Home
Search
Collections
Journals
About
Contact us
My IOPscience
The emerging High Efficiency Video Coding standard (HEVC)
This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text. 2013 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 51 012010 (http://iopscience.iop.org/1757-899X/51/1/012010) View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more
Download details: IP Address: 141.99.184.18 This content was downloaded on 13/03/2016 at 20:15
Please note that terms and conditions apply.
ICSICCST 2013 IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 51 (2013) 012010
IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1757-899X/51/1/012010
THE EMERGING HIGH EFFICIENCY VIDEO CODING STANDARD (HEVC)
Gulistan Raja 1 and Awais Khan Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila E-mail:
[email protected] Abstract. High definit ion video (HDV) is becoming popular day by day. This paper describes the performance analysis of latest upcoming video standard known as High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC). HEVC is designed to fulfil all the requirements for future high definit ion videos. In this paper, three configurations (intra only, low delay and random access) of HEVC are analy zed using various 480p, 720p and 1080p high definit ion test video sequences. Simulat ion results show the superior objective and subjective quality of HEVC.
1. Introduction Imagine that you want to transmit or store a TV quality digital video. Transmission or storage capability of 37.32 Megabytes is required for 1 second of video and 134. 37 Giga bytes are required for 1-hour uncompressed (raw) video program. This requires enormously high data transmission and/or storage medium, which is beyond the capabilities of today’s systems. Therefore, there is a need for compression to deal with this kind of high-bit rate data. Moreover, increasing demand for superior level quality and higher resolution video calls for need of high definition video in comparison to standard video. Applications like Blue-ray, HD-DVD, HDTV, IPTV, digital cable, dish HD, Web HD downloads etc. are becoming common day by day. The amount of data to be processed and transmitted in case of HDV is significantly high and this requires video compression for efficient archival and transmission. The growth in video coding is mainly fuelled by two international organizations: Moving Picture Expert Group (MPEG) and International Telecommunication Union (ITU). MPEG is working group of experts from International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) [1-2]. The MPEG-1 and MPEG-4 visual standards are developed by MPEG while H.261 and H.263 standards are developed by ITU-T. ISO/IEC and ITU-T also worked jointly to produce H.262/MPEG-2 and H.264/MPEG-4 standards. The upcoming HEVC is joint effort of ISO/IEC MPEG and ITU-T VCEG known as Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC). Performance analysis of HEVC standard shows that it can achieve significant bit rate reductions in comparison to existing standards for e qual perceptual quality video [3-4]. HEVC provides more than 50% bitrate saving than its successor video standard H.264 by providing the same subjective and objective video quality [5]. It provides more flexible 1
To who m any correspondence should be addressed.
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI. Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
ICSICCST 2013 IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 51 (2013) 012010
IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1757-899X/51/1/012010
block structure, more intra prediction modes and wide range of transform unit (TU) and reduced the complexity of in-loop filter than the previous H.264 video standard [6]. 2. Performance Analysis of High Efficiency Video Coding The High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) is a latest video coding standard developed by ITU-T Video Coding Expert Group (VCEG) and ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) in a Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) [7]. The main HEVC incorporated features in comparison to its predecessor video coding standard H.264/AVC are [8]: x Coding tree units and coding tree block structure x Transform units and transform blocks x Intrapicture prediction x Enhanced entropy coding x Modified loop filtering. We have used three resolutions of 480p (832 X 480), 720p (1280 X 720) and 1080p (1920 X 1080) high definition video sequences for analysis [9]. All the sequences are in YUV format and 50 frames for each sequence at the rate of 25 frames per second. Table 1 PSNR and bitrate comparison for various configurations of HEVC Intra only Low Delay Random Access Test Sequence QP Y-PSNR Bitrate Y-PSNR Bitrate Y-PSNR Bitrate 23 40.659 24472.901 39.481 7224.701 39.352 5421.24 28 39.006 11284.320 37.961 Basketball 2945.587 37.944 2200.39 33 37.486 6253.603 36.098 Drive 1438.483 36.186 1099.84 (1920 X 1080) 38 35.524 3537.797 34.036 773.515 34.242 605.65 43 33.205 2027.918 31.726 407.035 32.033 392.318 48 30.745 1030.421 29.314 204.278 29.680 198.590 23 39.860 55153.891 38.155 10261.690 38.054 8081.11 28 37.402 27207.254 36.152 3487.598 36.377 2953.84 Cactus 33 35.059 14828.453 33.984 1620.432 34.393 1446.44 (1920 X 1080) 38 32.525 7928.270 31.624 815.141 32.160 757.25 43 29.946 4165.704 29.173 401.237 29.779 460.651 48 27.551 1886.458 185.347 26.845 27.404 208.555 23 43.341 13586.122 42.115 1013.131 42.375 1173.912 28 40.709 8367.614 39.889 444.158 40.363 579.960 Four People 33 37.783 5148.691 37.262 235.507 37.875 327.259 (1280 X 720) 38 34.600 3088.517 34.316 132.178 35.016 192.562 43 31.353 1730.890 31.209 71.424 31.903 108.005 48 28.332 862.642 28.228 36.370 28.924 55.224 23 44.026 9999.490 42.784 909.648 42.993 974.146 Kristen 28 41.614 6003.355 40.685 376.829 41.147 459.149 and 33 38.888 3620.342 38.248 189.466 38.869 247.910 Sara 38 35.913 2164.210 35.510 103.901 36.246 142.454 (1280 X 720) 43 32.865 1266.624 32.612 58.075 33.414 81.922 48 29.935 680.011 30.442 29.753 30.519 44.866 23 41.442 15682.042 38.596 5663.299 37.707 4722.566 Race 28 37.765 9614.333 34.769 2353.046 34.452 2077.723 Horses 33 33.975 5439.782 31.412 1051.603 31.557 1000.032 (832 X 480) 38 30.297 2601.533 28.585 486.293 28.863 490.114
2
ICSICCST 2013 IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 51 (2013) 012010
Keiba (832 X 480)
43 48 23 28 33 38 43 48
27.516 25.810 41.843 38.822 35.768 32.753 29.919 27.127
1096.152 528.298 9424.771 5451.624 3071.006 1647.686 874.862 428.323
26.354 24.639 39.617 36.526 33.506 30.823 28.278 25.807
IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1757-899X/51/1/012010
213.163 98.016 3084.312 1368.691 648.902 332.563 170.107 84.245
26.523 24.827 39.123 36.223 33.386 30.803 28.344 25.883
217.824 100.464 2928.566 1400.136 687.605 368.693 195.106 98.299
The quantization parameter (QP) range is kept from 23 to 48 to determine the behaviours of the three configurations. Table 1 describes the comparison of bit rate and Peak to Signal Noise Ratio (PSNR) for intra only, low delay and random access configurations of HEVC. It is observed from table 1 that intra only configuration performs better in terms of PSNR in comparison with other two configurations. However, bitrate requirement for intra only is higher with respect to other two configurations due to the fact that prediction is not used in intra only. In terms of bitrate saving, random access configuration of HEVC performs better at cost of PSNR. Keiba (832 X 480), Frame 28
(a)
(b)
(c)
Four People (1280 X 720), Frame 18
(a)
(b)
(c)
Basketball Drive (1920 X 1080), Frame 31
(a)
(b)
3
(c)
ICSICCST 2013 IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 51 (2013) 012010
IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1757-899X/51/1/012010
Figure 1. Subjective comparison of 480p, 720p and 1080p high definition sequences for various configurations (a) intra only (b) low delay (c) random access Figure 1 shows the subjection comparison of HEVC’s intra only, low delay and random access configurations for Keiba, Four people and Basketball drive high definition test sequences. It is observed that perceptual quality seems to be same but close observation reveals the better quality of intra only configuration in comparison to others. 3. Conclusion We have performed performance analysis of all the encoder configurations used in HEVC standard by using various types of high definition video test sequences. Experimental results show that video quality of the sequences encoded by using intra only configuration is better than other two configurations of HEVC. Moreover, random access configuration provides the maximum bitrate saving among all configurations of HEVC without significantly affecting the subjective and objective quality of video. 4. References [1] Sikora T 1999 Signal Process. Multimedia 225. [2] Kalva H, Lee J-B 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1. [3] Sullivan G. J, Ohm J-R, Han W-J, Wiegand T 2012 IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol. 22 1649. [4] Ohm J-R, Sullivan G J, Schwarz H, Tan T K, Wiegand T 2012 IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol. 22 1669. [5] Raja G, Khan A, Rashid A, Khan AK 2013 Life Science Journal 10 800. [6] Ugur K, Andersson K, Fuldseth A, Bjøntegaard G, Endresen LP, Lainema J, Hallapuro A, Ridge J, Rusanovskyy D, Zhang C, Norkin A, Priddle C, Rusert T, Samuelsson J, Sjoberg R, Wu Z 2012 IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technol 22 1688. [7] ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 2013 JCTVC-L1003 v34 14. [8] Pourazad M T, Doutre C, Azimi M, Nasiopoulos P 2012 IEEE Consumer Electro. Mag. 1 36. [9] High Definition Test sequences 2013 ftp://ftp.tnt.uni-hannover.de/testsequences.
4
