Video coding standards k. R. Rao, Do Nyeon Kim Springer 2014

VP8, VP9, VP10 :

VP.1. D. Grois, et al, “Performance comparison of H.265/MPEG-HEVC, VP9, and H.264/MPEGAVC encoders,” in Proc. 30th IEEE Picture Coding Symposium, pp. 394–397, Dec. 2013.

VP.2. A. Grange. Overview of VP-Next. [Online]. Available: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-videocodec-4.pdf, accessed Jan. 30, 2013.
VP.3. J. Bankoski, P. Wilkins, and Y. Xu, “Technical overview of VP8, an open source video codec for the web,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Multimedia and Expo, pp. 1–6 , Jul. 2011.
VP.4. M. Rerabek and T. Ebrahimi, “Comparison of compression efficiency between HEVC/H.265 and VP9 based on subjective assessments”, SPIE Optical Engineering + Applications, vol. 9217, San Diego, CA, Aug. 2014.

VP.5. D. Mukherjee et al, “An overview of new video coding tools under consideration for VP10: the successor to VP9,” [9599 – 50], SPIE. Optics + photonics, Applications of DIGITAL IMAGE PROCESSING, XXXVIII, San Diego, California, USA, 9 – 13, Aug. 2015. Debargha Mukherjee email: [e-mail]

Please see the last slide below:

Conclusions

● Modest progress towards a next generation codec

○ A long way to go still

○ Need a few big ideas

● Welcome to join the VP10 effort!

● All development in the open.

● Join the discussion with fellow developers

○ The mailing list and group information can be found at

http://www.webmproject.org/about/discuss/

VP.6. D. Mukherjee et al, “The latest open – source video codec VP9 – an overview and preliminary results,” Proc. IEEE picture coding Symposium, pp. 390 -393, San Jose, Dec. 2013.

VP.7. D. Mukherjee et al, “A Technical overview of VP9 - the latest open – source video codec,” SMPTE Motion Imaging Journal, Jan / Feb 2015.

VP.8. E. Ohwovoriole, and Y. Andreopoulos, "Rate-Distortion performance of contemporary video codecs: comparison of Google/WebM VP8, AVC/H.264 and HEVC TMuC," Proc. London Communications Symposium (LCS), Sep. 2010, pp. 1-4

VP.9. J. Bankoski, P. Wilkins and X. Yaowu, "Technical overview of VP8, an open source video codec for the web," IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), pp.1,6, 11-15 July 2011.

VP.10. Chromium® open-source browser project, VP9 source code, Online: http://git.chromium.org/gitweb/?p=webm/libvpx.git;a=tree;f=vp9;hb=aaf61dfbcab414bfacc3171 501be17d191ff8506

VP.11. J. Bankoski, et al, “Towards a next generation open-source video codec,” Proc. SPIE 8666, Visual Information Processing and Communication IV, pp.1-13, Feb. 21, 2013,

VP.12. E. de la Torre, R.R. Sanchez and J.L. Martinez, “Fast video transcoding from HEVC to VP9”, IEEE Trans. on Consumer electronics, vol. 61, pp.336-343, Aug. 2015. (This has several valuable references on H.264 to HEVC, MPEG-2 to HEVC, and H.264 to SVC transcoders.)

By cleverly using the information from the decoding process (HEVC) to accelerate the encoding process (VP9), the authors [VP12] have achieved significant reduction in encoding complexity (VP9) with negligible loss iin PSNR. However BD bit rate BD PSNR and SSIM metrics have not been used. Include these metrics in evaluating the transcoder.

see VP.5. VP10 being developed as next generation codec by Google and successor to VP9 is an open source royalty free codec. VP9 is currently being served extensively by You Tube resulting in billions of views daily. This paper describes several tools that are proposed (beyond VP9 with the objective of improving the compression ratio (reduced bit rate) while preserving the same visual quality as VP9 . (This is similar to development of H.265/HEVC in comparison with H.264/AVC). VP10 project is in still early stages and Google welcomes proposals in its development from researchers and developers. The tools (listed below) being evaluated in [VP-1] are subject to change including the exploration of new tools. Implement each of these tools separately and evaluate their performance compared with baseline codec VP9. Use the three test sets as described under section 3 coding results. Please confirm the improvements caused by these tools over VP9 as described in Tables 1 through 5. Implementation complexity caused by these tools needs also to be considered as another performance metric. Evaluate this in comparison with VP9. Explore / innovate additional tools that can further improve the coding efficiency of VP10. The authors state that VP10 development is an open – source project, and they invite the rest of the video coding community to join the effort to create tomorrow’s royalty free codec.

○ New coding tools, new ways of combining existing/new methods

● Several experiments and investigative threads underway

○ High bit-depth internal

○ Prediction tools

○ Transform coding tools

○ Screen content coding

○ Miscellaneous

VP.13 See Jay Padia, “Complexity reduction for VP6 to H.264 transcoder using motion vector reuse”, M.S. Thesis, EE Dept., University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, May 2010. Develop similar technique for VP9 to HEVC transcoder.

.
.
See VP.4 and VP.8 Performance comparison of HEVC, VP9 and H.264/MPEG 4 AVC in terms of subjective evaluations showing actual differences between encoding algorithms in terms of perceived quality is implemented. The authors indicate a dominance of HEVC based encoding algorithms compared to both VP9 and H.264/MPEG 4 AVC over wide range of bit rates. Extend this comparison in terms of PSNR, BD-bit rates, BD-PSNR, SSIM and implementation complexity. Consider various test sequences at different spatial and temporal resolutions.

JPEG 2000:

J2K1. D. S. Taubman and M. W. Marcellin, “JPEG2000: Image compression fundamentals, standards and practice,” Springer, 2002.

J2K2. M. Rabbani, Review of the book: ( D. S. Taubman and M. W. Marcellin, “JPEG2000: Image compression fundamentals, standards and practice,” Springer, 2002) , J. Electron. Imaging, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 286, Apr. 2002 (see 1 in JPEG 2000) .
J2K3. Kakadu Software 6.0. [Online]. Available: http://www.kakadusoftware.com/
J2K4. H. Oh, A. Bilgin and M. W. Marcellin, “Visually lossless encoding for JPEG 2000,” IEEE Trans. on Image Processing, vol.22, no.1, pp. 189 – 201, Jan. 2013.
J2K5. C. Christopoulus, A. Skodras and T. Ebrahimi, “The JPEG 2000 still image coding system: An overview,” IEEE Trans. on Consumer Electronics, vol. 46, pp. 1103 – 1127, Nov. 2000.
J2K6. J. Hunter and M. Wylie, “JPEG 2000 Image Compression: A real time processing challenge,” Advanced Imaging, vol. 18, pp. 14 – 17, April 2003.
J2K7. D. Marpe, V. George and T. Wiegand, “Performance comparison of intra – only H.264 / AVC HP and JPEG 2000 for a set of monochrome ISO / IEC test images,” JVT – M014, pp. 18 – 22, Oct. 2004.
J2K8. D. Marpe et al, “Performance evaluation of motion JPEG 2000 in comparison with H.264 / operated in intra – coding mode, “Proc. SPIE, vol. 5266, pp. 129 – 137, Feb 2004.
J2K9. JPEG2000 latest reference software (Jasper Version 1.900.0) Website: http://www.ece.ubc.ca/mdadams/jasper
J2K10. M.D. Adams, “JasPer software reference manual (Version 1.900.0),” ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 1 N 2415, Dec. 2007.
J2K11. M.D. Adams and F. Kossentini, “Jasper: A software-based JPEG-2000 codec implementation,” in Proc. of IEEE Int. Conf. Image Processing, vol.2, pp 53-56, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Oct. 2000.

J2K12. C. Christopoulos, J. Askelof and M. Larsson, “EFFICIENT METHODS FOR ENCODING REGIONS OF INTEREST IN THE UPCOMING JPEG2000 STILL IMAGE CODING STANDARD”, IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 7, pp. 247-249, Sept. 2000.

J2K13. F. Dufaux, “JPEG 2000 – EXTENSIONS”, ITU-T VICA Workshop

ITU Headquarter – Geneva, 22-23 July, 2005. (PPT slides)

J2K14. T. Fukuhara et al, “Motion-JPEG2000 standardization and target market, IEEE ICIP, vol. 2, pp. 57-60, 2000.
J2K15. M. Rabbani and R. Joshi, “ An overview of the JPEG 2000 still image compression standard, “ Signal Processing: Image Communication, vol. 17, pp. 3-48, Jan. 2002.
J2K16. J. Hunter and M. Wylie, “JPEG2000 Image Compression: A real time processing challenge,” Advanced Imaging, vol. 18, pp.14-17, and 43, April 2003.
J2K17. The JPEG 2000 Suite” (Peter Schelkens, editor; Athanassios Skodras and Touradj Ebrahimi, co-editors)—an addition to the IS&T/Wiley Series, 2010.
J2K18.P. Topiwala, “Comparative Study of JPEG2000 and H.264/AVC FRExt I– Frame Coding on High-Definition Video Sequences” SPIE, vol.5909-31.
J2K19. T.D. Tran, L. Liu and P. Topiwala, “Performance Comparison of leading image codecs: H.264/AVC Intra, JPEG2000, and Microsoft HD Photo”,
J2K20. D.T. Lee, “JPEG2000: Retrospective and new developments” Proc. IEEE, vol. 93, pp. 32q-41, Jan. 2005.
J2K21. Special issue on JPEG 2000, Signal Processing and Image Communication, vol. 17, Jan. 2002.