MULTIMEDIA PROCESSING

STUDY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF POPULAR PARALLELING TECHNIQUES APPLIED TO HEVC

Under the guidance ofDr. K. R. Rao

By:Karthik Suresh (1000880819)

Work Done

The main intent of the project is to observe the impact of parallelization in

video coding.

Firstly, comparison is done between H.264 and HEVC using two standard test

sequences.

The main observation is the total encoding time taken.

Then, the WaveFrontSynchro parameter is changed to observe the change in

encoding time.

Parameters considered

• WaveFrontSynchro: WaveFrontSynchro causes the changes to the bitstream (entry

points on each row, with cabac flushes), to allow those aspects of wavefront coding to be assessed for quality, bitrate etc.

• SliceMode: When this parameter is set to 3, it enforces maximum number of tiles in a slice.

Test sequences used

BasketballDrill_832x480_50.yuv

Test sequences used

RaceHorses_416x240_30.yuv

Test Conditions

• Initially the test sequences are encoded with H.264 and H.265 to

compare the metrics.

• Metrics considered are PSNR, bitrate, encoding time.

• QP is varied from 22 to 37 in steps of 5.

• 20 frames are encoded in each of the sequences.

Results obtained

BasketballDrill_832x480_50.yuv, Number of frames encoded = 20

  HEVC, Main All-intra profile H.264, High All-intra profile

QP PSNR in dB Bit rate Encoding time in second

PSNR in dB Bit rate Encoding time in second

22 42.3716 20407.88 137.080 42.2071 27612.22 141.971

27 39.0915 11014.04 121.178 38.6897 15152.94 120.309

32 36.2986 5847.02 98.149 35.9167 8225.54 103.683

37 33.9144 3200.72 84.450 33.6168 4732.34 93.305

RaceHorses_416x240_30.yuv, Number of frames encoded = 20

  HEVC, Main All-intra profile H.264, High All-intra profile

QP PSNR in dB Bit rate Encoding time in second

PSNR in dB Bit rate Encoding time in second

22 42.5720 5057.16 38.942 42.5096 6100.91 40.350

27 38.6146 3152.10 31.973 38.425 3846.35 34.613

32 34.9992 1814.89 26.551 34.7295 2238.22 30.114

37 31.9718 979.584 23.452 31.913 1291.26 26.404

Results obtained

Comparison Graph

Comparison Graph

Comparison Graph

Comparison Graph

Result obtained

BasketballDrillText_832x480_50.yuv RaceHorses_416x240_30.yuv

Parameter in consideration Time taken (in seconds) Time taken (in seconds)

WaveFrontSychro = 0 136.835 31.678

WaveFrontSychro = 1 136.664 38.804

WaveFrontSychro = 4 131.224 37.27

Slice Mode = 3 130.815 44.34

Tabulation

Parameter legend:0 -> WaveFrontSynchro = 01 -> WaveFrontSynchro = 12 -> WaveFrontSynchro = 4

Tabulation

Parameter legend:0 -> WaveFrontSynchro = 01 -> WaveFrontSynchro = 12 -> WaveFrontSynchro = 4

Conclusion & Future work

• Comparison between HEVC and H.264 clearly shows us the improvements in

encoding times and the respective PSNRs and bitrates for defined QPs.

• By modifying the WaveFrontSynchro parameter, we observe the changes is

encoding time.

• Future work would be to investigate the positive and negative impacts of the

changes done and understanding of its working to further improve the

encoding time.

References

• [1] G.J. Sullivan et al, “Overview of the high efficiency video coding (HEVC) standard”, IEEE Trans. CSVT, vol. 22,pp.1649-1668, Dec.2012.

• [2] C.C.Chi et al, “Parallel scalability and efficiency of HEVC parallelization approaches”, IEEE Trans. CSVT, vol. 22, pp.1827-1838, Dec.2012.

• [3] M.A.Mesa, et al., "Parallel video decoding in the emerging HEVC standard“, ICASSP 2012, pp. 1545 - 1548, March 2012.

• [4] Intel tutorial on OpenMP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ1k_YpyG_A&list=SPLX-Q6B8xqZ8n8bwjGdzBJ25X2utwnoEG.

References (contd)

• [5] Ngai-Man Cheung, et al., "Video coding on multicore graphics processors", Signal Processing Magazine IEEE, Vol 27 Issue 2, pp. 79 - 89, March 2010.

• [6] Thesis by Sudeep Gangavati on Complexity reduction of H.264 using parallel programming. http://www-ee.uta.edu/Dip/Courses/EE5359/index.html

• [7] Project by Valay Shah on Study and optimization of Deblocking filter in H.265 and its advantages over H.246/AVC. http://www-ee.uta.edu/Dip/Courses/EE5359/index.html

• [8] N.M. Cheung, et al, "Video coding on multicore graphics processors", IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol 27, Issue 2, pp. 79 - 89, March 2010.

References (contd)• [9] E. Kalali, et al, "A High Performance And Low Energy Intra Prediction Hardware

For HEVC Video Decoding", DASIP 2012, pp. 1 - 8, Karslruhe, Germany, Oct. 2012.• [10] K. Miyazawa, et al, "Real-Time Hardware Implementation of HEVC Encoder

for 1080p HD Video", IEEE PCS 2013, pp. 225 - 228, San Jose, California, USA, Dec 2013.

• [11] S. Kim, et al, "A Novel Fast and Low-complexity Motion Estimation for UHD HEVC", IEEE PCS 2013, pp. 105 - 108, San Jose, California, USA, Dec 2013.

• [12] F. Bossen, et al, ” HEVC Complexity and Implementation Analysis”, IEEE Trans. on CSVT, vol.22, no.12, pp.1685-1696, Dec. 2012.

• [13] K.R. Rao, D.N. Kim and J.J. Hwang, "Video Coding Standards: AVS China, H.264/MPEG-4 Part10, HEVC, VP6, DIRAC and VC-1", Springer, 2014.

References (contd.)• [14] G.J. Sullivan, et al, "Standardized Extensions of High Efficiency Video Coding

(HEVC)", IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 7, Issue 6, pp. 1001 - 1016, Dec. 2013.

• [15] G.J. Sullivan, et al, "HEVC Range Extensions Draft 5", JCT-VC, version 1, Geneva, Nov. 2013.

• [16] M. Jakubowski and G. Pastuszak, “Block-based motion estimation algorithms – a survey”, Opto-Electronics Review, vol 21, Issue 1, pp. 86 – 102, March 2013.

• [17] Access to HM 13.0 Reference Software: https://hevc.hhi.fraunhofer.de/svn/svn_HEVCSoftware/branches/HM-13.0-dev/

References (contd.)

• [18] Access to HM Software Manual: https://hevc.hhi.fraunhofer.de/svn/svn_HEVCSoftware/branches/HM-13.0-dev/doc/

• [19] B. Bross et al, “High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Text Specification Draft 10”, Document JCTVC-L1003, ITU-T/ISO/IEC Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC), Mar. 2013 available on http://phenix.it-sudparis.eu/jct/doc_end_user/current_document.php?id=7243