Video Area Home
>>
Video Codecs Comparisons
>>
MSU Video Codecs Comparison 2021
MSU Video Codecs Comparison 2021 Part 3: 4K
Sixteen Annual Video-Codecs Comparison by MSU
Video group head:
|
Dr. Dmitriy Vatolin
|
Project head:
|
Dr. Dmitriy Kulikov
|
Measurements, analysis:
|
Dr. Mikhail Erofeev,
Anastasia Antsiferova,
Egor Sklyarov,
Alexander Yakovenko,
Nickolay Safonov,
Alexander Gushin,
Nikita Alutis
|
|
|
|
|
|
compression.ru
|
Lomonosov
Moscow State University (MSU)
Graphics and Media Lab
|
Dubna International
State University
|
Institute for Information
Transmission Problems,
Russian Academy of Science
|
News
- 20.04.2022
Release of the comparison
Navigation
Results
- The results below are based solely on quality scores and do not take into account encoding speed
- Encoders with scores closer than 1% share one place
|
All standards
|
|
Slow (1 fps)
|
Fast (30 fps)
|
Best encoder 8-bit
YUV-SSIM 6:1:1
|
BVC2 (other),
Tencent266 v0.1 (VVC)
|
|
Tencent V265 (HEVC),
BVC1 (HEVC)
|
|
Best encoder 8-bit
YUV-MSSSIM 6:1:1
|
Tencent266 v0.1 (VVC),
Tencent266 v0.2 (VVC)
|
|
Tencent V265 (HEVC),
BVC1 (HEVC)
|
|
Best encoder 8-bit
YUV-PSNR avg. MSE 6:1:1
|
|
|
Best encoder 8-bit
Y-VMAF 0.6.1
|
|
|
Best encoder 8-bit
Y-VMAF NEG 0.6.1
|
|
|
Best encoder 10-bit
YUV-SSIM 6:1:1
|
|
|
Best encoder 10-bit
YUV-MSSSIM 6:1:1
|
Tencent266 v0.1 (VVC),
Tencent266 v0.2 (VVC)
|
|
|
Best encoder 10-bit
YUV-PSNR avg. MSE 6:1:1
|
|
|
Best encoder 10-bit
Y-VMAF 0.6.1
|
|
|
Best encoder 10-bit
Y-VMAF NEG 0.6.1
|
|
|
|
HEVC & AV1 standards
|
|
Slow (1 fps)
|
Fast (30 fps)
|
Best HEVC encoder, 8-bit
YUV-SSIM 6:1:1, YUV-MSSSIM 6:1:1, YUV-PSNR avg. MSE 6:1:1, Y-VMAF 0.6.1, Y-VMAF NEG 0.6.1
|
|
|
Best AV1 encoder, 8-bit
YUV-SSIM 6:1:1, YUV-MSSSIM 6:1:1, Y-VMAF 0.6.1, Y-VMAF NEG 0.6.1
|
|
|
Best AV1 encoder, 8-bit
YUV-PSNR avg. MSE 6:1:1
|
Tencent TXAV1 (AV1), XAV1 (AV1)
|
|
|
Best HEVC encoder, 10-bit
YUV-SSIM 6:1:1, YUV-MSSSIM 6:1:1, YUV-PSNR avg. MSE 6:1:1, Y-VMAF 0.6.1, Y-VMAF NEG 0.6.1
|
|
|
Best AV1 encoder, 10-bit
YUV-SSIM 6:1:1, Y-VMAF NEG 0.6.1
|
|
QAV1 (AV1), SVT-AV1 (AV1)
|
|
Best AV1 encoder, 10-bit
YUV-MSSSIM 6:1:1, Y-VMAF 0.6.1
|
|
|
Best AV1 encoder, 10-bit
YUV-PSNR avg. MSE 6:1:1
|
|
|
*
- YUV-VMAF was calculated as VMAF for all colour-planes (Y, U, V) following the same methodology as YUV-SSIM, YUV-PSNR and other metrics.
The biggest number of codecs took part in comparison of Slow encoding (1 fps). The winners vary for different objective quality metrics. The participants were rated using BSQ-rate (enhanced BD-rate) scores [1].
[1] A. Zvezdakova, D. Kulikov, S. Zvezdakov, D. Vatolin, "BSQ-rate: a new approach for video-codec performance comparison and drawbacks of current solutions," 2020.
Download and buy report
|
Free
|
Enterprise
|
Use cases
|
Slow (1 fps), Fast (30 fps) (partially)
|
Slow (1 fps), Fast (30 fps)
|
Number of test sequences
|
5
|
25
|
Test video descriptions
|
|
|
Basic codec info
|
|
|
Test videos download
|
|
|
Encoders presets description
|
|
|
PDF report
|
99 pages
|
103 pages
|
HTML report
|
234 interactive charts
|
15000+ interacive charts
|
Price
|
Free
|
950 USD
|
Download/Buy
|
PDF & HTML reports + videos description (ZIP, 80 MB)
HTML report (HTML, 980 KB)
PDF report (PDF, 34 MB)
|
Buy link will be available soon
You will receive enterprise versions of all 2021 reports (FullHD, Subjective, 4K)
|
Participated codecs
|
Codec name
|
Use cases
|
Standard
|
Version
|
1
|
Reference x265
MulticoreWare, Inc.
|
Slow (1 fps) 8-bit,
Fast (30 fps) 8-bit,
Slow (1 fps) 10-bit,
Fast (30 fps) 10-bit
|
H.265/HEVC
|
3.5+1-f0c1022b6, Windows
|
2
|
BVC1
Bytedance Inc.
|
Slow (1 fps) 8-bit,
Fast (30 fps) 8-bit
|
HEVC
|
V2, Windows
|
3
|
BVC2
Bytedance Inc.
|
Slow (1 fps) 8-bit,
Fast (30 fps) 8-bit
|
Other
|
V2, Windows
|
4
|
vo265
Zhenyu Liu
|
Slow (1 fps) 8-bit
|
HEVC
|
1.0, Linux
|
5
|
MainConcept HEVC
MainConcept GmbH
|
Slow (1 fps) 8-bit,
Fast (30 fps) 8-bit,
Slow (1 fps) 10-bit,
Fast (30 fps) 10-bit
|
HEVC
|
13.1, Windows
|
6
|
QAV1
iQIYI Inc.
|
Slow (1 fps) 8-bit,
Fast (30 fps) 8-bit,
Slow (1 fps) 10-bit,
Fast (30 fps) 10-bit
|
AV1
|
v2.2, Linux
|
7
|
rav1e
The rav1e contributors
|
Slow (1 fps) 8-bit
|
AV1
|
0.5.0-alpha (p20210518), Windows
|
8
|
SVT-AV1
Open Visual Cloud
|
Slow (1 fps) 8-bit,
Fast (30 fps) 8-bit,
Slow (1 fps) 10-bit,
Fast (30 fps) 10-bit
|
AV1
|
v0.8.6, Windows
|
9
|
SVT-HEVC
Open Visual Cloud
|
Slow (1 fps) 8-bit,
Fast (30 fps) 8-bit
|
HEVC
|
1.5.1, Windows
|
10
|
SVT-VP9
Open Visual Cloud
|
Slow (1 fps) 8-bit,
Fast (30 fps) 8-bit
|
VP9
|
0.3.0, Windows
|
11
|
Tencent V265
Tencent
|
Slow (1 fps) 8-bit,
Fast (30 fps) 8-bit,
Slow (1 fps) 10-bit,
Fast (30 fps) 10-bit
|
HEVC
|
-, Linux
|
12
|
XAV1
X Man
|
Slow (1 fps) 8-bit,
Slow (1 fps) 10-bit
|
AV1
|
0.1, Linux
|
13
|
Tencent266 v0.1
Tencent
|
Slow (1 fps) 8-bit,
Slow (1 fps) 10-bit
|
VVC
|
0.1, Windows
|
14
|
Tencent266 v0.2
Tencent
|
Slow (1 fps) 8-bit,
Slow (1 fps) 10-bit
|
VVC
|
0.2, Windows
|
15
|
Tencent TXAV1
Tencent
|
Slow (1 fps) 8-bit,
Slow (1 fps) 10-bit
|
AV1
|
-, Linux
|
16
|
VVenC
Fraunhofer HHI
|
Slow (1 fps) 8-bit,
Slow (1 fps) 10-bit
|
VVC
|
v1.0.0, Linux
|
17
|
x264
x264 project
|
Slow (1 fps) 8-bit,
Fast (30 fps) 8-bit
|
AVC
|
r3065-ae03d92, Windows
|
Comparison Rules
4K codec testing objectives
The main goal of this report it 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.
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, Linux (Ubuntu 20.4)
For this platform we considered four key use cases with different speed
requirements:
- Fast 8-bit:
UHD, 30fps
- Slow 8-bit:
UHD, 1fps
- Fast 10-bit:
UHD-10bit, 30fps
- Slow 10-bit:
UHD-10bit, 1fps
See more on
Call For Codecs 2021
page
25 video sequences at 4K resolution were used for tests: 18 video sequences had 8-bit color depth and 7 video sequences had 10-bit color depth. Note: we used technically 10-bit videos for evaluation, but the colours in the videos themselves do not utilize wide luminance range (they are not HDR).
Codec Analysis and Tuning for Codec Developers and Codec Users
Computer Graphics and Multimedia Laboratory of Moscow State University:
- 17+ years working in the area of video codec analysis and tuning
using objective quality metrics and subjective comparisons.
- 30+ 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.
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
Contact Information
We appreciate any feedback on our comparison
Subscribe to report updates
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