We apologize for a recent technical issue with our email system, which temporarily affected account activations. Accounts have now been activated. Authors may proceed with paper submissions. PhDFocusTM
CFP last date
20 December 2024
Call for Paper
January Edition
IJCA solicits high quality original research papers for the upcoming January edition of the journal. The last date of research paper submission is 20 December 2024

Submit your paper
Know more
The week's pick
Responsive image
Improved Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm with Self-Adaptive Shuffling for Fuzzy Logic PD+G Controller Optimization in Robotic Manipulators

Duc Hoang Nguyen
Random Articles
Reseach Article

FFmpeg based Coding Efficiency Comparison of H.264/AVC, H.265/HEVC and VP9 Video Coding Standards for Video Hosting Websites

by Jani Pavlic, Jernej Burkeljca
journal cover thumbnail

International Journal of Computer Applications
Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Volume 182 - Number 37
Year of Publication: 2019
Authors: Jani Pavlic, Jernej Burkeljca
10.5120/ijca2019918381

Jani Pavlic, Jernej Burkeljca . FFmpeg based Coding Efficiency Comparison of H.264/AVC, H.265/HEVC and VP9 Video Coding Standards for Video Hosting Websites. International Journal of Computer Applications. 182, 37 ( Jan 2019), 1-8. DOI=10.5120/ijca2019918381

@article{ 10.5120/ijca2019918381,
author = { Jani Pavlic, Jernej Burkeljca },
title = { FFmpeg based Coding Efficiency Comparison of H.264/AVC, H.265/HEVC and VP9 Video Coding Standards for Video Hosting Websites },
journal = { International Journal of Computer Applications },
issue_date = { Jan 2019 },
volume = { 182 },
number = { 37 },
month = { Jan },
year = { 2019 },
issn = { 0975-8887 },
pages = { 1-8 },
numpages = {9},
url = { https://ijcaonline.org/archives/volume182/number37/30303-2019918381/ },
doi = { 10.5120/ijca2019918381 },
publisher = {Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA},
address = {New York, USA}
}
%0 Journal Article
%1 2024-02-07T01:13:32.172763+05:30
%A Jani Pavlic
%A Jernej Burkeljca
%T FFmpeg based Coding Efficiency Comparison of H.264/AVC, H.265/HEVC and VP9 Video Coding Standards for Video Hosting Websites
%J International Journal of Computer Applications
%@ 0975-8887
%V 182
%N 37
%P 1-8
%D 2019
%I Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Abstract

This paper describes the impact of different camera movements, object motions and scene details on the video compression factor by using FFmpeg to compare the efficiency of Standards VP9, H.264 and H.265 at bit rates recommended for video hosting websites. The study showed that H.265 outperformed H.264 and VP9 in all six cases, where compression efficiency depended highly on the video content, as well as Video Coding Standard. FFmpeg showed to be an usable alternative for assessing objective visual quality.

References
  1. Alliance for open media. 2018. The Big Picture. Available at: https://aomedia.org/about/ [5. 6. 2018].
  2. Bjøntegaard, G. 2001. Calculation of average PSNR diferences between RDcurves. Technical Report VCEG-M33, ITU-T SG16/Q6, Austin, Texas, USA.
  3. Cisco. 2017. Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Methodology, 2016-2021. Available at: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/serviceprovider/ visual-networking-index-vni/complete-white-paperc11- 481360.html [30. 5. 2018].
  4. Daily motion. 2018. Video Specifications. Available at: https://faq.dailymotion.com/hc/en-us/articles/115008879507- Video-Specifications [12. 9. 2018].
  5. FFmpeg. About FFmpeg. Availableat: https://ffmpeg.org/about.html [30. 10. 2018].
  6. FFmpeg. FFmpeg Documentation. Available at: https://ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg.html [23. 10. 2018].
  7. FFmpeg. FFmpeg Filters Documentation. Available at: https://ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-filters.html [23. 6. 2018].
  8. FFmpeg. General Documentation. Available at: https://www.ffmpeg.org/general.html [23. 9. 2018].
  9. The eBusiness Guide. 2018. The 15 Most Popular Video Websites | May 2018. Available at: http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/video-websites [30. 5. 2018].
  10. Grois, D., Marpe, D., Mulayoff, A., Hadar, O. 2013. Performance Comparison of H.265/MPEG-HEVC, VP9, and H.264/MPEG-AVC Encoders. 2013 Picture Coding Symposium.
  11. Grois, D., Nguyen, T., Marpe, D. 2016. Coding Efficiency Comparison of AV1/VP9, H.265/MPEG-HEVC, and H.264/MPEG-AVC Encoders. Picture Coding Symposium (PCS).
  12. Hore, A., Ziou, D. 2010. Image Quality Metrics: PSNR vs. SSIM. 20th International Conference on Pattern Recognition.
  13. Kufa, J., Kratochvil, T. 2015. Comparison of H.265 and VP9 Coding Efficiency for Full HDTV and Ultra HDTV Applications. Radioelektronika, 2015 25th International Conference.
  14. Marpe, D., Schwarz, H., Wiegand, T. 2003. Context- Based Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding in the H.264/AVC Video Compression Standard. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 13, NO. 7, JULY 2003.
  15. Mengzhe, L., Xiuhua, J., Xiaohua, L. 2015. Analysis of H.265/HEVC, H.264 and VP9 Coding Efficiency Based on Video Content Complexity. Computer and Communications (ICCC), 2015 IEEE International Conference.
  16. Vatolin, D., Moskvin, A., Petrov, O., Putilin, S., Grishin, S., Marat, A., Osipov, G. 2018. MSU Video Quality Measurement Tool. Available at: http://www.compression.ru/video/ [9. 11. 2018].
  17. Mukherjee, D., Bankoski, Jim., Grange, A., Han, J., Koleszar, J., Wilkins, P., Xu, Y., Bultje R. 2013. The latest open-source video codec VP9 - An overview and preliminary results. 2013 Picture Coding Symposium (PCS).
  18. MulticoreWare. HEVC/H.265 Explained. Available at: http://x265.org/hevc-h265/ [18. 6. 2018].
  19. National Instruments. 2013. Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio as an Image Quality Metric. Available at: http://www.ni.com/whitepaper/ 13306/en/ [3. 7. 2018].
  20. National Instruments. 2016. What’s New in NI Vision Development Module 2011. Available at: http://www.ni.com/white-paper/12956/en/ [3. 7. 2018].
  21. Ohm, J., Sullivian, G. J., Schwarz, H., Thiow Keng Tan, Wiegand, T. 2010. Comparison of the Coding Efficiency of Video Coding Standards – Including High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC). IEEE transactions on circuits and systems for video technology, vol. 22, no. 12, 2010.
  22. Ozer, J. 2018. Time to start Testing: FFmpeg Turns 4.0 and Adds AV1 Support. Available at: http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/Editorial/Featured- Articles/Time-to-Start-Testing-FFmpeg-Turns-4.0-and-Adds- AV1-Support-127685.aspx [3. 7. 2018].
  23. Patel, D., Lad, T., Shah, D. 2015. Review on Intraprediction in High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Standard. International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887). Vol. 132 – No. 13.
  24. Ponlatha, S., Sabeenian, R., S. 2013. Comparison of Video Compression Standards. International Journal of Computer and Electrical Engineering, Vol. 5, Å?at. 6, , pages 549 – 554.
  25. Richardson, I. E. G. 2003. H.264 and MPEG-4 Video compression, UK Wiley.
  26. Saif, I. M., Zekry, A. 2015. Implementing Lossy Compression Technique for Video Codecs. International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887), Vol 131 – No. 7.
  27. Salomon, D., Motta, G. 2010 Handbook of data compression. 5th ed. Springer London Dordrecht Heidelberg New York, 2010, pages 1–23, 463–466, 480–503, 855–927.
  28. Siglin, T. 2018. Real-world HEVC insights: Adoption, implications, and workflows. Streaming Media magazine.
  29. Sillars, D. 2018. Video Playback On The Web: The Current State Of Video (Part 1). Available at: https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2018/10/video-playbackon- the-web-part-1/ [28. 11. 2018].
  30. Sullivan, J. G., Ohm, J., Han,W.,Wiegand, T. 2012. Overview of the High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Standard. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 22, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2012.
  31. Twitch. 2018. Video Upload Guide. Available at: https://dev.twitch.tv/docs/v5/guides/video-upload/ [12. 9. 2018].
  32. Uhrina, M., Frnda, J., Sevcik, L., Vaculik, M. 2014. Impact of H.264/AVC and H.265/HEVC Compression Standards on the video quality for 4k resolutions. Advances in Electrical and Electronic Engineering, vol. 12, 2014.
  33. Uhrina, M., Bienik, J., Vaculik, M. 2016. Coding Efficiency of VP8 and VP9 Compression Standards for High Resolution. ELEKTRO, 2016.
  34. Verma, A. 2013. The Next Frontier in Video Encoding. Texas Instruments.
  35. Vimeo. 2018. Help Center / Video Compression Guidelines. Available at: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171?hl=en [12. 9. 2018].
  36. Wang, Z., Rehman, A. 2012. SSIM-Inspired Perceptual Video Coding for HEVC. Water- loo: IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, 2012.
  37. WebM. 2016. WebM: an open web media project. Available at: https://www.webmproject.org/ [20. 6. 2018].
  38. Wiegand, T., Sullivian, J. G., BjÃÿntegaard, G., Luthra, A. 2003. Overview of the H.264/AVC Video Coding Standard. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 13, NO. 7, JULY 2003.
  39. Youtube. 2018. Recommended upload encoding settings. Available at: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171?hl=en [12. 9. 2018].
  40. Yusra, A., Soong, D. 2012. Comparison of Image Quality Assessments: PSNR, HVS, SSIM, UIQI. International Journal of Scientic Engineering Research, Volume 3, Issue 8, 2012.
  41. YUVsoft Corporation. 2007. x264 Codec Capabilities Analysis: Parameters Comparison. YUVsoft Corp, 2007.
  42. Zhou, W., Bovik, C., A. 2009. Mean Squared Error: Love It or Leave It? A new look at signal delity measures. IEE Signal processing magazine.
Index Terms

Computer Science
Information Sciences

Keywords

Video compression efficiency FFmpeg H.264 H.265 VP9 PSNR SSIM

Powered by PhDFocusTM