A Subjective Comparison of AV1 and HEVC for Adaptive Video Streaming

In this paper we compare the performance of two state-of-the-art competing codecs, AV1 and HEVC, in the context of adaptive streaming. We specifically consider a Dynamic Optimizer (DO) methodology that is content-aware and selects the resolution of the video sequence after constructing the convex hull of the Rate-Quality curves of all considered resolutions. We start with an objective evaluation of the Dynamic Optimizer, based on both PSNR and VMAF quality metrics. The Rate-VMAF curves show an average of 6.3% BD-Rate gain of AV1 over HEVC, while the Rate-PSNR curves an show an average BD-Rate loss of 1.8%. We then report subjective tests which evaluate the perceived quality of the selected bitstreams generated by the two codecs. In this case it was found that, for most rate points, the difference in the perceived quality between HEVC and AV1 is not significant.

[1]  C. Duchon Lanczos Filtering in One and Two Dimensions , 1979 .

[2]  Sugato Chakravarty,et al.  Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures , 1995 .

[3]  G. Bjontegaard,et al.  Calculation of Average PSNR Differences between RD-curves , 2001 .

[4]  Christian Timmerer,et al.  Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP dataset , 2012, MMSys '12.

[5]  Stefan Winkler,et al.  Analysis of Public Image and Video Databases for Quality Assessment , 2012, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing.

[6]  Gary J. Sullivan,et al.  Overview of the High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Standard , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology.

[7]  Fan Zhang,et al.  A video texture database for perceptual compression and quality assessment , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP).

[8]  Detlev Marpe,et al.  Coding efficiency comparison of AV1/VP9, H.265/MPEG-HEVC, and H.264/MPEG-AVC encoders , 2016, 2016 Picture Coding Symposium (PCS).

[9]  Jan De Cock,et al.  Complexity-based consistent-quality encoding in the cloud , 2016, 2016 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP).

[10]  Ioannis Katsavounidis,et al.  Video codec comparison using the dynamic optimizer framework , 2018, Optical Engineering + Applications.

[11]  Christian Timmerer,et al.  A Practical Evaluation of Video Codecs for Large-Scale HTTP Adaptive Streaming Services , 2018, 2018 25th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP).

[12]  Anil C. Kokaram,et al.  Optimized Transcoding for Large Scale Adaptive Streaming Using Playback Statistics , 2018, 2018 25th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP).

[13]  Jan De Cock,et al.  Compression Performance Comparison of x264, x265, libvpx and aomenc for On-Demand Adaptive Streaming Applications , 2018, 2018 Picture Coding Symposium (PCS).

[14]  Touradj Ebrahimi,et al.  Comparison of Compression Efficiency between HEVC/H.265, VP9 and AV1 based on Subjective Quality Assessments , 2018, 2018 Tenth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX).

[15]  Detlev Marpe,et al.  Future Video Coding Technologies: A Performance Evaluation of AV1, JEM, VP9, and HM , 2018, 2018 Picture Coding Symposium (PCS).

[16]  Saverio G. Blasi,et al.  AN OVERVIEW OF RECENT VIDEO CODING DEVELOPMENTS IN MPEG AND AOMEDIA , 2018 .