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!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5
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.
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 )
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.
2) In the report you see only public results, but there are also a large number of private codecs that do not publish the result.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).