DOCSLIB.ORG

A Comprehensive Video Codec Comparison Thorsten Laude, Yeremia Gunawan Adhisantoso, Jan Voges, Marco Munderloh and Jörn Ostermann

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Comprehensive Video Codec Comparison Thorsten Laude, Yeremia Gunawan Adhisantoso, Jan Voges, Marco Munderloh and Jörn Ostermann SIP (2019),vol.8,e30,page1of16©TheAuthors,2019. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work. doi:10.1017/ATSIP.2019.23 overview paper A Comprehensive Video Codec Comparison thorsten laude, yeremia gunawan adhisantoso, jan voges, marco munderloh and jörn ostermann In this paper, we compare the video codecs AV1 (version 1.0.0-2242 from August 2019), HEVC (HM and x265), AVC (x264), theexplorationsoftwareJEMwhichisbasedonHEVC,andtheVVC(successorofHEVC)testmodelVTM(version4.0from February 2019) under two fair and balanced configurations: All Intra for the assessment of intra coding and Maximum Coding Efficiency with all codecs being tuned for their best coding efficiency settings. VTM achieves the highest coding efficiency inboth configurations,followedbyJEMandAV1.Theworstcodingefficiencyisachievedbyx264andx265,evenintheplacebopreset for highest coding efficiency. AV1 gained a lot in terms of coding efficiency compared to previous versions and now outperforms HM by 24 BD-Rate gains. VTM gains 5 over AV1 in terms of BD-Rates. By reporting separate numbers for JVET and AOM test sequences, it is ensured that no bias in the test sequences exists. When comparing only intra coding tools, it is observed that the complexity increases exponentially for linearly increasing coding efficiency. Keywords: AV1, Codec comparison, HEVC, Video coding, VVC Received 28 May 2019; Revised 22 October 2019 I. INTRODUCTION (IETF) as Internet Video Codec (NetVC). The finalization of the standardization process was scheduled for 2017 but For several decades, the market for standardized video initially delayed until the end of 2018 [16]. At the time of codecs was dominated by the standardization groups ISO, writing this manuscript, the official status of NetVC is that IEC, and ITU-T: MPEG-1 [1], MPEG-2/H.262 [2], H.263, the requirements for the standards were finalized in March MPEG-4 Visual [3], and Advanced Video Coding (AVC, 2019 and that the submission of the codec specification for also referred to as MPEG-4 Part 10 and H.264) [4,5]are approval is aspired for December 2019 [17]. some standards in this line. In 2013, the steady improve- Concurrently, ISO/IEC and ITU-T established the Joint mentofvideocodingalgorithmsresultedinHighEfficiency Video Exploration Team (JVET) in October 2015 to explore Video Coding (HEVC) which was standardized as MPEG- technologies for a potential HEVC successor. For this pur- H Part 2 by ISO/IEC and as H.265 by ITU-T [6]. A reference pose, a reference software called Joint Exploration Model implementation of HEVC is available with the HM software (JEM) was developed which includes a variety of novel [7]. Compared to its predecessor standard AVC, HEVC con- coding tools [18]. In the process of the JVET activities, it siderably increases the coding efficiency. Depending on the wasrevealedthatthenewtestmodelprovidessufficient selected configuration, HEVC achieves a 40–60 bit rate evidence to justify to formally start a new standardization reduction while maintaining the same visual quality [8,9]. project [19]. The new standard is referred to as Versatile After the finalization of HEVC, the research for further Video Coding (VVC) and is planned to be finalized in 2020. improvements continued [10,11]. The Versatile Test Model (VTM) [20]wasestablishedto More recently, new participants entered the market for assess the performance of VVC. video codecs. Among the proposed codecs are VP8 [12], The purpose of the reference implementations and test VP9 [13], Daala [14], and Thor [15]. The participants respon- modelsHM,JEM,andVTMistoenabletheevaluation sible for these codecs and many more participants (e.g. of new coding tools and to demonstrate one exemplary Amazon, Facebook, Intel, Microsoft, Netflix) joined their and straight-forward implementation of the correspond- efforts in the Alliance for Open Media (AOM) to develop ing standard. Not much optimization, e.g. for fast encod- the video codec AV1. Furthermore, AV1 is a contender ing, was performed for these implementations. It is safe for standardization by the Internet Engineering Task Force to assume that it is therefore unlikely that these reference implementations will be deployed in real-world products. Institut für Informationsverarbeitung, Leibniz University Hannover, Appelstr. 9A, Instead, highly optimized encoders are used. Therefore, Hannover 30167, Germany we also evaluate the codecs x264 and x265 which imple- Corresponding author: ment the AVC and HEVC standards, respectively. For these Thorsten Laude Email: [email protected] two codecs, two presets are used. The medium preset is a Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB Hannover), on 21 Nov 2019 at 14:01:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/ATSIP.2019.23 1 2 thorsten laude et al. typical trade-off between coding efficiency and computa- We structure our answer to this question in the fol- tional resource requirements while the placebo preset max- lowing four parts: choice of codec implementation, codec imizes the coding efficiency at the cost of a considerable configuration, metrics, and test sequences. amount of complexity [21]. Given these eight codec implementations – HM as state-of-the-art, JEM, VTM, and AV1 as contenders, and A) Codec implementations x264 (medium and placebo) as well as x265 (medium and placebo) as optimized encoders – it is of great interest to Thedifficultyofcomparingvideocodecsstartswiththe assess and compare their performance. This comparison difference between video coding standards and particular can be performed in terms of coding efficiency but also in encoder implementations of these standards. The standards terms of computational complexity. are only long text documents which cannot be evaluated For some codecs, e.g. HM and JEM, straightforward in simulations. Only the implementations can be used for comparability is given because both codecs share the same simulations. However, two encoder implementations pro- foundation (with JEM being an extension of HM) and Com- ducing bitstreams compliant with the same standard can mon Test Conditions are defined to configure both codecs be very different. One could distinguish between refer- similarly [22]. To include AV1 or optimized encoders in ence implementations like HM and optimized encoders like a fair comparison is more challenging because their soft- x265. ware structures and working principles are fundamentally different. This also explains why existing comparisons of HEVC with JEM, VP8, VP9, or AV1 in the literature come B) Encoder configurations to different conclusions [13,23,24]. In this paper, we compare the codecs under well-defined Depending on the application and available computational and balanced conditions. First, we analyze the difficulty of resources, encoders can be configured in many different comparing video codecs in Section II.Anoverviewofthe ways.Amongthechoicestobemadearerestrictionsdur- technologies in the codecs is given in Section III.Basedon ing the rate-distortion optimization [32]forpartitioning the analysis in the preceding sections, we introduce our two options to be tested, the decision which coding tools should codec configurations which we use for the comparison in be enabled, and for parameters of the coding tools like Section IV.InSectionV and in Section VI,wecomparethe motion estimation search range. The x264 and x265 imple- performance of the codecs in terms of coding efficiency and mentations allow the configuration of coding tools by pre- complexity, respectively. Section VII concludes the paper. sets. Depending on the selected preset, a different trade-off between computational complexity and coding efficiency is made. When comparing the fastest preset (ultrafast) with II. ON THE DIFFICULTY OF the most efficient preset (placebo), the bit rate can differ by COMPARING VIDEO CODECS 179 for a 720p video encoded at the same quality [21]. Also, the tuning of the encoder can vary, e.g. it can Our motivation for this manuscript emerged at the Pic- be tuned for PSNR or some subjective criterion. Only if ture Coding Symposium (PCS) 2018 where we presented thecodecsaretunedforthesamecriterionandifthis our codec comparison work [24] together with three other criterion corresponds to the metric used for the evaluation, codec comparison works [25–27]. These four works com- theresultsaremeaningful.Thisis,forexample,thecase paredthesamevideocodingstandards.Indoingso,the ifthecodecsaretunedforPSNRandBD-Ratesareusedfor findings of the works are quite different: for example, in one the evaluation. work [24] HEVC is considerably better than AV1 while it is The group of pictures (GOP) structure is an important the other way around in another work [27]. aspect of the encoder configuration as well to ensure a fair The observation of inconclusive results is sustained when comparison. Depending on the available reference pictures, other published works are studied. For example, Feldmann the efficiency of motion-compensated prediction can vary finds that AV1 is up to 43
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Network Working Group A
    Network Working Group A. Filippov Internet Draft Huawei Technologies Intended status: Informational A. Norkin Netflix J.R. Alvarez Huawei Technologies Expires: May 17, 2017 November 17, 2016 <Video Codec Requirements and Evaluation Methodology> draft-ietf-netvc-requirements-04.txt Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/ Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html This Internet-Draft will expire on May 17, 2017. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust’s Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with <Filippov> Expires May 17, 2017 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Video Codec Requirements and Evaluation November 2016 respect to this document.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Media Player Codec Pack Version 4.1 Media Player Codec Pack
    download media player codec pack version 4.1 Media Player Codec Pack. Description: In Microsoft Windows 10 it is not possible to set all file associations using an installer. Microsoft chose to block changes of file associations with the introduction of their Zune players. Third party codecs are also blocked in some instances, preventing some files from playing in the Zune players. A simple workaround for this problem is to switch playback of video and music files to Windows Media Player manually. In start menu click on the "Settings". In the "Windows Settings" window click on "System". On the "System" pane click on "Default apps". On the "Choose default applications" pane click on "Films & TV" under "Video Player". On the "Choose an application" pop up menu click on "Windows Media Player" to set Windows Media Player as the default player for video files. Footnote: The same method can be used to apply file associations for music, by simply clicking on "Groove Music" under "Media Player" instead of changing Video Player in step 4. Media Player Codec Pack Plus. Codec's Explained: A codec is a piece of software on either a device or computer capable of encoding and/or decoding video and/or audio data from files, streams and broadcasts. The word Codec is a portmanteau of ' co mpressor- dec ompressor' Compression types that you will be able to play include: x264 | x265 | h.265 | HEVC | 10bit x265 | 10bit x264 | AVCHD | AVC DivX | XviD | MP4 | MPEG4 | MPEG2 and many more. File types you will be able to play include: .bdmv | .evo | .hevc | .mkv | .avi | .flv | .webm | .mp4 | .m4v | .m4a | .ts | .ogm .ac3 | .dts | .alac | .flac | .ape | .aac | .ogg | .ofr | .mpc | .3gp and many more.
    [Show full text]
  • Encoding H.264 Video for Streaming and Progressive Download
    What is Tuning? • Disable features that: • Improve subjective video quality but • Degrade objective scores • Example: adaptive quantization – changes bit allocation over frame depending upon complexity • Improves visual quality • Looks like “error” to metrics like PSNR/VMAF What is Tuning? • Switches in encoding string that enables tuning (and disables these features) ffmpeg –input.mp4 –c:v libx264 –tune psnr output.mp4 • With x264, this disables adaptive quantization and psychovisual optimizations Why So Important • Major point of contention: • “If you’re running a test with x264 or x265, and you wish to publish PSNR or SSIM scores, you MUST use –tune PSNR or –tune SSIM, or your results will be completely invalid.” • http://x265.org/compare-video-encoders/ • Absolutely critical when comparing codecs because some may or may not enable these adjustments • You don’t have to tune in your tests; but you should address the issue and explain why you either did or didn’t Does Impact Scores • 3 mbps football (high motion, lots of detail) • PSNR • No tuning – 32.00 dB • Tuning – 32.58 dB • .58 dB • VMAF • No tuning – 71.79 • Tuning – 75.01 • Difference – over 3 VMAF points • 6 is JND, so not a huge deal • But if inconsistent between test parameters, could incorrectly show one codec (or encoding configuration) as better than the other VQMT VMAF Graph Red – tuned Green – not tuned Multiple frames with 3-4-point differentials Downward spikes represent untuned frames that metric perceives as having lower quality Tuned Not tuned Observations • Tuning
    [Show full text]
  • DVP Tutorial
    IP Video Conferencing: A Tutorial Roman Sorokin, Jean-Louis Rougier Abstract Video conferencing is a well-established area of communications, which have been studied for decades. Recently this area has received a new impulse due to significantly increased bandwidth of Local and Wide area networks, appearance of low-priced video equipment and development of web based media technologies. This paper presents the main techniques behind the modern IP-based videoconferencing services, with a particular focus on codecs, network protocols, architectures and standardization efforts. Questions of security and topologies are also tackled. A description of a typical video conference scenario is provided, demonstrating how the technologies, responsible for different conference aspects, are working together. Traditional industrial disposition as well as modern innovative approaches are both addressed. Current industry trends are highlighted in respect to the topics, described in the tutorial. Legacy analog/digital technologies, together with the gateways between the traditional and the IP videoconferencing systems, are not considered. Keywords Video Conferencing, codec, SVC, MCU, SIP, RTP Roman Sorokin ALE International, Colombes, France e-mail: [email protected] Jean-Louis Rougier Télécom ParisTech, Paris, France e-mail: [email protected] 1 1 Introduction Video conferencing is a two-way interactive communication, delivered over networks of different nature, which allows people from several locations to participate in a meeting. Conference participants use video conferencing endpoints of different types. Generally a video conference endpoint has a camera and a microphone. The video stream, generated by the camera, and the audio stream, coming from the microphone, are both compressed and sent to the network interface.
    [Show full text]
  • High Efficiency, Moderate Complexity Video Codec Using Only RF IPR
    Thor High Efficiency, Moderate Complexity Video Codec using only RF IPR draft-fuldseth-netvc-thor-00 Arild Fuldseth, Gisle Bjontegaard (Cisco) IETF 93 – Prague, CZ – July 2015 1 Design principles • Moderate complexity to allow real-time implementation in SW on common HW, as well as new HW designs • Basic building blocks from well-known hybrid approach (motion compensated prediction and transform coding) • Common design elements in modern codecs – Larger block sizes and transforms, up to 64x64 – Quarter pixel interpolation, motion vector prediction, etc. • Cisco RF IPR (note well: declaration filed on draft) – Deblocking, transforms, etc. (some also essential in H.265/4) • Avoid non-RF IPR – If/when others offer RF IPR, design/performance will improve 2 Encoder Architecture Input Transform Quantizer Entropy Output video Coding bitstream - Inverse Transform Intra Frame Prediction Loop filters Inter Frame Prediction Reconstructed Motion Frame Estimation Memory 3 Decoder Architecture Input Entropy Inverse Bitstream Decoding Transform Intra Frame Prediction Loop filters Inter Frame Prediction Output video Reconstructed Frame Memory 4 Block Structure • Super block (SB) 64x64 • Quad-tree split into coding blocks (CB) >= 8x8 • Multiple prediction blocks (PB) per CB • Intra: 1 PB per CB • Inter: 1, 2 (rectangular) or 4 (square) PBs per CB • 1 or 4 transform blocks (TB) per CB 5 Coding-block modes • Intra • Inter0 MV index, no residual information • Inter1 MV index, residual information • Inter2 Explicit motion vector information, residual information
    [Show full text]
  • Hardware for Speech and Audio Coding
    Linköping Studies in Science and Technology Thesis No. 1093 Hardware for Speech and Audio Coding Mikael Olausson LiU-TEK-LIC-2004:22 Department of Electrical Engineering Linköpings universitet, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden Linköping 2004 Linköping Studies in Science and Technology Thesis No. 1093 Hardware for Speech and Audio Coding Mikael Olausson LiU-TEK-LIC-2004:22 Department of Electrical Engineering Linköpings universitet, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden Linköping 2004 ISBN 91-7373-953-7 ISSN 0280-7971 ii Abstract While the Micro Processors (MPUs) as a general purpose CPU are converging (into Intel Pentium), the DSP processors are diverging. In 1995, approximately 50% of the DSP processors on the market were general purpose processors, but last year only 15% were general purpose DSP processors on the market. The reason general purpose DSP processors fall short to the application specific DSP processors is that most users want to achieve highest performance under mini- mized power consumption and minimized silicon costs. Therefore, a DSP proces- sor must be an Application Specific Instruction set Processor (ASIP) for a group of domain specific applications. An essential feature of the ASIP is its functional acceleration on instruction level, which gives the specific instruction set architecture for a group of appli- cations. Hardware acceleration for digital signal processing in DSP processors is essential to enhance the performance while keeping enough flexibility. In the last 20 years, researchers and DSP semiconductor companies have been working on different kinds of accelerations for digital signal processing. The trade-off be- tween the performance and the flexibility is always an interesting question because all DSP algorithms are "application specific"; the acceleration for audio may not be suitable for the acceleration of baseband signal processing.
    [Show full text]
  • EMA Mezzanine File Creation Specification and Best Practices Version 1.0.1 For
    16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 400 Encino, CA 91436 818.385.1500 www.entmerch.org EMA Mezzanine File Creation Specification and Best Practices Version 1.0.1 for Digital Audio‐Visual Distribution January 7, 2014 EMA MEZZANINE FILE CREATION SPECIFICATION AND BEST PRACTICES The Mezzanine File Working Group of EMA’s Digital Supply Chain Committee developed the attached recommended Mezzanine File Specification and Best Practices. Why is the Specification and Best Practices document needed? At the request of their customers, content providers and post‐house have been creating mezzanine files unique to each of their retail partners. This causes unnecessary costs in the supply chain and constrains the flow of new content. There is a demand to make more content available for digital distribution more quickly. Sales are lost if content isn’t available to be merchandised. Today’s ecosystem is too manual. Standardization will facilitate automation, reducing costs and increasing speed. Quality control issues slow down today’s processes. Creating one standard mezzanine file instead of many files for the same content should reduce the quantity of errors. And, when an error does occur and is caught by a single customer, it can be corrected for all retailers/distributors. Mezzanine File Working Group Participants in the Mezzanine File Working Group were: Amazon – Ben Waggoner, Ryan Wernet Dish – Timothy Loveridge Google – Bill Kotzman, Doug Stallard Microsoft – Andy Rosen Netflix – Steven Kang , Nick Levin, Chris Fetner Redbox Instant – Joe Ambeault Rovi
    [Show full text]
  • On Engagement with ICT Standards and Their Implementations in Open Source Software Projects: Experiences and Insights from the Multimedia Field
    International Journal of Standardization Research Volume 19 • Issue 1 On Engagement With ICT Standards and Their Implementations in Open Source Software Projects: Experiences and Insights From the Multimedia Field Jonas Gamalielsson, University of Skövde, Sweden Björn Lundell, University of Skövde, Sweden ABSTRACT The overarching goal in this paper is to investigate organisational engagement with an ICT standard and open source software (OSS) projects that implement the standard, with a specific focus on the multimedia field, which is relevant in light of the wide deployment of standards and different legal challenges in this field. The first part reports on experiences and insights from engagement with standards in the multimedia field and from implementation of such standards in OSS projects. The second part focuses on the case of the ITU-T H.264 standard and the two OSS projects OpenH264 and x264 that implement the standard, and reports on a characterisation of organisations that engage with and control the H.264 standard, and organisations that engage with and control OSS projects implementing the H.264 standard. Further, projects for standardisation and implementation of H.264 are contrasted with respect to mix of contributing organisations, and findings are related to organisational strategies of contributing organisations and previous research. KEywordS AVC, H.264, Involvement, ISO, ITU-T, OpenH264, Participation, x264 1 INTROdUCTION There are a number of different challenges related to provision of standards in the software sector, that can impact on the extent to which it is possible to faithfully implement the specification of a standard in software systems (Blind and Böhm, 2019; Gamalielsson and Lundell, 2013; Lundell et al., 2019; UK, 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • Efficient Multi-Codec Support for OTT Services: HEVC/H.265 And/Or AV1?
    Efficient Multi-Codec Support for OTT Services: HEVC/H.265 and/or AV1? Christian Timmerer†,‡, Martin Smole‡, and Christopher Mueller‡ ‡Bitmovin Inc., †Alpen-Adria-Universität San Francisco, CA, USA and Klagenfurt, Austria, EU ‡{firstname.lastname}@bitmovin.com, †{firstname.lastname}@itec.aau.at Abstract – The success of HTTP adaptive streaming is un- multiple versions (e.g., different resolutions and bitrates) and disputed and technical standards begin to converge to com- each version is divided into predefined pieces of a few sec- mon formats reducing market fragmentation. However, other onds (typically 2-10s). A client first receives a manifest de- obstacles appear in form of multiple video codecs to be sup- scribing the available content on a server, and then, the client ported in the future, which calls for an efficient multi-codec requests pieces based on its context (e.g., observed available support for over-the-top services. In this paper, we review the bandwidth, buffer status, decoding capabilities). Thus, it is state of the art of HTTP adaptive streaming formats with re- able to adapt the media presentation in a dynamic, adaptive spect to new services and video codecs from a deployment way. perspective. Our findings reveal that multi-codec support is The existing different formats use slightly different ter- inevitable for a successful deployment of today's and future minology. Adopting DASH terminology, the versions are re- services and applications. ferred to as representations and pieces are called segments, which we will use henceforth. The major differences between INTRODUCTION these formats are shown in Table 1. We note a strong differ- entiation in the manifest format and it is expected that both Today's over-the-top (OTT) services account for more than MPEG's media presentation description (MPD) and HLS's 70 percent of the internet traffic and this number is expected playlist (m3u8) will coexist at least for some time.
    [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]
  • Format Support
    Episode 6 Format Support FILE FORMAT CODEC Episode Episode Episode Pro EngineCOMMENTS Adaptive bitrate streaming Microsoft Smooth Streaming H.264 (AAC audio) O Windows OS only. Available with Episode Engine License. Apple HLS H.264 (AAC audio) O Available with Episode Engine License. Windows Media WMV, ASF VC-1 O O O WM9 I/O I/O I/O WMV7 and 8 through F4M component on Mac WMA I/O I/O I/O WMA Pro I/O I/O I/O Flash FLV Flash 8 (VP6s/VP6e) I/O I/O I/O SWF Flash 8 (VP6s/VP6e) I/O I/O I/O MOV/MP4/F4V Flash 9 (H.264) I/O I/O I/O F4V as extension to MP4 WebM WebM VP8 O O O Vorbis O O O 3GPP 3GPP AAC I/O I/O I/O H.263 I/O I/O I/O H.264 I/O I/O I/O MainConcept and x264 MPEG-4 I/O I/O I/O 3GPP2 3GPP2 AAC I/O I/O I/O H.263 I/O I/O I/O H.264 I/O I/O I/O MainConcept and x264 MPEG-4 I/O I/O I/O MPEG Elementary Streams MPEG-1 Elementary Stream MPEG-1 (video) I/O I/O I/O MPEG-2 Elementary Stream MPEG-2 I/O I/O I/O MPEG Program Streams PS AAC O O O MainConcept and x264 H.264 I/O I/O I/O MPEG-1/2 (audio) I/O I/O I/O MPEG-2 I/O I/O I/O MPEG-4 I/O I/O I/O MPEG Transport Streams TS AAC I O O AES I I/O I/O H.264 I I/O I/O MainConcept and x264 AVCHD I I I HDV I I/O I/O MPEG - 1/2 (audio) I I/O I/O MPEG - 2 I I/O I/O MPEG - 4 I I/O I/O PCM I I I Matrox MAX H.264 I/O I/O I/O QT codec (*output possible via QT), Requires Matrox MAX hardware - Mac OS X only MPEG System Streams M1A MPEG-1 (audio) I/O I/O I/O M1V MPEG-1 (audio) I/O I/O I/O Episode 6 Format Support Format Support FILE FORMAT CODEC Episode Episode Episode Pro EngineCOMMENTS MPEG-4 MP4 AAC I/O I/O I/O
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2002.01657V1 [Eess.IV] 5 Feb 2020 Port Lossless Model to Compress Images Lossless
    LEARNED LOSSLESS IMAGE COMPRESSION WITH A HYPERPRIOR AND DISCRETIZED GAUSSIAN MIXTURE LIKELIHOODS Zhengxue Cheng, Heming Sun, Masaru Takeuchi, Jiro Katto Department of Computer Science and Communications Engineering, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan. ABSTRACT effectively in [12, 13, 14]. Some methods decorrelate each Lossless image compression is an important task in the field channel of latent codes and apply deep residual learning to of multimedia communication. Traditional image codecs improve the performance as [15, 16, 17]. However, deep typically support lossless mode, such as WebP, JPEG2000, learning based lossless compression has rarely discussed. FLIF. Recently, deep learning based approaches have started One related work is L3C [18] to propose a hierarchical archi- to show the potential at this point. HyperPrior is an effective tecture with 3 scales to compress images lossless. technique proposed for lossy image compression. This paper In this paper, we propose a learned lossless image com- generalizes the hyperprior from lossy model to lossless com- pression using a hyperprior and discretized Gaussian mixture pression, and proposes a L2-norm term into the loss function likelihoods. Our contributions mainly consist of two aspects. to speed up training procedure. Besides, this paper also in- First, we generalize the hyperprior from lossy model to loss- vestigated different parameterized models for latent codes, less compression model, and propose a loss function with L2- and propose to use Gaussian mixture likelihoods to achieve norm for lossless compression to speed up training. Second, adaptive and flexible context models. Experimental results we investigate four parameterized distributions and propose validate our method can outperform existing deep learning to use Gaussian mixture likelihoods for the context model.
    [Show full text]