This work presents a performance evaluation of the current status of two distinct lines of development in future video coding technology: the so-called AV1 video codec of the industry-driven Alliance for Open Media (AOM) and the Joint Exploration Test Model (JEM), as developed and studied by the Joint Video Exploration Team (JVET) on Future Video Coding of ITU-T VCEG and ISO/IEC MPEG. As a reference, this study also includes reference encoders of the respective starting points of development, as given by the first encoder release of AV1/VP9 for the AOM-driven technology, and the HM reference encoder of the HEVC standard for the JVET activities. For a large variety of video sources ranging from UHD over HD to 360° content, the compression capability of the different video coding technology has been evaluated by using a Random Access setting along with the JVET common test conditions. As an outcome of this study, it was observed that the latest AV1 release achieved average bit-rate savings of ~17% relative to VP9 at the expense of a factor of ~117 in encoder run time. On the other hand, the latest JEM release provides an average bit-rate saving of ~30% relative to HM with a factor of ~10.5 in encoder run time. When directly comparing AV1 and JEM both for static quantization parameter settings, AV1 produces an average bit-rate overhead of more than 100% relative to JEM at the same objective reconstruction quality and, in addition, with a factor of ~2.7 in encoder run time. Even when operated in a two-pass ratecontrol mode, AV1 lags behind both the JEM and HM reference encoder with average bit-rate overheads of ~55% and ~9.5%, respectively, although the latter being configured along one-pass static quantization parameter settings.
[1]
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).
[2]
F. Bossen,et al.
Common test conditions and software reference configurations
,
2010
.
[3]
Detlev Marpe,et al.
Performance comparison of H.265/MPEG-HEVC, VP9, and H.264/MPEG-AVC encoders
,
2013,
2013 Picture Coding Symposium (PCS).
[4]
Detlev Marpe,et al.
Comparative assessment of H.265/MPEG-HEVC, VP9, and H.264/MPEG-AVC encoders for low-delay video applications
,
2014,
Optics & Photonics - Optical Engineering + Applications.
[5]
Touradj Ebrahimi,et al.
Comparison of compression efficiency between HEVC/H.265 and VP9 based on subjective assessments
,
2014,
Optics & Photonics - Optical Engineering + Applications.
[6]
Gary J. Sullivan,et al.
General Video Coding Technology in Responses to the Joint Call for Proposals on Video Compression With Capability Beyond HEVC
,
2020,
IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology.
[7]
G. Bjontegaard,et al.
Calculation of Average PSNR Differences between RD-curves
,
2001
.
[8]
Gary J. Sullivan,et al.
Comparison of the Coding Efficiency of Video Coding Standards—Including High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)
,
2012,
IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology.