Abstract
This paper reports a comparison between two recent video codecs, namely the HEVC and the VP9, using High Definition Video Sequences encoded with different bit rates. A subjective test for the evaluation of the provided Quality of Experience is reported. The video sequences were shown to a panel of subjects on a High Definition LED display and the subjective tests were performed using a Single Stimulus Methodology. The results shown that the HEVC encoder provides a better visual quality on low bit rates than the VP9. Similar performance was obtained for visually lossless conditions, although the HEVC requires lower bit rates to reach that level. Moreover, the correlation of the subjective evaluation and three tested objective metrics (PSNR, SSIM, and FSIM) revealed a good representation of the subjective results, particularly the SSIM and the FSIM metrics.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bankoski J, Bultje RS, Grange A, Gu Q, Han J, Koleszar J, Mukherjee D, Wilkins P, Xu Y (2013) Towards a next generation open-source video codec. Proc. SPIE 8666:866,606–866,606–13
Bultje R, Koleszar J Webm discussion. https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/
Callet P L, Möller S, Perkis A (eds) (2012) QUALINET White Paper on Definitions of Quality of Experience, Lausanne, Switzerland
De Simone F, Goldmann L, Lee JS, Ebrahimi T (2011) Towards high efficiency video coding: subjective evaluation of potential coding technologies. J Vis Commun Image Represent 22(8):734–748
Garcia R, Kalva H (2014) Subjective evaluation of HEVC in mobile environments. IEEE Trans Consum Electron 60(1):116–123
Grois D, Marpe D (2013) Performance comparison of H.265/MPEG-HEVC,VP9, and H.264/MPEG-AVC Encoders. In: PCS 2013 30th picture coding symposium. San Jose, California
Hanhart P, Rerabek M, De Simone F, Ebrahimi T (2012) Subjective quality evaluation of the upcoming HEVC video compression standard. In: Proceedings of SPIE, applications of digital image processing, vol 8499. San Diego
Haskell B, Puri A, Netravali A (1996) Digital video: an introduction to MPEG-2. Digital multimedia standards series. Springer, US
Hollander M, Wolfe D (1999) Nonparametric statistical methods. Wiley
ISO/IEC 13818-2:2000 (2000) Information technology: generic coding of moving pictures and associated audio information, Part 2: Video. Standard, international organization for standardization
ISO/IEC 14496-2:1999 (2000) Information technology: coding of audio-visual objects, part 2: Visual. Standard, international organization for standardization
ITU-R Recommendation BT.500-12 (2009) Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures. Tech. rep. International Telecommunication Union
ITU-R Recommendation BT.2022 (2012) General viewing conditions for subjective assessment of quality of SDTV and HDTV television pictures on flat panel displays. Tech. rep. International Telecommunication Union
ITU-T Recommendation H.263 (2005) Video coding for low bitrate communication. Tech. rep. International Telecommunication Union
ITU-T Recommendation H.264 (2012) Advanced video coding for generic audiovisual services. Tech. rep. International Telecommunication Union
ITU-T Recommendation P.910 (2008) Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. Tech. rep. International Telecommunication Union
ITU-T Tutorial (2004) Objective perceptual assessment of video quality: full reference television. Tech. rep. International Telecommunication Union
Massey FJ (1951) The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness of fit. J Amer Stat Assoc 46(253):68–78
Mitchell J, Pennebaker W, Fogg C (2000) Mpeg video: compression standard. Kluwer Academic
MPEG (2013) Repository HEVC. https://hevc.hhi.fraunhofer.de/svn/svn_HEVCSoftware/
Ohm JR, Sullivan GJ, Schwarz H, Tan TK, Wiegand T (2012) Comparison of the coding efficiency of video coding standards – including high efficiency video coding (HEVC). IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Techn 22(12):1669–1684
Ostermann J, Tanimoto M (2012) MPEG video compression future. Springer
Rerabek M, Ebrahimi T (2014) Comparison of compression efficiency between HEVC/H.265 and VP9 based on subjective assessments. In: SPIE optical engineering + applications. San Diego
Rouse D, Hemami S (2008) Understanding and simplifying the structural similarity metric. In: 15th IEEE international conference on image processing, 2008. ICIP 2008, pp 1188–1191
Shapiro SS, Wilk MB (1965) An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52(3/4):591–611
Sullivan GJ, Ohm JR, Han W, Wiegand T (2012) Overview of the high efficiency video coding (hevc) standard. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Techn 22 (12):1649–1668
Sullivan GJ, Wiegand T (2005) Video compression - from concepts to the H.264/AVC standard. Proc IEEE 93(1):18–31
Wang Z, Bovik A, Sheikh H, Simoncelli E (2004) Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans Image Process 13(4):600–612
WebM WebM™: an open web media project - VP9 video codec summary. http://www.webmproject.org/vp9/. November, 20 of 2014
WebM WebM™: an open web media project, VP8 encode parameter guide, 2-pass best quality VBR encoding project. http://www.webmproject.org/docs/encoder-parameters/. June, 17 of 2013
Weerakkody R, Mrak M, Baroncini V, Ohm JR, Tan TK, Sullivan G (2014) Verification testing of hevc compression performance for uhd video. In: 2014 IEEE Global conference on signal and information processing (GlobalSIP), pp 1083–1087
Wiegand T, Sullivan GJ, Bjontegaard G, Luthra A (2003) Overview of the h.264/avc video coding standard. IEEE Trans Circ Syst Video Technol 13(7):560–576
WMA (2009) World medical association declaration of Helsinki - ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects
Zhang L, Zhang D, Mou X, Zhang D (2011) FSIM: a feature similarity index for image quality assessment. IEEE Trans Image Process 20(8):2378–2386
Acknowledgments
The authors are very grateful to the Instituto de Telecomunicações and Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (project UID/EEA/50008/2013), and to the Optics Center of Universidade da Beira Interior where this work has been conducted.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: settings for the encoders
Appendix: settings for the encoders
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fernandes, P., Bernardo, M.V., G. Pinheiro, A.M. et al. Quality comparison of the HEVC and VP9 encoders performance. Multimed Tools Appl 76, 13633–13649 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-016-3726-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-016-3726-2