VideoHelp Forum

Try DVDFab and download streaming video, copy, convert or make Blu-rays,DVDs! Download free trial !
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Moscow
    Search PM
    MSU Video-Codec Comparison 2019 FullHD and Subjective reports are released http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/hevc_2019/

    Free versions of the reports are available from direct links (FullHD and Subjective).
    If someone is interested in the enterprise version, you can get it with 20% discount before 30/11/19 (use this link or a promo HEVC-NOVEMBER-2019-DN)

    This year we used 100 videos for our tests (list of videos and descriptions: http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/hevc_2019/videos.html)

    The winners in objective comparison are:
    HW265 (Huawei) by SSIM
    Tencent V265 Encoder by VMAF
    Best bitrate handling: x264 in fast encoding use-case, HW265 in universal and ripping encoding use-cases
    Most often was Pareto-optimal: HW265 in fast encoding use-case, Tencent V265 Encoder in universal, SIF and x264 in ripping use-case.

    Results of subjective comparison:


    Soon the comparison of cloud transcoding services will be released, and also we will perform 4K and high-quality (including AV1) comparisons this year.
    Any feedback is very welcome!
    Quote Quote  
  2. Dinosaur Supervisor KarMa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    US
    Search Comp PM
    No Libaom for AV1? I'm sure you guys got burned the last time considering how slow it was, but now it's closer to ~5x slower than x265.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Moscow
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by KarMa View Post
    No Libaom for AV1? I'm sure you guys got burned the last time considering how slow it was, but now it's closer to ~5x slower than x265.
    We usually include AV1 in a special report (called "High-Quality") to compare codecs in ultra-slow encoding speed conditions (~120 seconds per frame).

    You can find its results from 2018 comparison in "High Quality (AV1) Report"
    In 2017, the results are presented in "Part 5: High-quality encoders"

    This year, AV1 codecs will also be compared in a special report. We will post news here and on our site, and also you can subscribe to receive letters about our new reports (~ 3 letters per year )
    Quote Quote  
  4. Why didn't you guys test any of the hardware encoders? Your test system uses a Coffee Lake, you could have tested Quick Sync HW MPEG-2/AVC/HEVC/HEVC 10-bit via QS and the above as well HW VP8/VP9 via VAAPI; along the same vein why not SVT encoders? Or Turing NVENC? Or Navi AVC/HEVC?

    Why not include Main Concept HEVC or Apple HEVC?

    You guys clearly have the budget, if you're going to do codec comparison then at least to a comprehensive comparison, do a real shoot out not just pick and choose a handful of encoders.

    Disappointing.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Moscow
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by sophisticles View Post
    Why didn't you guys test any of the hardware encoders? Your test system uses a Coffee Lake, you could have tested Quick Sync HW MPEG-2/AVC/HEVC/HEVC 10-bit via QS and the above as well HW VP8/VP9 via VAAPI; along the same vein why not SVT encoders? Or Turing NVENC? Or Navi AVC/HEVC?

    Why not include Main Concept HEVC or Apple HEVC?

    You guys clearly have the budget, if you're going to do codec comparison then at least to a comprehensive comparison, do a real shoot out not just pick and choose a handful of encoders.

    Disappointing.
    1) We generally test codecs whose developers send us presets and binary.
    2) In the report you see only public results, but there are also a large number of private codecs that do not publish the result.
    3) As an academic organization, sometimes we are limited in purchasing a newer hardware. We are always open to comparing of new codecs, but sometimes the developers are not interested in participation (lack of time, active development stage, etc.). For open-source codecs, anyone can submit them for comparison (we will need codec name, binary andencoding presets for testing).
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads