Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
158 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

The Bjøntegaard Bible -- Why your Way of Comparing Video Codecs May Be Wrong (2304.12852v2)

Published 25 Apr 2023 in eess.IV

Abstract: In this paper, we provide an in-depth assessment on the Bj{\o}ntegaard Delta. We construct a large data set of video compression performance comparisons using a diverse set of metrics including PSNR, VMAF, bitrate, and processing energies. These metrics are evaluated for visual data types such as classic perspective video, 360$\circ$ video, point clouds, and screen content. As compression technology, we consider multiple hybrid video codecs as well as state-of-the-art neural network based compression methods. Using additional supporting points inbetween standard points defined by parameters such as the quantization parameter, we assess the interpolation error of the Bj{\o}ntegaard-Delta (BD) calculus and its impact on the final BD value. From the analysis, we find that the BD calculus is most accurate in the standard application of rate-distortion comparisons with mean errors below 0.5 percentage points. For other applications and special cases, e.g., VMAF quality, energy considerations, or inter-codec comparisons, the errors are higher (up to 5 percentage points), but can be halved by using a higher number of supporting points. We finally come up with recommendations on how to use the BD calculus such that the validity of the resulting BD-values is maximized. Main recommendations are as follows: First, relative curve differences should be plotted and analyzed. Second, the logarithmic domain should be used for saturating metrics such as SSIM and VMAF. Third, BD values below a certain threshold indicated by the subset error should not be used to draw recommendations. Fourth, using two supporting points is sufficient to obtain rough performance estimates.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (97)
  1. Advanced Video Coding for Generic Audio-Visual Services, ITU-T Rec. H.264 and ISO/IEC 14496-10 (AVC), ITU-T and ISO/IEC JTC 1, Apr. 2003.
  2. High Efficiency Video Coding, ITU-T Rec. H.265 and ISO/IEC 23008-2, ITU-T and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 (MPEG), Apr. 2013.
  3. Versatile Video Coding, ITU-T Rec. H.266 and ISO/IEC 23090-3, ITU-T and ISO/IEC SG16 (VCEG), MPEG, 2020.
  4. “Vp8 data format and decoding guide,” Nov 2011.
  5. “Vp9 bitstream & decoding process specification,” 03 2016.
  6. “Av1 bitstream & decoding process specification,” 2019.
  7. “Variational image compression with a scale hyperprior,” in Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2018, pp. 1–47.
  8. “Joint autoregressive and hierarchical priors for learned image compression,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2018, vol. 31, pp. 1–10.
  9. “Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 600–612, April 2004.
  10. “Toward a practical perceptual video quality metric,” The Netflix Tech Blog, vol. 6, 2016.
  11. “ESIM: Edge similarity for screen content image quality assessment,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 4818–4831, 2017.
  12. “A gabor feature-based quality assessment model for the screen content images,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 4516–4528, 2018.
  13. “Video coding for machines with feature-based rate-distortion optimization,” in Proc. IEEE 22nd International Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing (MMSP), 2020, pp. 1–6.
  14. “On intra video coding and in-loop filtering for neural object detection networks,” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), 2020, pp. 1147–1151.
  15. The Shift Project, “Climate crisis: The unsustainable use of online video,” Tech. Rep., 2019.
  16. “Decoding-energy-rate-distortion optimization for video coding,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 172–181, Jan. 2019.
  17. “Hevc hardware vs software decoding: An objective energy consumption analysis and comparison,” Journal of Systems Architecture, vol. 115, pp. 102004, 2021.
  18. “Power aware HEVC streaming for mobile,” in Proc. Visual Communications and Image Processing (VCIP), Kuching, Malaysia, Nov 2013, pp. 1–5.
  19. “Energy reduction opportunities in an HEVC real-time encoder,” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), New Orleans, USA, March 2017, pp. 1158–1162.
  20. “A comprehensive study and comparison of core technologies for mpeg 3-d point cloud compression,” IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 701–717, 2019.
  21. “Occupancy-map-based rate distortion optimization and partition for video-based point cloud compression,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, pp. 1–1, 2020.
  22. “360 degrees video coding using region adaptive smoothing,” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), Sep 2015, pp. 750–754.
  23. “Hybrid cubemap projection format for 360-degree video coding,” in Proc. Data Compression Conference (DCC), Mar 2018, p. 404.
  24. “Comparison of 3D 360-degree video compression performance using different projections,” in Proc. IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE), May 2019.
  25. “Updates and integration of evaluation metric software for PCC,” in MPEG input document M40522. 2017.
  26. “An evaluation framework for 360-degree video compression,” in Proc. IEEE Visual Communications and Image Processing (VCIP), Dec 2017, pp. 1–4.
  27. T. Berger, Rate Distortion Theory - A Mathematical Basis for Data Compression, Prentice-Hall Electrical Engineering Series, 1971.
  28. G.-J. Sullivan and T. Wiegand, “Rate-distortion optimization for video compression,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 74 –90, Nov 1998.
  29. G. Bjøntegaard, “Calculation of average PSNR differences between RD curves,” document, VCEG-M33, Austin, TX, USA, Apr 2001.
  30. S. Pateux and J. Jung, “An excel add-in for computing bjontegaard metric and its evolution,” document, VECG-AE07, ITU-T SG16 Q.16 Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG), 2007.
  31. G. Bjontegaard, “Improvements of the bd-psnr model,” document, VECG-AI11, ITU-T SG16 Q.16 Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG), 2008.
  32. “Reliability metric for bd measurements,” document, VECG-AL22, ITU-T SG16 Q.16 Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG), July 2009.
  33. S. Pateux, “Tools for proposal evaluations,” Tech. Rep., Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, 2010.
  34. F. Bossen, “JCTVC-L1100: Common test conditions and software reference configurations,” Tech. Rep., Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, Geneva, Switzerland, Jan. 2013.
  35. “Suggested content for summary information on bd-rate experiment evaluation practices,” JVET-Q0286, Joint Video Exploration Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, 2020.
  36. “Summary information on bd-rate experiment evaluation practices,” JVET-R2016, Joint Video Exploration Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, 2020.
  37. “Vtm common test conditions and software reference configurations for SDR video,” AHG Report, JVET-T1010, Joint Video Exploration Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, Oct 2020.
  38. “JVET common test conditions and evaluation procedures for 360∘{}^{\circ}start_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT video,” AHG Report, JVET-E1030, Joint Video Exploration Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, Jan 2017.
  39. “AOM common test conditions v2.0,” Document: Cwg-b075o, Alliance for Open Media, Codec Working Group, 2021.
  40. “Common test conditions for point cloud compression,” Tech. Rep., ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, 2018.
  41. “Technical paper - working practices using objective metrics for evaluation of video coding efficiency experiments,” ITU-T and ISO/IEC, JTC, vol. 1, pp. 23002–8, 2021.
  42. “Bd-rate/bd-psnr excel extensions,” JVET-H0030, Joint Video Exploration Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, 2017.
  43. P. Hanhart and T. Ebrahimi, “Calculation of average coding efficiency based on subjective quality scores,” Journal of Visual communication and image representation, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 555–564, 2014.
  44. “On interpolation of subjective rate-distortion curves for video coder comparison,” in Proc. 15th International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX). IEEE, 2023, pp. 189–192.
  45. “Rate-complexity-distortion evaluation for hybrid video coding,” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), Jul 2010, pp. 685 –690.
  46. P. Hanhart and T. Ebrahimi, “Rate-distortion evaluation for two-layer coding systems,” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), 2015, pp. 2884–2889.
  47. V. Zimichev, “BD-rate: one name - two metrics. AOM vs. the world,” https://vicuesoft.com/blog/titles/bd_rate_one_name_two_metrics/, 2022, accessed 2022-11.
  48. “Revisiting bjontegaard delta bitrate (bd-br) computation for codec compression efficiency comparison,” in Proc. 1st Mile-High Video Conference, New York, NY, USA, 2022, MHV 2022, pp. 113–114, Association for Computing Machinery.
  49. “Beyond Bjøntegaard: Limits of video compression performance comparisons,” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), 2022.
  50. Google, “Compare codecs - github repository,” https://github.com/google/compare-codecs, accessed 2022-12.
  51. Netflix, “VMAF - video multi-method assessment fusion: Software for vmaf calculation and evaluation,” https://github.com/Netflix/vmaf, [accessed 2022-12].
  52. G. Valenzise, “Bjontegaard metric (Matlab implementation,” https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/27798-bjontegaard-metric, accessed 2022-12.
  53. T. Bruylants, “Bjontegaard metric implementation for c++17 (or later),” https://github.com/tbr/bjontegaard_cpp, 2022, accessed 2022-12.
  54. T. Bruylants, “Etro’s bjontegaard metric implementation for excel,” https://github.com/tbr/bjontegaard_etro, accessed 2022-12.
  55. YoungSx, “Bjontegaard metric implementation for javascript/typescipt,” https://github.com/YoungSx/bjontegaard.js, 2022, accessed 2022-12.
  56. “Bjøntegaard-Delta: Scripts for BD calculations with different interpolators. ,” https://github.com/FAU-LMS/bjontegaard, 2022, accessed 2022-12.
  57. “Decoding-energy optimal video encoding for x265,” in Proc. IEEE 22nd International Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing (MMSP), 2020, pp. 1–6.
  58. “Energy efficient video decoding for vvc using a greedy strategy based design space exploration,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, pp. 1–1, 2021.
  59. C. Runge, “Über empirische funktionen und die interpolation zwischen äquidistanten ordinaten,” Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik, vol. 46, no. 224-243, pp. 20, 1901.
  60. “Hybrid spatial-temporal entropy modelling for neural video compression,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 2022.
  61. “Implicit transformer network for screen content image continuous super-resolution,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, M. Ranzato, A. Beygelzimer, Y. Dauphin, P.S. Liang, and J. Wortman Vaughan, Eds. 2021, vol. 34, pp. 13304–13315, Curran Associates, Inc.
  62. “The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding,” in Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016, pp. 3213–3223.
  63. MPEG 3DG, “Common test conditions for PCC,” in ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 MPEG output document N19324. 2020.
  64. “JVET AHG report: Tool reporting procedure (AHG13),” AHG Report, JVET-T0013 v2, Joint Video Exploration Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, Oct 2020.
  65. Fraunhofer HHI, “Fraunhofer HHI VVenC Software Repository,” https://github.com/fraunhoferhhi/vvenc, [accessed 2022-08].
  66. “Vvenc: An open and optimized vvc encoder implementation,” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Multimedia Expo Workshops (ICMEW), pp. 1–2.
  67. Fraunhofer HHI, “Fraunhofer HHI VVdeC Software Repository,” https://github.com/fraunhoferhhi/vvdec, [accessed 2022-08].
  68. “Towards a live software decoder implementation for the upcoming versatile video coding (vvc) codec,” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), 2020, pp. 3124–3128.
  69. R. Rassool, “VMAF reproducibility: Validating a perceptual practical video quality metric,” in Proc. IEEE International Symposium on Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB), 2017, pp. 1–2.
  70. “Analysis of neural image compression networks for machine-to-machine communication,” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), 2021, pp. 2079–2083.
  71. “Luma mapping with chroma scaling in versatile video coding,” in Proc. Data Compression Conference (DCC). IEEE, 2020, pp. 193–202.
  72. “An intra subpartition coding mode for vvc,” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1203–1207.
  73. Random Data: Analysis and Measurement Procedures, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1971.
  74. “Temporal context mining for learned video compression,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, pp. 1–12, 2022.
  75. “Performance analysis of h.265/hevc (high-efficiency video coding) with reference to other codecs,” in Proc. 13th International Conference on Frontiers of Information Technology (FIT), 2015, pp. 216–221.
  76. Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding, “HEVC test model reference software (HM),” https://hevc.hhi.fraunhofer.de/, [accessed 2021-11].
  77. Joint Video Experts Team (JVET), “VVC test model reference software (VTM),” https://vcgit.hhi.fraunhofer.de/jvet/VVCSoftware_VTM, [accessed 2021-11].
  78. “x265: H.265 / HEVC video encoder application library,” https://www.videolan.org/developers/x265.html, accessed 2020-08.
  79. “x264: Encoder for H.264/MPEG-4 AVC video compression,” x264.org, accessed 2018-11.
  80. “JVET common test conditions and software reference configurations for SDR video,” AHG Report, JVET-N1010, Joint Video Exploration Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, Jan 2017.
  81. “Modeling the energy consumption of the HEVC decoding process,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 217–229, Jan. 2018.
  82. “The latest open-source video codec VP9 - an overview and preliminary results,” in Proceedings Picture Coding Symposium (PCS), Dec 2013, pp. 390–393.
  83. “The SVT-AV1 encoder: overview, features and speed-quality tradeoffs,” in Applications of Digital Image Processing XLIII. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2020, vol. 11510, p. 1151021.
  84. “UVG dataset: 50/120fps 4k sequences for video codec analysis and development,” in Proc. of the 11th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference, 2020.
  85. “MCL-JCV: A JND-based h.264/AVC video quality assessment dataset,” in Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), 2016.
  86. “Multiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment,” in The Thrity-Seventh Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems & Computers. 2003, IEEE.
  87. “JVET common test conditions and software reference configurations for non-4:2:0 colour formats,” AHG Report, JVET-R2013, Joint Video Exploration Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, 2020.
  88. “Gradient magnitude similarity deviation: A highly efficient perceptual image quality index,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 684–695, 2014.
  89. “MPEG-M55583: [VCM] common test conditions, evaluation methodology and reporting template for VCM,” Tech. Rep., Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG2, 2020.
  90. “Faster R-CNN: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks,” in Advances in neural information processing systems, 2015, pp. 91–99.
  91. G. Jocher, “Yolov5,” https://github.com/ultralytics/yolov5.
  92. “Detectron2,” https://github.com/facebookresearch/detectron2.
  93. “Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmentation,” in Proc. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2018, pp. 833–851.
  94. Joint Video Exploration Team, “360lib projection format conversion software,” https://jvet.hhi.fraunhofer.de/svn/svn_360Lib/, [accessed 2019-02].
  95. “8i Voxelized Full Bodies - A Voxelized Point Cloud Dataset,” in ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29 Joint WG11/WG1 (MPEG/JPEG) input document WG11M40059/WG1M74006. Geneva, Jan. 2017.
  96. “Emerging MPEG Standards for Point Cloud Compression,” IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and Systems, pp. 1–1, 2018.
  97. “Compression of 3d point clouds using a region-adaptive hierarchical transform,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 3947–3956, 2016.
Citations (14)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.