I reported on some quick and dirty comparisons at Streaming Media West and expanded upon those for this article. The short answer is that the quality produced by each codec is very similar. I selected three 4K source clips. The first, which I called the New clip, was a collection of footage I shot with a RED camera for a consulting project; this clip is designed to represent real-world footage.
The second was a short section from Blender. The third was a short section from Blender. These mezzanine clips were the starting points for all encodes. All three companies encoded clips to my specifications and supplied them to me. I also contacted MainConcept, which supplied a copy of its flagship encoder, TotalCode Studio, and advised me to use the standard presets modified for the appropriate resolution, data rates, and frame rates.
I quickly learned that TotalCode has two limitations. The second limitation is that the encoder currently supports only single-pass encoding. Once I received or created all the test clips, I confirmed that they met the data rate limits, then compared their respective video quality measurement VQM scores using the University of Moscow Video Quality Measurement Test.
You can see the results in Table 1with lower scores being better. The three columns on the left show the results from the three HEVC participants with VP9 the last column on the right. The lowest and best score for each clip is highlighted in green, and the average score for each technology is shown in the total row at the bottom of the table. As you can see, VP9 scored the lowest and best of all tested codecs, though the difference between x and VP9 was negligible and commercially irrelevant, as was the difference between x and the IP Provider.
After running the objective tests, I viewed each clip in real time to observe any motion-related artifacts that might not have been picked up in the objective ratings.
I saw nothing during these trials that contracted the objective VQM findings. Regarding MainConcept, the ratings are not surprising, since the current version of TotalCode Studio only supports single-pass encoding. Since the clips were produced using percent constrained VBR encoding, this meant that technologies with two passes could allocate more data to the hard to encode regions in all test clips.
As an example, Figure 2 shows how MainConcept compared to x over the duration of the x New clip, with MainConcept in blue and x in red. Lower scores are better. As you can see, the quality of the two codecs was very similar except for the region on the extreme right: the high motion, high detail shot shown in Figure 1 that was the hardest to encode in the entire clip. With the benefit of two-pass encoding, TotalCode Studio could have allocated more data to this region, which likely would have resulted in much closer scores.
Figure 2. MainConcept proved very close to x in all but the highest motion regions of the clip MainConcept is blue, x red, lower is better. As a complement to the main testing, I encoded a talking head clip with consistent motion throughout with both codecs x and MainConcept, testing the theory that consistent motion would negate the benefit of two-pass encoding.
Despite the two-pass encoding advantage enjoyed by x, MainConcept won this trial with a VQM score of 0.They are competing next generation video compression formats that claim to be twice as efficient as H. They also halve the file size of p and p content making it far easier to download or stream HD video over slow connections. It was approved as the official successor to H. Like H. By contrast VP9 is open source and royalty free. It was developed by Google as a successor to VP8, the moderately successful alternative to H.
By doing the opposite of what you might expect. While 4K video increases picture quality by making individual pixels smaller, effectively what H. It then performs a vast array of processing tricks on the video as it is played to get the detail back. For context H. VP9 is similar on the surface. On the flip side it only has 10 prediction modes to rebuild them. Cynics argue VP9 changes H.
Needless to say both standards require more computational power than H.
H.265 vs VP9: 4K video codecs explained
The first thing to say is we are greatly simplifying these formats, but — despite similar file sizes — initial reports suggest H. The greater prediction modes in H. Previously this made H. This time around things are closer. The flip side is all these companies have also backed H. With the decline of physical media and the rise of 4K Ultra HD, there has never been greater pressure on new video compression standards to deliver.
Thankfully both do, if in slightly different ways, and — unlike past format wars — there is likely to be space for both as the industry seems reluctant to wholly commit to a a future paying license fees, or b being beholden to Google. Interestingly, a third format is also in the pipeline. The Xiph. Nothing ever stays still in technology.VP9 is an open, royalty-free video coding standard developed by Google.
Mainly by the enhancement of compression efficiency, robustness, error recovery ability, reduction on real-time delay and channel acquisition time, the new technology makes video coding more efficient.
Meanwhile, H. Compared with the respective previous video coding standards, ie, H. But, both as the newest video codec, which one is better then? In the following, we will show you the answer from the perspectives of video quality, time consumption of video encoding, and CPU usage. The figure below presents the quality comparison of videos encoded by H. The smaller the number is means better video quality. We can notice form the comparison that H.
The disparity of overall average score is only 0. In terms of the comparison of coding time, VP9 won overwhelmingly against H. The time consumed by VP9 in encoding no matter 4k videos, or videos of and resolution is much shorter than that by H. The following figure shows the comparison of CPU consumption test of video playing on Dell Precision workstation between H.
Having compared the data of the two coding standards, we can draw a conclusion that H. Alisa Cassiel, an English Copywriter of Digiarty, has 4 years of writing and marketing experience. Love writing and always provide thoughtful how-to guides and tips related to video processing, recent hot topics, new digital devices, hit movies, music, etc.
The Great UHD Codec Debate: Google's VP9 Vs. HEVC/H.265
She is a life-enthusiast who is independent, persistent, enthusiastic, energetic, and interested in music, exercise, travel, dance, painting. VP9 vs. VP9 vs H. Video Quality The figure below presents the quality comparison of videos encoded by H.Update Please check our latest blog for the latest developments in video encoding. The conclusion: apart from YouTube, all of these major platforms still rely on the 14 year old!!
We have to start this journey by exploring why we believe H. It is also very quick to encode videos to H. Howeverthe reason it is so fast to encode videos to H. On top of that, H. So 6K and 8K resolutions, which the next generation of VR cameras promise to deliver, are definitely out of the question with H. Finally, and most importantly, the image quality of H. Black often ends up looking gray, and blocky encoding artefacts are very common when the bitrate is a tad too low.
This should be enough reason for everyone to make the switch to HEVC, right?! Well, not so fast. Despite the incredible compression of HEVC, this codec is not widely supported yet, apart from relatively new Android devices which have support since Android 5. So why this slow adoption of this otherwise brilliant codec? Two related words: money and patents. These high license fees are partially explained by the fact that H.
Also, having an additional patent pool does not only cost more money, it also poses a significantly increased risk of parties suing each other for patent infringement, which is yet another reason for companies to avoid HEVC. Another thing to consider is that new codecs like HEVC usually make a trade-off between compression versus complexity, resulting in much smaller file sizes at the cost of slower encoding and more power required for playback.
However, I have yet to come across a phone sporting an Nvidia Ti, so until then, these performance improvements are limited to PCs. The Nvidia hardware encoding SDK still has some bugs as well, where it does not encode the height of a video correctly when you use hardware accelerated encoding in combination with scaling the resolution, as I mentioned in my FFmpeg cheat sheet for video.
In short, HEVC is an amazing codec which is unfortunately not yet widely supported, and which has several things working against it becoming the new industry standard read: costs and patents. Google owns YouTube, and since YouTube has a ton of videos on it, it would quickly become extremely expensive to either:. Google immediately open-sourced the codec and was hoping it would be an H.
Unfortunately, H. On top of that, Android devices support VP9 since Android 4. To get an optimal quality-to-size ratio, it is recommended to encode your videos using a variable bitrate. But what bitrate is ideal?
Because we use a variable bitrate, the actual bitrate of the output video is usually slightly higher or lower than the target bitrate you set. VP9 even supports transparent videos, which is how we were able to create the effect in the video below:.Trusted Reviews may earn an affiliate commission when you purchase through links on our site.
Learn More. They are competing next generation video compression formats that claim to be twice as efficient as H. They also halve the file size of p and p content making it far easier to download or stream HD video over slow connections.
It was approved as the official successor to H. Like H. By contrast VP9 is open source and royalty free. It was developed by Google as a successor to VP8, the moderately successful alternative to H.
By doing the opposite of what you might expect. While 4K video increases picture quality by making individual pixels smaller, effectively what H.
It then performs a vast array of processing tricks on the video as it is played to get the detail back. For context H. VP9 is similar on the surface. On the flip side it only has 10 prediction modes to rebuild them.
Cynics argue VP9 changes H. Needless to say both standards require more computational power than H. The first thing to say is we are greatly simplifying these formats, but — despite similar file sizes — initial reports suggest H.
The greater prediction modes in H. Previously this made H. This time around things are closer. The flip side is all these companies have also backed H. With the decline of physical media and the rise of 4K Ultra HD, there has never been greater pressure on new video compression standards to deliver. Thankfully both do, if in slightly different ways, and — unlike past format wars — there is likely to be space for both as the industry seems reluctant to wholly commit to a a future paying license fees, or b being beholden to Google.
Interestingly, a third format is also in the pipeline. The Xiph. Nothing ever stays still in technology. Unlike other sites, we thoroughly review everything we recommend, using industry standard tests to evaluate products. We may get a commission if you buy via our price links. Tell us what you think — email the Editor. Home Opinion H.In this part, we tested the lossy compression capability. To measure the fidelity of the reconstruction encoded video of lossy compression codecs in our tests, we used PSNR Peak signal-to-noise ratio.
The greater the PSNR of two videos, the more similar they are. If the encoded video is lossless, the PSNR will be infinity when compared to the original. We tried to match the PSNR and compared the video stream size, the smaller the size, the better the codec.
But it is hard to make the PSNR exactly the same. As mentioned earlier, as of Junethe AV1 is still experimental and we were not able to set its constant quality mode as we expected. And AV1 is extremely slow. So we did the AV1 in its vibrate bitrate mode first. We have found that the VP9 produces better results when encoded in its 2-pass constant quality mode can be set with "-crf"so we chose that. But the VP9 will round any decimal number of "crf" to an integer, that is to say, it can not be adjusted precisely, so we ended up with encoded videos with slightly different PSNR.H.265 (HEVC) vs H.264 (AVC) Compression: Explained!
Do you think that high resolution or framerate would change the standings? Its an advantage. The issue is decoding speed. Encoding isnt as big an issue, even if a 2 hour movie takes 2 weeks to encode, usually you just have to do that once if youre competent with settings. Post a Comment. But in test 1, x is the winner.
The video encoded with AV1 is smaller than the video encoded with x, but not that impressive. This may be because the source video has many still sessions with a black background, and as we have learned from part IAV1 doesn't do as well in lossless compression. And the scenes change so fast that it limits the reuse of blocks.Is that true?
Apparently, both HEVC and VP9 serve the same purpose of compressing data-intensive HD and 4K videos to half the size as required now, so as to survive the limits of internet requirements, and make it possible to stream UHD videos to users' UHDTVs at less bandwidth without affecting the visual quality.
But yes, if bringing up VP9 vs H.
Higher compression efficiency means that less data a codec uses to display an image without quality loss. Both codecs are designed to compress 4K UHD videos to smaller size. But which will save you more data when you download or stream p and p content? Video quality is an important factor to consider, which gives the better quality? H can grab 64x64, 32x32, or even 16x16 superblocks for low resolutions, while VP9 is fixed to 64x CPU usage means how much processing power the codec needs to playback.
The UHD codecs will requires more power than their predecessors. For example, when you play, stream or download HEVC H movies to mobilesyour devices is more likely to gets stuck or overheat than H. Overall, if your computer runs slow, you may keep using H, as compared with H, H won't give any better results on the same CPU usage.
As for VP9, you may expect a slightly better performance. Experiments show that the average encoding time of both VP9 and H. Plus, there is more hardware acceleration support for encoding HEVC h. For example, Intel adds full encoding and decoding acceleration for H.
When it comes to the compatibility difference between VP9 and H, the story varies based on the platform you play. Considering the predecessor H. Apparently, both codecs will need a VP9 or H video converter for more extensive playback. Bandwidth and file size decide the playback experience of the streaming videos. From the figure below we can see that streaming video is becoming an extremely important part of people's life.
Will the streaming video playback be fast and smooth without any noticeable reduction in video quality? As mentioned in the compression efficiency comparison between VP9 and H. Plus, Netflix has proved that H. One of the main reasons is the licensing fees charged to HEVC users. VP9 is open and royalty free while H is not.
While there are many devices supporting both 4K codecs, some other don't. There is hardware from TVs to mobile devices and set-top boxes that has trouble to play VP9 and H If you want to convert 4K codecs with the fastest speed and no quality loss, then MacX Video Converter Pro is your best bet.
To decode or encode both 4K codecs, first free Download the H. Free download: Mac Version or Windows Version. Step 1. Click "Add Files" to import the video. Batch convert is supported so that you can import multiple videos. Step 2. Find the codec or format you need from the column. Here are also ready presets for latest mobile devices.