOREMAN Conclusions: • VSS 1.2 is the best in this group to keep the U-component in this sequence.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 63 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
Y-Difference Diagrams This type of diagrams reflects dynamics of the change of brightness in the se- quence depending on the bitrate. Y-axis represents the difference between aver- age brightness of the compressed and source sequences. X-axis represents the number of the measurement (bitrate). So a positive ordinate of the point means in- crease of brightness after compression and a negative one means decrease (dark- ening).
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 64 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
MPEG4
Microsoft 3688 v3, Divx 3.1, Divx 4.02, Divx 5.02 and Xvid 2.1
2.5
2
1.5
1 Y-difference
0.5
0
0.5 0123456789 Number of measurement MS_3688_V3 DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid
Picture 52. Sequence BANKOMATDdi
3
2
1
Y-difference 0
1
2 0123456789 Number of measurement MS_3688_V3 DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid
Picture 53. Sequence BATTLE
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 65 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
2.5
2
1.5
1 Y-difference
0.5
0
0.5 0123456789 Number of measurement MS_3688_V3 DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid
Picture 54. Sequence BBC3di
3
2
1
Y-difference 0
1
2 0123456789 Number of measurement MS_3688_V3 DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid
Picture 55. Sequence HELICOPTERdi
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 66 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
Conclusions: • Divx 4.02 & 5.02 stably increase brightness by 2-2.5 dB. • Xvid 2.1 increases brightness by 1-2 dB. • Divx 3.1 and Microsoft v3 change (in both directions) brightness by 1.5-2 dB on low bitrate and keep it almost unchanged on high one.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 67 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
Microsoft v1 & v2 & v3, Divx 4.02, 3IVX D4
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5 Y-difference
0
0.5
1 0123456789 Number of measurement MS_3688_V1 MS_3688_V2 MS_3688_V3 DivX 4.02 3IVX D4
Picture 56. Sequence BANKOMATDdi
3
2
1
0 Y-difference
1
2
3 0123456789 Number of measurement MS_3688_V1 MS_3688_V2 MS_3688_V3 DivX 4.02 3IVX D4
Picture 57. Sequence BATTLE
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 68 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
2.5
2
1.5
1 Y-difference
0.5
0
0.5 0123456789 Number of measurement MS_3688_V1 MS_3688_V2 MS_3688_V3 DivX 4.02 3IVX D4
Picture 58. Sequence BUS
3
2
1
0 Y-difference
1
2
3 0123456789 Number of measurement MS_3688_V1 MS_3688_V2 MS_3688_V3 DivX 4.02 3IVX D4
Picture 59. Sequence HELICOPTERdi
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 69 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
20
15
10
Y-difference 5
0
5 0123456789 Number of measurement MS_3688_V1 MS_3688_V2 MS_3688_V3 DivX 4.02 3IVX D4
Picture 60. Sequence NDDP7di
Conclusions: • Divx 4.02 stably increases brightness by 2-2.5 dB; 3IVX D4 – by 1 dB. • Microsoft codecs change brightness in some sequences on low bitrate and do not change it on high one. • Differences of brightness on the diagram for Microsoft v1 (see the diagram for nddp7di) are caused by an error which occurred during the compression.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 70 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
JPEG
0.5
0
0.5
Y-difference 1
1.5
2 0123456789 Number of measurement Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J
Picture 61. Sequence BANKOMATDdi
2
1
0 Y-difference
1
2 0123456789 Number of measurement Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J
Picture 62. Sequence BATTLE
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 71 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
2
1
0
1 Y-difference
2
3
4 0123456789 Number of measurement Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J
Picture 63. Sequence BBC3di
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 Y-difference
0.2
0.4
0.6 0123456789 Number of measurement Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J
Picture 64. Sequence BUS
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 72 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
1
0.5
0
Y-difference 0.5
1
1.5 0123456789 Number of measurement Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J
Picture 65. Sequence HELICOPTERdi
1
0
1
2
3 Y-difference
4
5
6 0123456789 Number of measurement Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J
Picture 66. Sequence NDDP7di
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 73 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
0.5
0
0.5
1 Y-difference
1.5
2
2.5 0123456789 Number of measurement Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J
Picture 67. Sequence TENSdi
Conclusions: • MM JPEG2000 changes brightness by 4-5 dB in some sequences on low bitrate and changes it very slightly on high bitrate. • Visicron J changes brightness not more than by 1 dB. Only in the battle se- quence brightness is changed by 2 dB on low bitrate. • MM JPEG v2 changes brightness less than by 1 dB on any bitrate, except for the bbc3di sequence, where it changed brightness by 1.5 dB.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 74 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
NON-STANDART
Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 & 5.11, VP 3.1 and Motion Wavelets
2
1 〈〉12 ()data2 j
〈〉12 ()data3 j 0 〈〉12 ()data4 j Y-difference 〈〉12 ()data5 j 1
2 0123456789 j Number of measurement Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 Ligos Indeo Video 5.11 VP 3.1 Aware Motion Wavelets Picture 68. Sequence BATTLE
3
2 〈〉12 ()data2 j
〈〉12 1 ()data3 j
〈〉12 ()data4 j Y-difference 0 〈〉12 ()data5 j
1
2 0123456789 j Number of measurement Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 Ligos Indeo Video 5.11 VP 3.1 Aware Motion Wavelets Picture 69. Sequence BBC3di
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 75 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
4
3
2
Y-difference 1
0
1 0123456789 Number of measurement Intel Indeo Video R 3.2 Ligos Indeo Video 3.2 Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 Ligos Indeo Video 5.11 VP 3.1 Motion Wavelets Aware
Picture 70. Sequence BUS
3
2 〈〉12 ()data2 j
〈〉12 1 ()data3 j
〈〉12 ()data4 j Y-difference 0 〈〉12 ()data5 j
1
2 0123456789 j Number of measurement Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 Ligos Indeo Video 5.11 VP 3.1 Aware Motion Wavelets Picture 71. Sequence HELICOPTERdi
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 76 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
2.5
2
〈〉12 ()data2 1.5 j
〈〉12 ()data3 j 1
〈〉12 ()data4 j 0.5 Y-difference 〈〉12 ()data5 j 0
0.5
1 0123456789 j Number of measurement Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 Ligos Indeo Video 5.11 VP 3.1 Aware Motion Wavelets Picture 72. Sequence TENSdi
Conclusions: • Motion Wavelets and VP 3.1 increase brightness stably; Motion Wavelets increase it by 2- 2.5 dB, VP 3.10.5 – by 0.5-1.0dB. • Ligos codecs change brightness in both directions on low bitrate. These os- cillations can be rather significant, for example on the helicopterdi and bat- tle sequences. But change of brightness becomes stable on high bitrate; here it is decreased less than by 0.5 dB.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 77 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
VSS H.264, VSS 1.2, Intel I.263, VP 3.1, Cinepak by Radius, Visicron Static & Dynamic
2
1
0 Y-difference
1
2 0123456789 Number of measurement VSS 1.2 VP 3.1 Cinepak by Radius Visicron Static Vsiscron Dynamic VSS H.264
Picture 73. Sequence BANKOMATDdi
1.5
1
0.5
Y-difference 0
0.5
1 0123456789 Number of measurement VSS 1.2 VP 3.1 Visicron Static Vsiscron Dynamic VSS H.264
Picture 74. Sequence BATTLE
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 78 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
1.5
1
0.5
Y-difference 0
0.5
1 0123456789 Number of measurement VSS 1.2 VP 3.1 Visicron Static Vsiscron Dynamic VSS H.264
Picture 75. Sequence BBC3di
2
1.5
1
0.5 Y-difference
0
0.5
1 0123456789 Number of measurement VSS 1.2 Intel I .263 VP 3.1 Cinepakby Radius Vsiscron Static Visicron Dynamic VSS H.264
Picture 76. Sequence BUS
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 79 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
2.5
2
1.5
1 Y-difference
0.5
0
0.5 0123456789 Number of measurement VSS 1.2 Intel I .263 VP 3.1 Cinepakby Radius Vsiscron Static Visicron Dynamic VSS H.264
Picture 77. Sequence FOREMAN
Conclusions: • Cinepak by Radius keeps brightness almost unchanged. • VSS 1.2 and VP 3.1 also change brightness insignificantly. • Visicron codecs change brightness not more than by 1.5 dB. Changing of brightness often does not stabilize with the growth of bitrate. • H.264 stably increases brightness by 1-2 dB.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 80 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
Bitrate Handle Diagrams
Y-axis represents bitrate of the compressed sequence divided by bitrate that was specified before the compression in the codec’s options. X-axis represents the number of the measurement (each measurement is done with different bitrate set- tings; the first measurement relates to the lowest bitrate). So this type of diagrams shows, how many times real bitrate is as big (Bitrate Handle > 1) or small (Bitrate Handle < 1) as bitrate that was specified by a user in the codec’s options.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 81 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
MPEG4
Microsoft 3688 v3, Divx 3.1, Divx 4.02, Divx 5.02 and Xvid 2.1
20
15
10 Bitrate handle Bitrate
5
0 0123456789 Number of measurement MS_3688_V3 DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid
Picture 78. Sequence BBC3di
12
10
8
6 Bitrate handle Bitrate
4
2
0 0123456789 Number of measurement MS_3688_V3 DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid
Picture 79. Sequence BUS
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 82 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
3
2.5
2
1.5 Bitrate handle Bitrate
1
0.5
0 0123456789 Number of measurement MS_3688_V3 DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid
Picture 80. Sequence FOREMAN
5
4
3
Bitrate handle Bitrate 2
1
0 0123456789 Number of measurement DivX 3.1 alfa fast motion DivX 3.1 alfa low motion DivX 4.02 DivX 5.02 Xvid
Picture 81. Sequence SUSIdi
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 83 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
Conclusions: • Divx 3.1 and Microsoft v3 keep bitrate much better than the other codecs in this group but they achieve it only by using drop frames (see “Strategy of drop frames” section). • Fast motion works on some sequences better than low on high bitrate. • Xvid 2.1 works not bad; it keeps bitrate almost as well as Divx 3.1 and Mi- crosoft v3 without using drop frames. But still there are sequences like bbc3di where it handles low bitrate much worse than these two codecs. • Divx 4.02 & 5.02 behave almost in the same way; in some cases version 4.02 works better, in some - the other. According to the diagrams given here and in the “Strategy of drop frames” section, Divx 4.02 and its later versions do not generate drop frames. That is why they do not keep low bi- trate and thus improve the quality of the compressed sequence.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 84 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
Microsoft v1 & v2 & v3, Divx 4.02, 3IVX D4
50
40
30
Bitrate handle Bitrate 20
10
0 0123456789 Number of measurement MS_3688_V1 MS_3688_V2 MS_3688_V3 DivX 4.02 3IVX D4
Picture 82. Sequence BBC3di
14
12
10
8
6 Bitrate handle Bitrate
4
2
0 0123456789 Number of measurement MS_3688_V1 MS_3688_V2 MS_3688_V3 DivX 4.02 3IVX D4
Picture 83. Sequence BUS
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 85 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
6
5
4
3 Bitrate handle Bitrate
2
1
0 0123456789 Number of measurement MS_3688_V1 MS_3688_V2 MS_3688_V3 DivX 4.02 3IVX D4
Picture 84. Sequence FOREMAN
Conclusions: • Microsoft codecs increase bitrate by 1.5-3 times and use drop frames on low bitrate. • 3IVX D4 increases low bitrate by 10-50 times and high bitrate by 1.5-2 times depending on the sequence. It does not use drop frames. • Divx 4.02 increases low bitrate by 10-20 times and high bitrate by 1.5-2 times depending on the sequence.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 86 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
JPEG
15
10 Bitrate handle Bitrate
5
0 0123456789 Number of measurement Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J
Picture 85. Sequence BANKOMATDdi
35
30
25
20
15 Bitrate handle Bitrate
10
5
0 0123456789 Number of measurement Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J
Picture 86. Sequence BBC3di
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 87 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
6
5
4
Bitrate handle Bitrate 3
2
1 0123456789 Number of measurement Morgan Multimedia JPEG2000 Morgan Multimedia JPEG V2 Visicron J
Picture 87. Sequence FOREMAN
Conclusions: • MM JPEG v2 increases low bitrate by 6-30 times depending on the video sequence. It keeps only the bitrate of 2340 kbps on all the sequences, ex- cept for bus and foreman. • Visicron J and MM JPEG2000 keep bitrate, increasing it not more than twice.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 88 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
NON-STANDART
Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 & 5.11, VP 3.1 and Motion Wavelets
14
12
10
8
6 Bitrate handle Bitrate
4
2
0 0123456789 Number of measurement Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 Liogs Indeo Video 5.11 VP 3.1 Aware Motion Wavelets
Picture 88. Sequence BATTLE
20
15
10 Bitrate handle Bitrate
5
0 0123456789 Number of measurement Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 Liogs Indeo Video 5.11 VP 3.1 Aware Motion Wavelets
Picture 89. Sequence BBC3di
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 89 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
10
8
6
Bitrate handle Bitrate 4
2
0 0123456789 Number of measurement Intel Indeo Video R 3.2 Liogs Indeo Video 3.2 Ligos Indeo Video 4.5 Ligos Indeo Video 5.11 VP 3.1 Motion Wavelets Aware
Picture 90. Sequence BUS
Conclusions: • Motion Wavelets does not even keep high bitrate. Battle is the only se- quence where its diagram comes close to the value of 1 on the Y-axis as bi- trate increases. • VP 3.1 does not keep low bitrate. That is not surprising because this codec does not use drop frames. However on high bitrate it works not bad and mostly better than the Ligos codecs. • Ligos 4.5 & 5.11 mostly keep low bitrate by means of drop frames but yet can double low or high bitrate on some sequences. • Ligos 3.2 does not keep low bitrate and works in the same way on high bi- trate as its versions 4.5 and 5.11.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 90 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
VSS H.264, VSS 1.2, Intel I.263, VP 3.1, Cinepak by Radius, Visicron Static & Dynamic
150
100 Bitrate handle Bitrate
50
0 0123456789 Number of measurement VSS 1.2 VP 3.1 Cinepak by Radius Visicron Static Visicron Dynamic VSS H.264
Picture 91. Sequence BANKOMATDdi
6
5
4
3 Bitrate handle Bitrate
2
1
0 0123456789 Number of measurement VSS 1.2 VP 3.1 Visicron Static Visicron Dynamic VSS H.264
Picture 92. Sequence BATTLE
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 91 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
12
10
8
6 Bitrate handle Bitrate
4
2
0 0123456789 Number of measurement VSS 1.2 VP 3.1 Visicron Static Visicron Dynamic VSS H.264
Picture 93. Sequence BBC3di
70
60
50
40
30 Bitrate handle Bitrate
20
10
0 0123456789 Number of measurement VSS 1.2 Intel I.263 VP 3.1 Cinepak by Radius Visicron Static Visicron Dynamic VSS H.264
Picture 94. Sequence BUS
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 92 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
6
5
4
3 Bitrate handle Bitrate
2
1
0 0123456789 Number of measurement VSS 1.2 VP 3.1 Visicron Static Visicron Dynamic VSS H.264
Picture 95. Sequence NDDP7di
Conclusions: • Cinepak by Radius greatly increases the bitrate; it is more than 100 times greater on some sequences. • VP 3.1 does not keep low bitrate. Also it does not use drop frames. • VSS 1.2 does not keep low bitrate as well, but does not make it more than 5 times greater. • Intel I.263 does not keep the bitrate and uses drop frames on low bitrate. • Visicron codecs do not increase bitrate. They even lower high bitrate which is probably done for transferring video information through the network. • H.264 keeps the bitrate worse than VSS 1.2; both codecs do not use drop frames.
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 93 VIDEO CODECS COMPARISON TEST/ PART 2 CS MSU GRAPHICS&MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP MOSCOW, 15 MAY 2003
Outline
Video Codecs Comparison consists of the following sections: • Part 1: Methodology • Part 2: PSNR Diagrams For All Video Codecs – this document • Part 3: Frame-accurate Comparison • Part 4: Visual Comparison
NOTE: These files contain only a VERY SMALL PART of the processed and measured data.
If you find an error in this document, please write to [email protected]
For new materials please check http://compression.ru/video/
CS MSU G&M Lab/ Video Group / http://www.compression.ru/video/ 94