Note that there are no AV1 codecs in the 30 fps category because none were able to encode at that rate. Table 2 shows the overall scoring for both the offline and online tests in all reported categories. Average bitrate for fixed quality at 1 fps using the VMAF metric Codecs to the right of x265 need a higher data rate to deliver the same quality, so the rav1e AV1 encoder needs 37% more data to deliver x265 quality, close to 50% higher than Aurora.įigure 1.
Codecs to the left can deliver the same quality as x265 at the data rate shown in the chart, so the BVC2.0 codec offers a 25% bitrate reduction at the same quality while the Aurora AV1 Encoder offers a 19% reduction. What's in the free and enterprise versionsįigure 1 shows the VMAF ratings for all tested codecs using the x265 codec as the reference at 100%. Theres a lot of value in the enterprise version, including the encoder settings used for the tests which are created with input from each developer. Table 1 shows what you get in the free version as compared to the enterprise version, with some overall details also provided in the online report description linked to above. The first report, Part 1: Full HD, Objective, released in July 2020, tested 20 codecs representing H.265, AV1, H.264, and other codecs, with 50 full HD videos, and reported results for SSIM, VMAF, PSNR log and average MSE, and the best quality/speed tradeoff using SSIM as the metric. This year, MSU released three reports which I detail below, all with free downloads that contain a snapshot of data, and the full enterprise report with all data for all three reports for $950.Īll reports evaluate multiple codecs of different types using two use cases-offline encoding (1 fps) and online encoding (30 fps)-with the number of test clips and objective metrics deployed varying by report. Every year the Moscow State University (MSU) Graphics and Media Lab releases multiple codec comparisons that are essential reading for any company that delivers streaming video to its viewers.
0 kommentar(er)
