Video Area Home
>>
Video-Codec Comparisons
>>
HEVC/AV1 Video Codecs Comparison 2019
HEVC/AV1 Video Codecs Comparison 2019
Fourteen Annual Video-Codecs Comparison by MSU
Video group head:
|
Dr. Dmitriy Vatolin
|
Project head:
|
Dr. Dmitriy Kulikov
|
Measurements, analysis:
|
Dr. Mikhail Erofeev,
Anastasia Antsiferova,
Sergey Zvezdakov,
Denis Kondranin,
Egor Sklyarov,
Stanislav Grokholskiy
|
100 videos were used for comparison! (report part I, FullHD)
If you want to receive notifications about our reports, please
Navigation
Participated codecs
|
Codec name
|
Report parts
|
Standard
|
Part I. FullHD
|
Part II. Subjective
|
Part III. 4K
|
Part IV. High Quality
|
1
|
aom
AOMedia
|
|
|
|
|
AV1
|
2
|
arowana xvc
Divideon
|
Ripping use case
|
|
|
|
xvc
|
3
|
Bytedance V265 Encoder
ByteDance Inc.
|
Fast, Universal use cases
|
|
|
|
HEVC
|
4
|
HW265
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
|
|
|
|
|
HEVC
|
5
|
MainConcept HEVC
MainConcept GmbH
|
|
|
|
|
HEVC
|
6
|
rav1e
rav1e
|
|
|
|
|
AV1
|
7
|
SIF Encoder
SIF Encoder Team
|
Ripping use case
|
|
Universal use case
|
|
SIF
|
8
|
SVT-AV1
Open Visual Cloud
|
|
|
Universal use case
|
|
AV1
|
9
|
SVT-HEVC
Open Visual Cloud
|
|
|
|
|
HEVC
|
10
|
SVT-VP9
Open Visual Cloud
|
|
|
|
|
VP9
|
11
|
sz265
Nanjing Yunyan
|
|
|
|
|
HEVC
|
12
|
Tencent V265 Encoder
Tencent
|
|
|
|
|
HEVC
|
13
|
UC265
Ucodec Inc.
|
Ripping use case
|
|
|
|
HEVC
|
14
|
VP9
The WebM Project (Google)
|
Ripping use case
|
|
|
|
VP9
|
15
|
WZAurora AV1 Encoder
Visionular
|
Ripping use case
|
|
Universal use case
|
|
AV1
|
16
|
x264
x264 Developer Team
|
|
|
|
|
AVC
|
17
|
x265
MulticoreWare, Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
HEVC
|
18
|
xin265
|
|
|
|
|
HEVC
|
Reports
Main report (Objective comparison, FullHD videos)
Three encoding use cases measured on 100 FullHD videos
Released on October, 21
|
|
Free version
|
Enterprise version
|
Use cases
|
Universal (partially)
|
Fast, Universal, Ripping
|
Per-sequence-results
|
2 of 100 sequences (only Universal use case)
|
All 100 sequences for all use cases (in interactive charts)
|
Metric: YUV-SSIM
|
|
|
Description of video sequences
|
|
|
Codec info (developer, version number, website link)
|
|
|
Other objective metrics (in addition to YUV-SSIM)
|
|
Y-VMAF(0.6.1), Y-VMAF(0.6.2), Y-VMAF(0.6.3), Y-VMAF(0.6.1, Phone), Y-VMAF(0.6.2, Phone), Y-VMAF(0.6.3, Phone), Y-SSIM, U-SSIM, V-SSIM, YUV-PSNR, Y-PSNR, U-PSNR, V-PSNR
|
Per-frame metrics results (in HTML version of the report)
|
|
All metrics for all sequences and use cases (10000+ charts)
|
Relative quality analysis
|
|
|
Download links for video sequences
|
|
|
Encoders presets description
|
|
|
PDF report
|
58 pages
|
83 pages
|
HTML report
|
28 interactive charts
|
14000+ interactive charts
|
Price
|
Free
|
$950
|
|
Descriptions of 100 used videos can be found on
this page
or in
separate PDF (41 MB)
|
You will receive enterprise versions of all reports (FullHD, Subjective, 4K and High Quality)
|
Subjective Report
Subjective comparison conducted on Subjectify.us platform
Released on November, 1
|
11 codecs
Bytedance, sz265, Tencent V265 Encoder, UC265, x265, xin265, arowana xvc, SIF Encoder, VP9, WZAurora AV1 Encoder, x264
|
Free version
Enterprise version
You will receive enterprise versions of all reports (FullHD, Subjective, 4K and High Quality)
Contact us if you want to buy only Enterprise Subjective Report
|
732 unique observers
25784 valid answers
|
5 video sequences
Short fragments from
Crowd Run
,
Kayak Trip
,
Making Alcohol
,
Tractor
,
Wedding Party
|
Special Subjective Encoding Use Case
At least 1 FPS
|
6 metrics
Subjective score and 5 objective: YUV-SSIM, Y-SSIM, YUV-PSNR, Y-PSNR, Y-VMAF(v.0.6.1)
|
HTML and PDF documents
118 interactive charts and 33 pages
|
4K Report
Comparison conducted on 4K (UHD) videos
Released on March, 6
|
12 codecs
Bytedance V265 Encoder, HW265, MainConcept HEVC, SVT-HEVC, sz265, x265, SIF Encoder, SVT-AV1, SVT-VP9, VP9, WZAurora AV1 Encoder, x264
|
Free version
PDF report
HTML report
Download all in one archive (zip)
Enterprise version
You will receive enterprise versions of all reports (FullHD, Subjective, 4K and High Quality)
Contact us if you want to buy only Enterprise 4K Report
|
11 4K video sequences
From 24 to 60 FPS
|
Two Encoding Use Cases
4K Universal (1fps) and 4K Fast (20fps)
|
9 metrics
YUV_SSIM, YUV_PSNR, Y_VMAF (v0.6.2), Y_SSIM, U_SSIM, V_SSIM, Y_PSNR, U_PSNR, V_PSNR
|
HTML and PDF documents
710 interactive charts and 71 pages
|
Report on high quality encoding
Comparison conducted under slow-speed requireents
Released on March, 30
|
7 codecs
aom, rav1e, SVT-AV1, SVT-HEVC, SVT-VP9, x264, x265
|
Enterprise version
(for free)
PDF report
HTML report
Download all files in one archive (zip)
PDF, HTML report + download links for videos + HTML report with per-frame metrics results
|
6 FullHD video sequences
From 24 to 60 FPS
|
Special Encoding Use Case
Formal limitation 0.005 fps (not strict)
|
9 metrics
YUV_SSIM, YUV_PSNR, Y_VMAF (v0.6.2), Y_SSIM, U_SSIM, V_SSIM, Y_PSNR, U_PSNR, V_PSNR
|
HTML and PDF documents
594 interactive charts and 42 pages
|
Ovarall Conclusions
Main report (Objective comparison, FullHD videos) summary
According to just quality scores (YUV-SSIM), the best codecs among our competitors evaluated for all three use cases are the following:
- First place:
HW265
- Second place:
Tencent V265 Encoder
- Third place:
sz265
The biggest number of codecs took part in comparison with high-quality encoding presets (Ripping use case). The winners for only high-quality encoding are the following:
- First place in high-quality (ripping) use case:
HW265
- Second place in high-quality (ripping) use case:
Tencent V265 Encoder
- Third place in high-quality (ripping) use case:
VP9
We tested three encoded use cases (see the description in section
Test Hardware Characteristics
). Here is one of the rate-distortions charts for universal encoding (
Cion
video sequence):
The universal-encoding use case has two Pareto optimal encoders in terms of mean speed and quality:
HW265
and
Tencent V265 Encoder
. Nevertheless, the differences emerge for particular sequences and use cases.
Free version contains the results for 2 of 100 video sequences, while full results are available in
enterprise version
.
Subjective report summary
According to subjective quality scores, the best codecs among our competitors evaluated for all three use cases are the following:
- First place:
WZAurora AV1 Encoder
- Second place:
Tencent V265 Encoder
- Third place:
arowana xvc
There is no absolute winner in the comparison, since different encoders take first place at different test video sequences: for example, on
Crowd Run (short)
three encoders show Pareto-optimal results:
SIF Encoder
,
Bytedance
,
WZAurora AV1 Encoder
,
arowana xvc
.
All graphs are available in
enterprise version
, which is free for all buyers of enterprise main report, and enterprise main report is also free for all buyers of enterprise subjective report.
4K report summary
According to SSIM quality scores, the best codecs among our competitors evaluated for two use cases are the following:
- First place:
HW265
by Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
- Second place:
Bytedance V265 Encoder
- Third place:
Mainconcept HEVC
The results slightly differ for other objective quality metrics. For example,
Mainconcept HEVC
shows the best result according to VMAF.
Mean overall quality (SSIM):
Overall quality for universal use case (1fps, SSIM):
In this comparison, the results for universal 4K encoding (1fps) differ from overall scores. The following encoders showed the best performance results:
- First place:
WZAurora AV1 Encoder
- Second place:
HW265
by Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
- Third place:
Mainconcept HEVC
The above plots show only quality gain, hovewer, all encoders slightly differ in encoding speed. The following speed-quality chart shows the picture for
Duck Take Off
video sequence.
All graphs, including speed-quality trade-off for all videos, are available in
enterprise version
(which is free for all buyers of enterprise main and subjective reports).
High quality encoding report summary
According to YUV-SSIM, YUV-PSNR and Y-VMAF quality scores, the best codecs among our competitors evaluated for two use cases are the following:
- First place:
aom
- Second place:
SVT-AV1
- Third place:
x265
rav1e
shows the best scores according to V-SSIM and V-PSNR metrics.
Mean overall quality (SSIM):
As we analysed the case of offline encoding, the limit on encoding speed was not strict in this part of the comparison. The following speed-quality chart shows the landscape of competitors relative speed and quality for all video sequences.
The following plot shows per-frame VMAF scores for
axebat
video sequence at 2 Mbps. SVT-AV1, SVT-HEVC and SVT-VP9 show quality decrease in a part of the video with high motion and complex scenes (running baseball players, splashing water). Enterprise report includes an HTML report with per-frame metrics results for all videos and bit rates.
Comparison Rules
HEVC codec testing objectives
The main goal of this report is the presentation of a comparative evaluation
of the quality of new HEVC codecs and codecs of other standards using
objective measures of assessment. The comparison was done using settings
provided by the developers of each codec. Nevertheless, we required all
presets to satisfy minimum speed requirement on the particular use case.
The main task of the comparison is to analyze different encoders for the
task of transcoding video – e.g., compressing video for personal use.
Test Hardware Characteristics
- CPU: Intel Socket 1151 Core i7 8700K (Coffee Lake) (3.7Ghz, 6C12T, TDP 95W)
- Mainboard: ASRock Z370M Pro4
- RAM: Crucial CT16G4DFD824A 2x16GB (totally 32 GB) DIMM DDR4 2400MHz CL15
- OS: Windows 10 x64
For this platform we considered three key use cases with different speed
requirements:
- Fast/High Density – 1080@60fps
- Universal/Broadcast VQ – 1080p@25fps
- Ripping/Pristine VQ – 1080p@1fps and SSIM-RD curve better than x264-veryslow
See more on
Call-for-codecs 2019
page
Videos
Videos for testing set were chosen from MSU video collection via a voting among comparison participants, organizers and an independend expert.
In this year, the collection was enlarged up to 18418 sequences which were chosen from 700000+ user-generated videos posted on Vimeo website. All videos have 4K or FullHD resolution and high bitrate (50 Mbps was selected as a lower bitrate boundary).
Number of videos in MSU video collection
Year
|
# FullHD videos
|
# FullHD samples
|
# 4K videos
|
# 4K samples
|
Total # of videos
|
Total # of samples
|
2016
|
3
|
7
|
882
|
2902
|
885
|
2909
|
2017
|
1996
|
4638
|
1544
|
4561
|
3540
|
9299
|
2018
|
4342
|
10330
|
1946
|
5503
|
6288
|
15833
|
2019
|
4945
|
12402
|
2091
|
6016
|
7036
|
18418
|
Bitrate distribution of videos in MSU video collection
Final video set consists of 100 sequences: 8 from the old data set and 92 new ones from Vimeo and
media.xiph.org derf's collection
. The average bitrate for all sequences in the final set is 218.9 Mbps, median - 143.2 Mbps.
City walk
(61.5 Mbps),
Nancy
(67.6 Mbps) and
Oman museum
(69.7 Mbps) sequences have minimal bitrates.
Descriptions of all test videos are presented on
this page
and in a separate PDF provided with our reports.
Codec Analysis and Tuning for Codec Developers and Codec Users
Computer Graphics and Multimedia Laboratory of Moscow State University:
- 15+ years working in the area of video codec analysis and tuning
using objective quality metrics and subjective comparisons.
- 27+ reports of video codec comparisons and analysis (H.265, H.264,
AV1, VP9, MPEG-4, MPEG-2, decoders' error recovery).
- Methods and algorithms for codec comparison and analysis
development, separate codec's features and codec's options
analysis.
We could perform next tasks for codec developers and codec users.
Strong and Weak Points of Your Codec
- Deep encoder parts analysis (ME, RC on GOP, mode decision, etc).
- Weak and strong points for your encoder and complete information
about encoding quality on different content types.
- Encoding Quality improvement by the pre and post filtering
(including technologies licensing).
Independent Codec Estimation Comparing to Other Codecs for Different Use-cases
- Comparative analysis of your encoder and other encoders.
- We have direct contact with many codec developers.
- You will know place of your encoder between other newest well-known
encoders (compare encoding quality, speed, bitrate handling, etc.).
Encoder Features Implementation Optimality Analysis
We perform encoder features effectiveness (speed/quality trade-off) analysis
that could lead up to 30% increase in the speed/quality characteristics of
your codec. We can help you to tune your codec and find best encoding
parameters.
Thanks
Special thanks to the following contributors of our previous
comparisons
Share with us your opinion about comparison
Contact Information
Subscribe to report updates
Materials about MSU Codec Comparison
See all MSU Video Codecs Comparisons
MSU video codecs comparisons resources:
Other Materials
Video resources:
Last updated:
12-May-2022
Server size: 8069 files, 1215Mb
(
Server statistics
)
Project updated by
Server Team
and
MSU Video Group
Project sponsored by
YUV
soft Corp.
Project supported by
MSU Graphics & Media Lab