High Efficiency Video Coding


Contributors to Wikimedia projects

Article Images

High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) is a video compression standard, a successor to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC (Advanced Video Coding), which was jointly developed by the ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) and ITU-T SG16/Q.6 Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG) as ISO/IEC 23008-2 MPEG-H Part 2 and ITU-T H.265.[1][2][3][4] MPEG and VCEG established a Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) to develop the HEVC standard.[1][2] Version 1 of HEVC was finalized on January 25, 2013 and the specification was formally ratified as a standard on April 13, 2013.

HEVC is said to double the data compression ratio compared to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC at the same level of video quality. It can alternatively be used to provide substantially improved video quality at the same bit rate. It can support 8K UHD and resolutions up to 8192×4320.[1][2]

The first version of the standard was completed, approved, and published in 2013. The second version was completed and approved in 2014 and published in early 2015, and includes format range extensions (RExt) (supporting higher bit depths and the monochrome, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 chroma sampling formats), scalable coding extensions (SHVC), and multi-view extensions (MV-HEVC).[5] Additional 3D-HEVC extensions for 3D video were completed in early 2015.[6] Further screen content coding (SCC) extensions remain in development for completion in early 2016 for video containing rendered graphics, text, or animation as well as (or instead of) camera-captured video scenes.

History

Standardization

In 2004, the ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG) began significant study of technology advances that could enable creation of a new video compression standard (or substantial compression-oriented enhancements of the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC standard).[1] In October 2004, various techniques for potential enhancement of the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC standard were surveyed. In January 2005, at the next meeting of VCEG, VCEG began designating certain topics as "Key Technical Areas" (KTA) for further investigation. A software codebase called the KTA codebase was established for evaluating such proposals.[7] The KTA software was based on the Joint Model (JM) reference software that was developed by the MPEG & VCEG Joint Video Team for H.264/MPEG-4 AVC. Additional proposed technologies were integrated into the KTA software and tested in experiment evaluations over the next four years.[8]

Two approaches for standardizing enhanced compression technology were considered: either creating a new standard or creating extensions of H.264/MPEG-4 AVC.[9] The project had tentative names H.265 and H.NGVC (Next-generation Video Coding), and was a major part of the work of VCEG until its evolution into the HEVC joint project with MPEG in 2010.[9][10][11]

The preliminary requirements for NGVC was the capability to have a bit rate reduction of 50% at the same subjective image quality compared to the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC High profile and computational complexity ranging from 1/2 to 3 times that of the High profile.[11] NGVC would be able to provide 25% bit rate reduction along with 50% reduction in complexity at the same perceived video quality as the High profile, or to provide greater bit rate reduction with somewhat higher complexity.[11][12]

The ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) started a similar project in 2007, tentatively named High-performance Video Coding.[13][14] An agreement of getting a bit rate reduction of 50% had been decided as the goal of the project by July 2007.[13] Early evaluations were performed with modifications of the KTA reference software encoder developed by VCEG.[1] By July 2009, experimental results showed average bit reduction of around 20% compared with AVC High Profile; these results prompted MPEG to initiate its standardization effort in collaboration with VCEG.[14]

A formal joint Call for Proposals (CfP) on video compression technology was issued in January 2010 by VCEG and MPEG, and proposals were evaluated at the first meeting of the MPEG & VCEG Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC), which took place in April 2010.[1][9] A total of 27 full proposals were submitted.[9][15] Evaluations showed that some proposals could reach the same visual quality as AVC at only half the bit rate in many of the test cases, at the cost of 2×–10× increase in computational complexity, and some proposals achieved good subjective quality and bit rate results with lower computational complexity than the reference AVC High profile encodings. At that meeting, the name High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) was adopted for the joint project.[1][9] Starting at that meeting, the JCT-VC integrated features of some of the best proposals into a single software codebase and a "Test Model under Consideration", and performed further experiments to evaluate various proposed features.[1][16] The first working draft specification of HEVC was produced at the third JCT-VC meeting in October 2010.[1] Many changes in the coding tools and configuration of HEVC were made in later JCT-VC meetings.[1]

On January 25, 2013, the ITU announced that HEVC had received first stage approval (consent) in the ITU-T Alternative Approval Process (AAP).[17][18][19] On the same day, MPEG announced that HEVC had been promoted to Final Draft International Standard (FDIS) status in the MPEG standardization process.[20][21]

On April 13, 2013, HEVC/H.265 was approved as an ITU-T standard.[22][23][24] The standard was formally published by the ITU-T on June 7, 2013 and by the ISO/IEC on November 25, 2013.[2][4]

On July 11, 2014, MPEG announced that the 2nd edition of HEVC will contain three recently completed extensions which are the multiview extensions (MV-HEVC), the range extensions (RExt), and the scalability extensions (SHVC).[25]

On September 29, 2014, MPEG LA announced their HEVC license which covers the essential patents from 23 companies.[26] The license is US$0.20 per HEVC product after the first 100,000 units each year with an annual cap.[27] The license has been expanded to include the profiles in version 2 of the HEVC standard.[28]

On October 29, 2014, HEVC/H.265 version 2 was approved as an ITU-T standard.[29][30][31] It was then formally published on January 12, 2015.[2]

On March 26, 2015, HEVC Advance announced their HEVC license which covers 500 essential patents and whose licensing terms and royalty rate will be announced in the second quarter.[32]

On April 29, 2015, HEVC/H.265 version 3 was approved as an ITU-T standard.[33][34][35]

On July 22, 2015, HEVC Advance announced the royalty rate for the HEVC Advance license which depends on the country of sale, type of device, HEVC profile, HEVC extensions, and HEVC optional features.[36][37] The HEVC Advance license has a maximum royalty rate of US$2.60 per device for Region 1 countries and a content royalty rate of 0.5% of the revenue generated from HEVC video services.[37] Region 1 countries in the HEVC Advance license include the United States, Canada, European Union, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and others.[38] Region 2 countries are countries not listed in the Region 1 country list.[37] The HEVC Advance license has a maximum royalty rate of US$1.30 per device for Region 2 countries and a content royalty rate of 0.5% of the revenue generated from HEVC video services.[37] The HEVC Advance license is for a decoder, encoder, or combination decoder/encoder.[37]

Versions

Versions of the HEVC/H.265 standard using the ITU-T approval dates.[2]

  • Version 1: (April 13, 2013) First approved version of the HEVC/H.265 standard containing Main, Main 10, and Main Still Picture profiles.[22][23][24]
  • Version 2: (October 29, 2014) Second approved version of the HEVC/H.265 standard which adds 21 range extensions profiles, two scalable extensions profiles, and one multi-view extensions profile.[29][30][31]
  • Version 3: (April 29, 2015) Third approved version of the HEVC/H.265 standard which adds the 3D Main profile.[33][34][35]

Implementations and products

2012

On February 29, 2012, at the 2012 Mobile World Congress, Qualcomm demonstrated a HEVC decoder running on an Android tablet, with a Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 dual-core processor running at 1.5 GHz, showing H.264/MPEG-4 AVC and HEVC versions of the same video content playing side by side.[39] In this demonstration, HEVC reportedly showed almost a 50% bit rate reduction compared to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC.[39]

2013

On April 3, 2013, ATEME announced the availability of the first open source implementation of a HEVC software player based on the OpenHEVC decoder and GPAC video player which are both licensed under LGPL.[40][41] The OpenHEVC decoder supports the Main profile of HEVC and can decode 1080p at 30 fps video using a single core CPU.[40][41] A live transcoder that supports HEVC and used in combination with the GPAC video player was shown at the ATEME booth at the NAB Show in April 2013.[40][41]

On July 23, 2013, MulticoreWare announced, and made the source code available for the x265 HEVC Encoder Library under the GPL v2 license.[42][43]

On August 8, 2013, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone announced the release of their HEVC-1000 SDK software encoder which supports the Main 10 profile, resolutions up to 7680x4320, and frame rates up to 120 fps.[44]

On November 14, 2013, DivX developers released information on HEVC decoding performance using an Intel i7 CPU at 3.5 GHz which had 4 cores and 8 threads.[45] The DivX 10.1 Beta decoder was capable of 210.9 fps at 720p, 101.5 fps at 1080p, and 29.6 fps at 4K.[45]

On December 18, 2013, ViXS Systems announced shipments of their XCode 6400 SoC which is the first SoC to support the Main 10 profile of HEVC.[46]

2014

On April 5, 2014, at the NAB show, eBrisk Video, Inc. and Altera Corporation demonstrated an FPGA-accelerated HEVC Main10 encoder that encoded 4Kp60/10-bit video in real-time, using a dual-Xeon E5-2697-v2 platform.[47][48]

On August 13, 2014, Ittiam Systems announces availability of its third generation H.265/HEVC codec with 4:2:2 12-bit support.[49]

On September 5, 2014, the Blu-ray Disc Association announced that the 4K Blu-ray Disc specification will support 4K video at 60 fps, High Efficiency Video Coding, the Rec. 2020 color space, high dynamic range, and 10-bit color depth.[50][51] 4K Blu-ray Disc will have a data rate of at least 50 Mbit/s and may include support for 66/100 GB discs.[50][51] 4K Blu-ray Disc will be licensed in the spring or summer of 2015 and 4K Blu-ray Disc players have an expected release date of late 2015.[50][51]

On September 9, 2014, Apple announced the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus which supports HEVC/H.265 for FaceTime over cellular.[52]

On September 18, 2014, Nvidia released the GeForce GTX 980(GM204) & GTX 970(GM204), which includes Nvidia NVENC, the world's first HEVC hardware encoder in a discrete graphics card.[53]

On October 31, 2014, Microsoft confirmed that Windows 10 will support HEVC out of the box, according to a statement from Gabriel Aul, the leader of Microsoft Operating Systems Group's Data and Fundamentals Team.[54][55] Windows 10 Technical Preview Build 9860 added platform level support for HEVC and Matroska.[56][57]

On November 3, 2014, Android Lollipop was released with out of the box support for HEVC using Ittiam Systems' software [58]

2015

On January 5, 2015, ViXS Systems announced the XCode 6800 which is the first SoC to support the Main 12 profile of HEVC.[59]

On January 5, 2015, Nvidia officially announced the Tegra X1 SoC with full fixed-function HEVC hardware decoding. [60][61]

On January 22, 2015, Nvidia released the GeForce GTX 960(GM206), which includes the world's first full fixed function HEVC hardware decoder in a discrete graphics card.[62]

On February 23, 2015, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) announced that their UVD ASIC to be found in the Carrizo APUs would be the first x86 based CPUs to have a HEVC hardware decoder.[63]

On February 27, 2015, VLC media player version 2.2.0 was released with robust support of HEVC playback. The corresponding versions on Android and iOS are also able to play HEVC.

The design of most video coding standards is primarily aimed at having the highest coding efficiency.[64] Coding efficiency is the ability to encode video at the lowest possible bit rate while maintaining a certain level of video quality.[64] There are two standard ways to measure the coding efficiency of a video coding standard, which are to use an objective metric, such as peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), or to use subjective assessment of video quality.[64] Subjective assessment of video quality is considered to be the most important way to measure a video coding standard since humans perceive video quality subjectively.[64]

HEVC benefits from the use of larger coding tree unit (CTU) sizes.[64] This has been shown in PSNR tests with a HM-8.0 HEVC encoder where it was forced to use progressively smaller CTU sizes.[64] For all test sequences, when compared to a 64×64 CTU size, it was shown that the HEVC bit rate increased by 2.2% when forced to use a 32×32 CTU size, and increased by 11.0% when forced to use a 16×16 CTU size.[64] In the Class A test sequences, where the resolution of the video was 2560×1600, when compared to a 64×64 CTU size, it was shown that the HEVC bit rate increased by 5.7% when forced to use a 32×32 CTU size, and increased by 28.2% when forced to use a 16×16 CTU size.[64] The tests showed that large CTU sizes increase coding efficiency while also reducing decoding time.[64]

The HEVC Main Profile (MP) has been compared in coding efficiency to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC High Profile (HP), MPEG-4 Advanced Simple Profile (ASP), H.263 High Latency Profile (HLP), and H.262/MPEG-2 Main Profile (MP).[64] The video encoding was done for entertainment applications and twelve different bitrates were made for the nine video test sequences with a HM-8.0 HEVC encoder being used.[64] Of the nine video test sequences, five were at HD resolution, while four were at WVGA (800×480) resolution.[64] The bit rate reductions for HEVC were determined based on PSNR with HEVC having a bit rate reduction of 35.4% compared to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC HP, 63.7% compared to MPEG-4 ASP, 65.1% compared to H.263 HLP, and 70.8% compared to H.262/MPEG-2 MP.[64]

HEVC MP has also been compared to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC HP for subjective video quality.[64] The video encoding was done for entertainment applications and four different bitrates were made for nine video test sequences with a HM-5.0 HEVC encoder being used.[64] The subjective assessment was done at an earlier date than the PSNR comparison and so it used an earlier version of the HEVC encoder that had slightly lower performance.[64] The bit rate reductions were determined based on subjective assessment using mean opinion score values.[64] The overall subjective bitrate reduction for HEVC MP compared to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC HP was 49.3%.[64]

École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) did a study to evaluate the subjective video quality of HEVC at resolutions higher than HDTV.[65][66][67][68] The study was done with three videos with resolutions of 3840x1744 at 24 fps, 3840x2048 at 30 fps, and 3840x2160 at 30 fps.[65][66][68] The five second video sequences showed people on a street, traffic, and a scene from the open source computer animated movie Sintel.[65][66][68] The video sequences were encoded at five different bitrates using the HM-6.1.1 HEVC encoder and the JM-18.3 H.264/MPEG-4 AVC encoder.[65][66] The subjective bit rate reductions were determined based on subjective assessment using mean opinion score values.[65][66] The study compared HEVC MP with H.264/MPEG-4 AVC HP and showed that, for HEVC MP, the average bitrate reduction based on PSNR was 44.4%, while the average bitrate reduction based on subjective video quality was 66.5%.[65][66]

In a HEVC performance comparison released in April 2013, the HEVC MP and Main 10 Profile (M10P) were compared to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC HP and High 10 Profile (H10P) using 3840x2160 video sequences.[69] The video sequences were encoded using the HM-10.0 HEVC encoder and the JM-18.4 H.264/MPEG-4 AVC encoder.[69] The average bit rate reduction based on PSNR was 45% for inter frame video.[69]

In a video encoder comparison released in December 2013, the HM-10.0 HEVC encoder was compared to the x264 encoder and the VP9 encoder.[70] The x264 encoder was version r2334 and the VP9 encoder was version v1.2.0-3088-ga81bd12.[70] The comparison used the Bjøntegaard-Delta bit-rate (BD-BR) measurement method, in which negative values tell how much lower the bit rate is reduced, and positive values tell how much the bit rate is increased for the same PSNR.[70] In the comparison, the HM-10.0 HEVC encoder had the highest coding efficiency and, on average, to get the same objective quality, the x264 encoder needed to increase the bit rate by 66.4%, while the VP9 encoder needed to increase the bit rate by 79.4%.[70]

In a subjective video performance comparison released in May 2014, the JCT-VC compared the HEVC Main profile to the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC High profile.[71] The comparison used mean opinion score values and was conducted by the BBC and the University of the West of Scotland.[71] The video sequences were encoded using the HM-12.1 HEVC encoder and the JM-18.5 H.264/MPEG-4 AVC encoder.[71] The comparison used a range of resolutions and the average bit rate reduction for HEVC was 59%.[71] The average bit rate reduction for HEVC was 52% for 480p, 56% for 720p, 62% for 1080p, and 64% for 4K UHD.[71]

Subjective video performance comparison[71]
Video coding standard Average bit rate reduction compared to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC HP
480p 720p 1080p 4K UHD
HEVC 52% 56% 62% 64%

In a subjective video codec comparison released in August 2014 by the EPFL, the HM-15.0 HEVC encoder was compared to the VP9 1.2.0-5183 encoder and the JM-18.8 H.264/MPEG-4 AVC encoder.[72][73][74] Four 4K resolutions sequences were encoded at five different bit rates with the encoders set to use an intra period of one second.[73][74] In the comparison, the HM-15.0 HEVC encoder had the highest coding efficiency and, on average, for the same subjective quality the bit rate could be reduced by 49.4% compared to the VP9 1.2.0-5183 encoder, and it could be reduced by 52.6% compared to the JM-18.8 H.264/MPEG-4 AVC encoder.[73][74]

Features

HEVC was designed to substantially improve coding efficiency compared to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC HP, i.e. to reduce bitrate requirements by half with comparable image quality, at the expense of increased computational complexity.[1] HEVC was designed with the goal of allowing video content to have a data compression ratio of up to 1000:1.[75] Depending on the application requirements, HEVC encoders can trade off computational complexity, compression rate, robustness to errors, and encoding delay time.[1] Two of the key features where HEVC was improved compared to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC was support for higher resolution video and improved parallel processing methods.[1]

HEVC is targeted at next-generation HDTV displays and content capture systems which feature progressive scanned frame rates and display resolutions from QVGA (320x240) to 4320p (8192x4320), as well as improved picture quality in terms of noise level, color spaces, and dynamic range.[12][76][77][78]

Video coding layer

The HEVC video coding layer uses the same "hybrid" approach used in all modern video standards, starting from H.261, in that it uses inter-/intra-picture prediction and 2D transform coding.[1] A HEVC encoder first proceeds by splitting a picture into block shaped regions for the first picture, or the first picture of a random access point, which uses intra-picture prediction.[1] Intra-picture prediction is when the prediction of the blocks in the picture is based only on the information in that picture.[1] For all other pictures, inter-picture prediction is used, in which prediction information is used from other pictures.[1] After the prediction methods are finished and the picture goes through the loop filters, the final picture representation is stored in the decoded picture buffer.[1] Pictures stored in the decoded picture buffer can be used for the prediction of other pictures.[1]

HEVC was designed with the idea that progressive scan video would be used and no coding tools were added specifically for interlaced video.[1] Interlace specific coding tools, such as MBAFF and PAFF, are not supported in HEVC.[79] HEVC instead sends metadata that tells how the interlaced video was sent.[1] Interlaced video may be sent either by coding each frame as a separate picture or by coding each field as a separate picture.[1] For interlaced video HEVC can change between frame coding and field coding using Sequence Adaptive Frame Field (SAFF), which allows the coding mode to be changed for each video sequence.[80] This allows interlaced video to be sent with HEVC without needing special interlaced decoding processes to be added to HEVC decoders.[1]

Color spaces

The HEVC standard supports color spaces such as generic film, NTSC, PAL, Rec. 601, Rec. 709, Rec. 2020, SMPTE 170M, SMPTE 240M, sRGB, sYCC, xvYCC, XYZ, and externally specified color spaces.[2] HEVC supports color encoding representations such as RGB, YCbCr, and YCoCg.[2]

Coding tools

Coding tree unit

HEVC replaces 16×16 pixel macroblocks, which were used with previous standards, with coding tree units (CTUs) which can use larger block structures of up to 64x64 samples and can better sub-partition the picture into variable sized structures.[1][81] HEVC initially divides the picture into CTUs which can be 64×64, 32×32, or 16×16 with a larger pixel block size usually increasing the coding efficiency.[1]

Parallel processing tools

  • Tiles allow for the picture to be divided into a grid of rectangular regions that can independently be decoded/encoded. The main purpose of tiles is to allow for parallel processing.[1] Tiles can be independently decoded and can even allow for random access to specific regions of a picture in a video stream.[1]
  • Wavefront parallel processing (WPP) is when a slice is divided into rows of CTUs in which the first row is decoded normally but each additional row requires that decisions be made in the previous row.[1] WPP has the entropy encoder use information from the preceding row of CTUs and allows for a method of parallel processing that may allow for better compression than tiles.[1]
  • Tiles and WPP are allowed, but are optional.[1][2] If tiles are present, they must be at least 64 pixels high and 256 pixels wide with a level specific limit on the number of tiles allowed.[1][2]
  • Slices can, for the most part, be decoded independently from each other with the main purpose of tiles being the re-synchronization in case of data loss in the video stream.[1] Slices can be defined as self-contained in that prediction is not made across slice boundaries.[1] When in-loop filtering is done on a picture though, information across slice boundaries may be required.[1] Slices are CTUs decoded in the order of the raster scan, and different coding types can be used for slices such as I types, P types, or B types.[1]
  • Dependent slices can allow for data related to tiles or WPP to be accessed more quickly by the system than if the entire slice had to be decoded.[1] The main purpose of dependent slices is to allow for low-delay video encoding due to its lower latency.[1]

Other coding tools

Entropy coding

HEVC uses a context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding (CABAC) algorithm that is fundamentally similar to CABAC in H.264/MPEG-4 AVC.[1] CABAC is the only entropy encoder method that is allowed in HEVC while there are two entropy encoder methods allowed by H.264/MPEG-4 AVC.[1] CABAC and the entropy coding of transform coefficients in HEVC were designed for a higher throughput than H.264/MPEG-4 AVC,[82] while maintaining higher compression efficiency for larger transform block sizes relative to simple extensions.[83] For instance, the number of context coded bins have been reduced by 8× and the CABAC bypass-mode has been improved in terms of its design to increase throughput.[1][82][84] Another improvement with HEVC is that the dependencies between the coded data has been changed to further increase throughput.[1][82] Context modeling in HEVC has also been improved so that CABAC can better select a context that increases efficiency when compared to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC.[1]

Intra prediction

HEVC specifies 33 directional modes for intra prediction compared to the 8 directional modes for intra prediction specified by H.264/MPEG-4 AVC.[1] HEVC also specifies DC intra prediction and planar prediction modes.[1] The DC intra prediction mode generates a mean value by averaging reference samples and can be used for flat surfaces.[1] The planar prediction mode in HEVC supports all block sizes defined in HEVC while the planar prediction mode in H.264/MPEG-4 AVC is limited to a block size of 16x16 pixels.[1] The intra prediction modes use data from neighboring prediction blocks that have been previously decoded from within the same picture.[1]

Motion compensation

For the interpolation of fractional luma sample positions HEVC uses separable application of one-dimensional half-sample interpolation with an 8-tap filter or quarter-sample interpolation with a 7-tap filter while, in comparison, H.264/MPEG-4 AVC uses a two-stage process that first derives values at half-sample positions using separable one-dimensional 6-tap interpolation followed by integer rounding and then applies linear interpolation between values at nearby half-sample positions to generate values at quarter-sample positions.[1] HEVC has improved precision due to the longer interpolation filter and the elimination of the intermediate rounding error.[1] For 4:2:0 video, the chroma samples are interpolated with separable one-dimensional 4-tap filtering to generate eighth-sample precision, while in comparison H.264/MPEG-4 AVC uses only a 2-tap bilinear filter (also with eighth-sample precision).[1]

As in H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, weighted prediction in HEVC can be used either with uni-prediction (in which a single prediction value is used) or bi-prediction (in which the prediction values from two prediction blocks are combined).[1]

Motion vector prediction

HEVC defines a signed 16-bit range for both horizontal and vertical motion vectors (MVs).[2][85][86][87] This was added to HEVC at the July 2012 HEVC meeting with the mvLX variables.[2][85][86][87] HEVC horizontal/vertical MVs have a range of −32768 to 32767 which given the quarter pixel precision used by HEVC allows for a MV range of −8192 to 8191.75 luma samples.[2][85][86][87] This compares to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC which allows for a horizontal MV range of −2048 to 2047.75 luma samples and a vertical MV range of −512 to 511.75 luma samples.[86]

HEVC allows for two MV modes which are Advanced Motion Vector Prediction (AMVP) and merge mode.[1] AMVP uses data from the reference picture and can also use data from adjacent prediction blocks.[1] The merge mode allows for the MVs to be inherited from neighboring prediction blocks.[1] Merge mode in HEVC is similar to "skipped" and "direct" motion inference modes in H.264/MPEG-4 AVC but with two improvements.[1] The first improvement is that HEVC uses index information to select one of several available candidates.[1] The second improvement is that HEVC uses information from the reference picture list and reference picture index.[1]

Inverse transforms

HEVC specifies four transform units (TUs) sizes of 4x4, 8x8, 16x16, and 32x32 to code the prediction residual.[1] A CTB may be recursively partitioned into 4 or more TUs.[1] TUs use integer basis functions that are similar to the discrete cosine transform (DCT).[1] In addition 4x4 luma transform blocks that belong to an intra coded region are transformed using an integer transform that is derived from discrete sine transform (DST).[1] This provides a 1% bit rate reduction but was restricted to 4x4 luma transform blocks due to marginal benefits for the other transform cases.[1] Chroma uses the same TU sizes as luma so there is no 2x2 transform for chroma.[1]

Loop filters

HEVC specifies two loop filters that are applied sequentially, with the deblocking filter (DBF) applied first and the sample adaptive offset (SAO) filter applied afterwards.[1] Both loop filters are applied in the inter-picture prediction loop, i.e. the filtered image is stored in the decoded picture buffer (DPB) as a reference for inter-picture prediction.[1]

Deblocking filter

The DBF is similar to the one used by H.264/MPEG-4 AVC but with a simpler design and better support for parallel processing.[1] In HEVC the DBF only applies to a 8x8 sample grid while with H.264/MPEG-4 AVC the DBF applies to a 4x4 sample grid.[1] DBF uses a 8x8 sample grid since it causes no noticeable degradation and significantly improves parallel processing because the DBF no longer causes cascading interactions with other operations.[1] Another change is that HEVC only allows for three DBF strengths of 0 to 2.[1] HEVC also requires that the DBF first apply horizontal filtering for vertical edges to the picture and only after that does it apply vertical filtering for horizontal edges to the picture.[1] This allows for multiple parallel threads to be used for the DBF.[1]

Sample adaptive offset

The SAO filter is applied after the DBF and is designed to allow for better reconstruction of the original signal amplitudes by applying offsets stored in a lookup table in the bitstream.[1][88] Per CTB the SAO filter can be disabled or applied in one of two modes: edge offset mode or band offset mode.[1][88] The edge offset mode operates by comparing the value of a sample to two of its eight neighbors using one of four directional gradient patterns.[1][88] Based on a comparison with these two neighbors, the sample is classified into one of five categories: minimum, maximum, an edge with the sample having the lower value, an edge with the sample having the higher value, or monotonic.[1][88] For each of the first four categories an offset is applied.[1][88] The band offset mode applies an offset based on the amplitude of a single sample.[1][88] A sample is categorized by its amplitude into one of 32 bands (histogram bins).[1][88] Offsets are specified for four consecutive of the 32 bands, because in flat areas which are prone to banding artifacts, sample amplitudes tend to be clustered in a small range.[1][88] The SAO filter was designed to increase picture quality, reduce banding artifacts, and reduce ringing artifacts.[1][88]

Range extensions

Additional coding tool options have been added in the range extensions.[2] This includes new definitions of profiles and levels:

  • Profiles supporting bit depths beyond 10 bits per sample.[2] Profiles that support a range of bit depths can use different bit depths for luma and chroma with YCbCr color spaces.[2]
  • Profiles that support 4:0:0 (monochrome), 4:2:2 (half-horizontal chroma resolution), and 4:4:4 (full chroma resolution) chroma sampling.[2]
  • Additional profiles supporting only all-intra coding and only still-picture coding for applications that do not need inter-picture (temporal) prediction.[2]
  • The Still Picture profiles can use an unbounded level, level 8.5, for which no limit is imposed on the picture size.[2] Decoders for level 8.5 are not required to decode all level 8.5 bitstreams, since some may exceed their picture size capability.[2]

Within these new profiles are enhanced coding features that include:

  • Extended precision processing, using an extended dynamic range for inter prediction interpolation and inverse transform.[2]
  • High precision weighted prediction uses an increased precision for weighted prediction that increases the coding efficiency for fading video scenes at high bit depths.[89]
  • Cross-component prediction, using prediction between the chroma/luma components to improve coding efficiency.[2] The reduction in bit rate can be up to 7% for YCbCr 4:4:4 video and up to 26% for RGB video.[89][90] RGB video has a larger reduction in bit rate due to the greater correlation between the components.[2]
  • Intra smoothing disabling, allowing the neighbor region filtering process ordinarily applied in intra prediction to be disabled.[2]
  • Modifications of transform skip mode processing:
    • Residual DPCM (RDPCM), allowing a vertical or horizontal spatial-predictive coding of residual data in transform skip and transform-quantization bypass blocks (which can be selected for use in intra blocks, inter blocks, or both).[2]
    • Transform skip block size flexibility, supporting block sizes up to 32x32 (versus only 4x4 support in version 1).[2]
    • Transform skip rotation, allowing the encoder to indicate a rotation of residual data for 4x4 transform skip blocks.[2]
    • Transform skip context enabling, using a separate context for entropy coding the indication of which blocks are coded using transform skipping.[2]
  • Persistent Rice adaptation, using a Rice coding parameter derivation for entropy coding that has memory that persists across transform coefficient sub-block boundaries.[2]
  • CABAC bypass alignment, allowing for the alignment of the data to a byte boundary before bypass decoding is supported in the High Throughput 4:4:4 16 Intra profile.[2]

The second version of HEVC adds several supplemental enhancement information (SEI) messages which include:

  • Color remapping information SEI message, provides information on remapping from one color space to a different color space.[2] An example would be to preserve the artistic intent when converting wide color gamut (WCG) video from the Rec. 2020 color space for output on a Rec. 709 display.[91] The color remapping information SEI message was proposed for future UHDTV applications.[91] Multiple color remapping processes can be supported for different display scenarios.[2]
  • Knee function information SEI message, provides information on how to convert from one dynamic range to a different dynamic range.[2] An example would be to compress the upper range of high dynamic range (HDR) video that has a luminance level of 800 cd/m2 for output on a 100 cd/m2 display.[92] Multiple knee function processes can be supported for different display scenarios.[2]
  • Mastering display color volume SEI message, provides information on the color primaries and dynamic range of the display that was used to author the video.[2]
  • Time code SEI message, provides information on the time of origin when the video was recorded.[2]

Profiles

Version 1 of the HEVC standard defines three profiles: Main, Main 10, and Main Still Picture.[2] Version 2 of HEVC adds 21 range extensions profiles, two scalable extensions profiles, and one multi-view profile.[2] HEVC also contains provisions for additional profiles.[2] Extensions that were added to HEVC include increased bit depth, 4:2:2/4:4:4 chroma sampling, Multiview Video Coding (MVC), and Scalable Video Coding (SVC).[1][93] The HEVC range extensions, HEVC scalable extensions, and HEVC multi-view extensions were completed in July 2014.[94][95][96][96] In July 2014 a draft of the second version of HEVC was released.[94] Screen content coding (SCC) extensions are under development for screen content video, which contains text and graphics, with an expected final draft release date of 2015.[97][98]

A profile is a defined set of coding tools that can be used to create a bitstream that conforms to that profile.[1] An encoder for a profile may choose which coding tools to use as long as it generates a conforming bitstream while a decoder for a profile must support all coding tools that can be used in that profile.[1]

Feature support in some of the video profiles[2]
Feature Version 1 Version 2
Main Main 10 Main 12 Main 4:2:2 10 Main 4:2:2 12 Main 4:4:4 Main 4:4:4 10 Main 4:4:4 12 Main 4:4:4 16 Intra
Bit depth 8 8 to 10 8 to 12 8 to 10 8 to 12 8 8 to 10 8 to 12 8 to 16
Chroma sampling formats 4:2:0 4:2:0 4:2:0 4:2:0/4:2:2 4:2:0/4:2:2 4:2:0/4:2:2/4:4:4 4:2:0/4:2:2/4:4:4 4:2:0/4:2:2/4:4:4 4:2:0/4:2:2/4:4:4
4:0:0 (Monochrome) No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
High precision weighted prediction No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Chroma QP offset list No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cross-component prediction No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Intra smoothing disabling No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Persistent Rice adaptation No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
RDPCM implicit/explicit No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Transform skip block sizes larger than 4x4 No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Transform skip context/rotation No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Extended precision processing No No No No No No No No Yes

Version 1 profiles

Main

The Main profile allows for a bit depth of 8-bits per sample with 4:2:0 chroma sampling, which is the most common type of video used with consumer devices.[1][2][95]

Main 10

The Main 10 profile allows for a bit depth of 8-bits to 10-bits per sample with 4:2:0 chroma sampling.[1][2] HEVC decoders that conform to the Main 10 profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: Main and Main 10.[2] A higher bit depth allows for a greater number of colors.[99][100] 8-bits per sample allows for 256 shades per primary color (a total of 16.78 million colors) while 10-bits per sample allows for 1024 shades per primary color (a total of 1.07 billion colors).[99][100] A higher bit depth allows for a smoother transition of color which resolves the problem known as color banding.[99][100] The Main 10 profile allows for improved video quality since it can support video with a higher bit depth than what is supported by the Main profile.[101] Additionally, in the Main 10 profile 8-bit video can be coded with a higher bit depth of 10-bits, which allows improved coding efficiency compared to the Main profile.[69][102][103][104]

Ericsson has stated that the Main 10 profile will bring the benefits of 10-bits per sample video to consumer TV.[99] They also state that for higher resolutions there is no bit rate penalty for encoding video at 10-bits per sample.[99] Imagination Technologies states that 10-bits per sample video will allow for larger color spaces and is required for the Rec. 2020 color space that will be used by UHDTV.[100][105] They also state that the Rec. 2020 color space will drive the widespread adoption of 10-bits per sample video.[100][105]

In a PSNR based performance comparison released in April 2013 the Main 10 profile was compared to the Main profile using a set of 3840x2160 10-bit video sequences.[69] The 10-bit video sequences were converted to 8-bits for the Main profile and remained at 10-bits for the Main 10 profile.[69] The reference PSNR was based on the original 10-bit video sequences.[69] In the performance comparison the Main 10 profile provided a 5% bit rate reduction for inter frame video coding compared to the Main profile.[69] The performance comparison states that for the tested video sequences the Main 10 profile outperformed the Main profile.[69] The Main 10 profile was added at the October 2012 HEVC meeting based on proposal JCTVC-K0109 which proposed that a 10-bit profile be added to HEVC for consumer applications.[101] The proposal stated that this was to allow for improved video quality and to support the Rec. 2020 color space that has become widely used in UHDTV systems and to be able to deliver higher dynamic range and color fidelity avoiding the banding artefacts.[101] A variety of companies supported the proposal which included ATEME, BBC, BSkyB, CISCO, DirecTV, Ericsson, Motorola Mobility, NGCodec, NHK, RAI, ST, SVT, Thomson Video Networks, Technicolor, and ViXS Systems.[101]

Main Still Picture

The Main Still Picture profile allows for a single still picture to be encoded with the same constraints as the Main profile.[2] As a subset of the Main profile the Main Still Picture profile allows for a bit depth of 8-bits per sample with 4:2:0 chroma sampling.[1][2][95] An objective performance comparison was done in April 2012 in which HEVC reduced the average bit rate for images by 56% compared to JPEG.[106] A PSNR based performance comparison for still image compression was done in May 2012 using the HEVC HM 6.0 encoder and the reference software encoders for the other standards.[107] For still images HEVC reduced the average bit rate by 15.8% compared to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, 22.6% compared to JPEG 2000, 30.0% compared to JPEG XR, 31.0% compared to WebP, and 43.0% compared to JPEG.[107]

A performance comparison for still image compression was done in January 2013 using the HEVC HM 8.0rc2 encoder, Kakadu version 6.0 for JPEG 2000, and IJG version 6b for JPEG.[108] The performance comparison used PSNR for the objective assessment and mean opinion score (MOS) values for the subjective assessment.[108] The subjective assessment used the same test methodology and images as those used by the JPEG committee when it evaluated JPEG XR.[108] For 4:2:0 chroma sampled images the average bit rate reduction for HEVC compared to JPEG 2000 was 20.26% for PSNR and 30.96% for MOS while compared to JPEG it was 61.63% for PSNR and 43.10% for MOS.[108]

Comparison of standards for still image compression based on equal PSNR and MOS[108]
Still image coding
standard (test method) 		Average bit rate reduction compared to
JPEG 2000 JPEG
HEVC (PSNR) 20.26% 61.63%
HEVC (MOS) 30.96% 43.10%

A PSNR based HEVC performance comparison for still image compression was done in April 2013 by Nokia.[109] HEVC has a larger performance improvement for higher resolution images than lower resolution images and a larger performance improvement for lower bit rates than higher bit rates.[109] For lossy compression to get the same PSNR as HEVC took on average 1.4× more bits with JPEG 2000, 1.6× more bits with JPEG-XR, and 2.3× more bits with JPEG.[109]

A compression efficiency study of HEVC, JPEG, JPEG XR, and WebP was done in October 2013 by Mozilla.[110][111] The study showed that HEVC was significantly better at compression than the other image formats that were tested.[110][111] Four different methods for comparing image quality were used in the study which were Y-SSIM, RGB-SSIM, IW-SSIM, and PSNR-HVS-M.[110][111]

Version 2 profiles

Version 2 of HEVC adds 21 range extensions profiles, two scalable extensions profiles, and one multi-view profile: Monochrome, Monochrome 12, Monochrome 16, Main 12, Main 4:2:2 10, Main 4:2:2 12, Main 4:4:4, Main 4:4:4 10, Main 4:4:4 12, Monochrome 12 Intra, Monochrome 16 Intra, Main 12 Intra, Main 4:2:2 10 Intra, Main 4:2:2 12 Intra, Main 4:4:4 Intra, Main 4:4:4 10 Intra, Main 4:4:4 12 Intra, Main 4:4:4 16 Intra, Main 4:4:4 Still Picture, Main 4:4:4 16 Still Picture, High Throughput 4:4:4 16 Intra, Scalable Main, Scalable Main 10, and Multiview Main.[2][112] All of the inter frame range extensions profiles have an Intra profile.[2]

Monochrome

The Monochrome profile allows for a bit depth of 8-bits per sample with support for 4:0:0 chroma sampling.[2]

Monochrome 12

The Monochrome 12 profile allows for a bit depth of 8-bits to 12-bits per sample with support for 4:0:0 chroma sampling.[2]

Monochrome 16

The Monochrome 16 profile allows for a bit depth of 8-bits to 16-bits per sample with support for 4:0:0 chroma sampling.[2] HEVC decoders that conform to the Monochrome 16 profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: Monochrome, Monochrome 12, and Monochrome 16.[2]

Main 12

The Main 12 profile allows for a bit depth of 8-bits to 12-bits per sample with support for 4:0:0 and 4:2:0 chroma sampling.[2] HEVC decoders that conform to the Main 12 profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: Monochrome, Monochrome 12, Main, Main 10, and Main 12.[2]

Main 4:2:2 10

The Main 4:2:2 10 profile allows for a bit depth of 8-bits to 10-bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, and 4:2:2 chroma sampling.[2] HEVC decoders that conform to the Main 4:2:2 10 profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: Monochrome, Main, Main 10, and Main 4:2:2 10.[2]

Main 4:2:2 12

The Main 4:2:2 12 profile allows for a bit depth of 8-bits to 12-bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, and 4:2:2 chroma sampling.[2] HEVC decoders that conform to the Main 4:2:2 12 profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: Monochrome, Monochrome 12, Main, Main 10, Main 12, Main 4:2:2 10, and Main 4:2:2 12.[2]

Main 4:4:4

The Main 4:4:4 profile allows for a bit depth of 8-bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 chroma sampling.[2] HEVC decoders that conform to the Main 4:4:4 profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: Monochrome, Main, Main 4:2:2 10, and Main 4:4:4.[2]

Main 4:4:4 10

The Main 4:4:4 10 profile allows for a bit depth of 8-bits to 10-bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 chroma sampling.[2] HEVC decoders that conform to the Main 4:4:4 10 profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: Monochrome, Main, Main 10, Main 4:2:2 10, Main 4:4:4, and Main 4:4:4 10.[2]

Main 4:4:4 12

The Main 4:4:4 12 profile allows for a bit depth of 8-bits to 12-bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 chroma sampling.[2] HEVC decoders that conform to the Main 4:4:4 12 profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: Monochrome, Main, Main 10, Main 12, Main 4:2:2 10, Main 4:2:2 12, Main 4:4:4, Main 4:4:4 10, Main 4:4:4 12, and Monochrome 12.[2]

Main 4:4:4 16 Intra

The Main 4:4:4 16 Intra profile allows for a bit depth of 8-bits to 16-bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 chroma sampling.[2] HEVC decoders that conform to the Main 4:4:4 16 Intra profile must be capable of decoding bitstreams made with the following profiles: Monochrome Intra, Monochrome 12 Intra, Monochrome 16 Intra, Main Intra, Main 10 Intra, Main 12 Intra, Main 4:2:2 10 Intra, Main 4:2:2 12 Intra, Main 4:4:4 Intra, Main 4:4:4 10 Intra, and Main 4:4:4 12 Intra.[2]

High Throughput 4:4:4 16 Intra

The High Throughput 4:4:4 16 Intra profile allows for a bit depth of 8-bits to 16-bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 chroma sampling.[2] The High Throughput 4:4:4 16 Intra profile has an HbrFactor 12 times higher than other HEVC profiles allowing it to have a maximum bit rate 12 times higher than the Main 4:4:4 16 Intra profile.[2][113] The High Throughput 4:4:4 16 Intra profile is designed for high end professional content creation and decoders for this profile are not required to support other profiles.[113]

Main 4:4:4 Still Picture

The Main 4:4:4 Still Picture profile allows for a single still picture to be encoded with the same constraints as the Main 4:4:4 profile.[2] As a subset of the Main 4:4:4 profile the Main 4:4:4 Still Picture profile allows for a bit depth of 8-bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 chroma sampling.[2]

Main 4:4:4 16 Still Picture

The Main 4:4:4 16 Still Picture profile allows for a single still picture to be encoded with the same constraints as the Main 4:4:4 16 Intra profile.[2] As a subset of the Main 4:4:4 16 Intra profile the Main 4:4:4 16 Still Picture profile allows for a bit depth of 8-bits to 16-bits per sample with support for 4:0:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 chroma sampling.[2]

Scalable Main

The Scalable Main profile allows for a base layer that conforms to the Main profile of HEVC.[2]

Scalable Main 10

The Scalable Main 10 profile allows for a base layer that conforms to the Main 10 profile of HEVC.[2]

Multiview Main

The Multiview Main profile allows for a base layer that conforms to the Main profile of HEVC.[2]

Tiers and levels

The HEVC standard defines two tiers, Main and High, and thirteen levels.[1][2] A level is a set of constraints for a bitstream.[1][2] For levels below level 4 only the Main tier is allowed.[1][2] The Main tier is a lower tier than the High tier.[1][2] The tiers were made to deal with applications that differ in terms of their maximum bit rate.[1] The Main tier was designed for most applications while the High tier was designed for very demanding applications.[1] A decoder that conforms to a given tier/level is required to be capable of decoding all bitstreams that are encoded for that tier/level and for all lower tiers/levels.[1][2]

Tiers and levels with maximum property values[2]
Level Max luma sample rate
(samples/s) 		Max luma picture size
(samples) 		Max bit rate for Main
and Main 10 profiles (kbit/s)[A] 		Example picture resolution @
highest frame rate[B]
(MaxDpbSize[C])

Click here to hide/show
additional examples

Main tier High tier
1 552,960 36,864 128 –

128×96@33.7 (6)

176×144@15.0 (6)
2 3,686,400 122,880 1,500 –

176×144@100.0 (16)

352×288@30.0 (6)
2.1 7,372,800 245,760 3,000 –

352×288@60.0 (12)

640×360@30.0 (6)
3 16,588,800 552,960 6,000 –

640×360@67.5 (12)
720×576@37.5 (8)

960×540@30.0 (6)
3.1 33,177,600 983,040 10,000 –

720×576@75.0 (12)
960×540@60.0 (8)

1280×720@33.7 (6)
4 66,846,720 2,228,224 12,000 30,000

1,280×720@68.0 (12)
1,920×1,080@32.0 (6)

2,048×1,080@30.0 (6)
4.1 133,693,440 20,000 50,000

1,280×720@136.0 (12)
1,920×1,080@64.0 (6)

2,048×1,080@60.0 (6)
5 267,386,880 8,912,896 25,000 100,000

1,920×1,080@128.0 (16)
3,840×2,160@32.0 (6)

4,096×2,160@30.0 (6)
5.1 534,773,760 40,000 160,000

1,920×1,080@256.0 (16)
3,840×2,160@64.0 (6)

4,096×2,160@60.0 (6)
5.2 1,069,547,520 60,000 240,000

1,920×1,080@300.0 (16)
3,840×2,160@128.0 (6)

4,096×2,160@120.0 (6)
6 1,069,547,520 35,651,584 60,000 240,000

3,840×2,160@128.0 (16)
7,680×4,320@32.0 (6)

8,192×4,320@30.0 (6)
6.1 2,139,095,040 120,000 480,000

3,840×2,160@256.0 (16)
7,680×4,320@64.0 (6)

8,192×4,320@60.0 (6)
6.2 4,278,190,080 240,000 800,000

3,840×2,160@300.0 (16)
7,680×4,320@128.0 (6)

8,192×4,320@120.0 (6)
A The maximum bit rate of the profile is based on the combination of bit depth, chroma sampling, and the type of profile.[2] For bit depth the maximum bit rate increases by 1.5× for 12-bit profiles and 2× for 16-bit profiles.[2] For chroma sampling the maximum bit rate increases by 1.5× for 4:2:2 profiles and 2× for 4:4:4 profiles.[2] For the Intra profiles the maximum bit rate increases by 2×.[2]
B The maximum frame rate supported by HEVC is 300 fps.[2]
C The MaxDpbSize is the maximum number of pictures in the decoded picture buffer.[2]

Decoded picture buffer

Previously decoded pictures are stored in a decoded picture buffer (DPB), and are used by HEVC encoders to form predictions for subsequent pictures.[1][2] The maximum number of pictures that can be stored in the DPB, called the DPB capacity, is 6 (including the current picture) for all HEVC levels when operating at the maximum picture size supported by the level.[1][2] The DPB capacity (in units of pictures) increases from 6 to 8, 12, or 16 as the picture size decreases from the maximum picture size supported by the level.[1][2] The encoder selects which specific pictures are retained in the DPB on a picture-by-picture basis, so the encoder has the flexibility to determine for itself the best way to use the DPB capacity when encoding the video content.[1][2]

Containers

MPEG has published an amendment which added HEVC support to the MPEG transport stream used by ATSC, DVB, and Blu-ray Disc; MPEG decided not to update the MPEG program stream used by DVD-Video.[114][115] MPEG has also added HEVC support to the ISO base media file format.[116][117] HEVC is also supported by the MPEG media transport standard.[114][118] DivX has proposed a method to add HEVC support to Matroska and provides a patched release of the MKVToolNix v6.2.0 binaries on their website.[119][120] A draft document has been submitted to the Internet Engineering Task Force which describes a method to add HEVC support to the Real-time Transport Protocol.[121]

Using HEVC's intra frame encoding, a still-image coded format called Better Portable Graphics (BPG) has been proposed by the programmer Fabrice Bellard.[122] It is essentially a wrapper for images coded using the HEVC Main 4:4:4 16 Still Picture profile with up to 14 bits per sample, although it uses an abbreviated header syntax and adds explicit support for Exif, ICC profiles, and XMP metadata.[122][123]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq br bs bt bu bv bw bx by bz ca cb cc cd ce cf cg ch ci cj ck cl cm cn co cp cq cr cs G. J. Sullivan; J.-R. Ohm; W.-J. Han; T. Wiegand (December 2012). "Overview of the High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Standard" (PDF). IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology. 22 (12). IEEE. Retrieved September 14, 2012.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq br bs bt bu bv bw bx by bz ca cb cc cd ce cf cg ch ci cj ck cl "H.265 : High efficiency video coding". ITU. January 12, 2015. Retrieved February 21, 2015.
  3. ^ ITU TSB (May 21, 2010). "Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding". ITU-T. Retrieved August 24, 2012.
  4. ^ a b "ISO/IEC 23008-2:2013". International Organization for Standardization. November 25, 2013. Retrieved November 29, 2013.
  5. ^ G. J. Sullivan; J. M. Boyce; Y. Chen; J.-R. Ohm; C. A. Segall; A. Vetro (December 2013). "Standardized Extensions of High Efficiency Video Coding" (PDF). IEEE Journal on Selected Topics in Signal Processing. 7 (6). IEEE. Retrieved February 21, 2015.
  6. ^ Gerhard Tech; Krzysztof Wegner; Ying Chen; Sehoon Yea (February 18, 2015). "3D-HEVC Draft Text 7". JCT-3V. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
  7. ^ T. Wedi and T. K. Tan, AHG report – Coding Efficiency Improvements, VCEG document VCEG-AA06, 17–18 October 2005.
  8. ^ Meeting Report for 31st VCEG Meeting VCEG document VCEG-AE01r1, Marrakech, MA, 15–16 January 2007
  9. ^ a b c d e Jie Dong (June 19, 2010). "The First JCT-VC Meeting, Dresden, DE". H265.net. Retrieved November 25, 2012.
  10. ^ Jie Dong (July 1, 2008). "Current Status of H.265 (as at July 2008)". H265.net. Retrieved November 25, 2012.
  11. ^ a b c Yu Liu (April 15, 2009). "The Preliminary Requirements for NGVC". H265.net. Retrieved November 25, 2012.
  12. ^ a b "Draft requirements for "EPVC" enhanced performance video coding project". ITU-T VCEG. July 10, 2009. Retrieved August 24, 2012.
  13. ^ a b "An Interview With Dr. Thomas Wiegand". in-cites. July 1, 2007. Retrieved August 18, 2012.
  14. ^ a b Yu Liu (July 3, 2009). "Current Status of HVC (High-Performance Video Coding) in MPEG". H265.net. Retrieved November 25, 2012.
  15. ^ "Dresden Meeting – Document Register". ITU-T. Retrieved November 24, 2012.
  16. ^ "Documents of the first meeting of the Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) – Dresden, Germany, 15–23 April 2010". ITU-T. April 23, 2010. Retrieved August 24, 2012.
  17. ^ "New video codec to ease pressure on global networks". ITU. January 25, 2013. Retrieved January 25, 2013.
  18. ^ Todd Spangler (January 25, 2013). "ITU OKs Next-Generation Video Codec Standard". Multichannel News. Retrieved January 25, 2013.
  19. ^ "ITU-T Work Programme". ITU. Retrieved January 27, 2013.
  20. ^ "MPEG HEVC – The next major milestone in MPEG video history is achieved" (DOC). MPEG. January 25, 2013. Retrieved January 27, 2013.
  21. ^ "MPEG Basics". MPEG. Retrieved January 28, 2013.
  22. ^ a b "ITU-T Home : Study groups : ITU-T Recommendations : ITU-T H.265 (04/2013)". ITU. April 13, 2013. Retrieved April 16, 2013.
  23. ^ a b "AAP Recommendation: H.265". ITU. April 13, 2013. Retrieved April 16, 2013.
  24. ^ a b "AAP Announcement No. 09". ITU. April 15, 2013. Retrieved April 16, 2013.
  25. ^ "Reference model for mixed and augmented reality defines architecture and terminology for MAR applications" (DOCX). MPEG. July 11, 2014. Retrieved July 26, 2014.
  26. ^ "MPEG LA Offers HEVC Patent Portfolio License". Yahoo Finance. September 29, 2014. Retrieved September 29, 2014.
  27. ^ "HEVC Patent Portfolio License Briefing" (PDF). MPEG LA. September 29, 2014. Retrieved September 29, 2014.
  28. ^ "MPEG LA Expands HEVC License Coverage". Yahoo Finance. March 19, 2015. Retrieved March 20, 2015.
  29. ^ a b "ITU-T Home : Study groups : ITU-T Recommendations : ITU-T H.265 (V2) (10/2014)". ITU. October 29, 2014. Retrieved November 1, 2014.
  30. ^ a b "AAP Recommendation: H.265 (V2)". ITU. October 29, 2014. Retrieved November 1, 2014.
  31. ^ a b "AAP Announcement No. 45". ITU. October 31, 2014. Retrieved November 1, 2014.
  32. ^ "HEVC Advance Launches to Rally Critical Mass of Stakeholders to Deliver Next Generation Video Experiences". PR Newswire. March 26, 2015. Retrieved March 28, 2015.
  33. ^ a b "ITU-T Home : Study groups : ITU-T Recommendations : ITU-T H.265 (04/2015)". ITU. April 29, 2015. Retrieved June 26, 2015.
  34. ^ a b "AAP Recommendation: H.265 (V3)". ITU. April 29, 2015. Retrieved June 26, 2015.
  35. ^ a b "AAP Announcement No. 56". ITU. April 30, 2015. Retrieved June 26, 2015.
  36. ^ "HEVC Advance Announces Key Milestones to Support Next Era of Digital Video Creation and Distribution". PR Newswire. July 22, 2015. Retrieved July 22, 2015.
  37. ^ a b c d e "Royalty Rates Summary" (PDF). HEVC Advance. July 22, 2015. Retrieved July 22, 2015.
  38. ^ Cite error: The named reference AdvanceHEVCAdvanceRoyaltyPDFJuly2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  39. ^ a b "Qualcomm shows horsepower of next-gen H.265 video". CNET. February 29, 2012. Retrieved October 12, 2012.
  40. ^ a b c "ATEME Enables Industry First Open Source Implementation Supporting HEVC". PR Newswire. April 3, 2013. Retrieved April 4, 2013.
  41. ^ a b c "ATEME Enables Industry First Open Source Implementation Supporting HEVC". Reuters. April 3, 2013. Retrieved April 4, 2013.
  42. ^ Joel Hruska (July 23, 2013). "H.265 benchmarked: Does the next-generation video codec live up to expectations?". ExtremeTech. Retrieved July 23, 2013.
  43. ^ Chris Angelini (July 23, 2013). "Next-Gen Video Encoding: x265 Tackles HEVC/H.265". Tom's Hardware. Retrieved July 23, 2013.
  44. ^ "NTT Develops World's Highest-level Compression Software Encoding Engine Fully Compliant with Next-gen "HEVC/H.265" Video Coding Standard, Rolls Out "HEVC-1000 SDK" Codec Development Kit". Nippon Telegraph and Telephone. August 8, 2013. Retrieved August 17, 2013.
  45. ^ a b "DivX HEVC Encoder and Decoder Performance". DivX. November 14, 2013. Archived from the original on December 10, 2013. Retrieved November 14, 2013.
  46. ^ "ViXS Begins Shipments of Industry's First SoC to Support Ultra HD 4K and 10-bit HEVC". Yahoo Finance. December 18, 2013. Retrieved January 7, 2014.
  47. ^ "Harmonic Chooses Altera Solution for H.265 4Kp60 Video Encoding". NewsRoom Altera. April 7, 2014. Retrieved March 24, 2015.
  48. ^ "Real-time 4K60fps HEVC Encoder". Youtube. December 17, 2014. Retrieved March 24, 2015.
  49. ^ "Ittiam Systems announces availability of its third generation H.265/HEVC codec with 422 12-bit support". Ittiam Systems. August 8, 2014. Retrieved November 1, 2014.
  50. ^ a b c "4K Blu-ray discs arriving in 2015 to fight streaming media". CNET. September 5, 2014. Retrieved September 6, 2014.
  51. ^ a b c "BDA Updates Blu-ray 4K Timeline". Home Media Magazine. September 5, 2014. Retrieved September 6, 2014.
  52. ^ Mikey Campbell (September 12, 2014). "Apple's iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus use H.265 codec for FaceTime over cellular". AppleInsider. Retrieved September 13, 2014.
  53. ^ Ryan Smith (September 18, 2014). "The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Review". AnandTech. Retrieved May 3, 2015.
  54. ^ Gabriel Aul (October 31, 2014). "HEVC also supported in-box". Twitter. Retrieved November 3, 2014.
  55. ^ John Callaham (November 1, 2014). "Microsoft: Windows 10 will support the HEVC video compression standard". Windows Central. Retrieved November 3, 2014.
  56. ^ Bogdan Popa (November 3, 2014). "Microsoft Confirms MKV File Support in Windows 10". Softpedia. Retrieved November 15, 2014.
  57. ^ Gabe Aul (November 12, 2014). "New build available to the Windows Insider Program". Microsoft. Retrieved November 15, 2014.
  58. ^ http://www.ittiam.com/News/en/Press-releases/2014/162-Ittiam%E2%80%99s-H265-Software-Solution-Enables-HEVC-Support-in-Android%E2%80%99s-Lollipop-Release.aspx
  59. ^ "ViXS Announces World's First SoC With High Dynamic Range and 4K Ultra HD 12-Bit Color". Yahoo Finance. January 5, 2015. Retrieved January 10, 2015.
  60. ^ http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-x1-processor.html
  61. ^ http://www.anandtech.com/show/8811/nvidia-tegra-x1-preview
  62. ^ http://www.anandtech.com/show/8923/nvidia-launches-geforce-gtx-960
  63. ^ Rick Merritt (January 5, 2015). "AMD Describes Notebook Processor". EE Times. Retrieved January 10, 2015.
  64. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r J.-R. Ohm; G. J. Sullivan; H. Schwarz; T. K. Tan; T. Wiegand (December 2012). "Comparison of the Coding Efficiency of Video Coding Standards – Including High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)" (PDF). IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology. 22 (12). IEEE. Retrieved September 22, 2012.
  65. ^ a b c d e f Philippe Hanhart; Martin Rerabek; Francesca De Simone; Touradj Ebrahimi (August 13, 2012). "Subjective quality evaluation of the upcoming HEVC video compression standard" (PDF). École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL). Retrieved November 8, 2012.
  66. ^ a b c d e f Philippe Hanhart; Martin Rerabek; Francesca De Simone; Touradj Ebrahimi (August 15, 2012). "Subjective quality evaluation of the upcoming HEVC video compression standard". slideshare.com. Retrieved November 8, 2012.
  67. ^ "Subjective quality evaluation of the upcoming HEVC video compression standard". École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL). Retrieved November 8, 2012.
  68. ^ a b c Nic Healey (August 29, 2012). "HEVC video compression could be the next step for 4K". cnet. Retrieved November 8, 2012.
  69. ^ a b c d e f g h i Pierre Andrivon; Marco Arena; Philippe Salmon; Philippe Bordes; Paola Sunna (April 8, 2013). "Comparison of Compression Performance of HEVC Draft 10 with AVC for UHD-1 material". JCT-VC. Retrieved April 28, 2013.
  70. ^ a b c d Dan Grois; Detlev Marpe; Amit Mulayoff; Benaya Itzhaky; Ofer Hadar (December 8, 2013). "Performance Comparison of H.265/MPEG-HEVC, VP9, and H.264/MPEG-AVC Encoders" (PDF). Fraunhofer Heinrich Hertz Institute. Retrieved December 14, 2012.
  71. ^ a b c d e f TK Tan; Marta Mrak; Vittorio Baroncini; Naeem Ramzan (May 18, 2014). "Report on HEVC compression performance verification testing". JCT-VC. Retrieved May 25, 2014.
  72. ^ "Comparison of compression efficiency between HEVC/H.265 and VP9 based on subjective assessments". École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL). Retrieved August 26, 2014.
  73. ^ a b c Martin Rerabek; Touradj Ebrahimi (August 18, 2014). "Comparison of compression efficiency between HEVC/H.265 and VP9 based on subjective assessments" (PDF). École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL). Retrieved August 26, 2014.
  74. ^ a b c Martin Rerabek; Touradj Ebrahimi (August 23, 2014). "Comparison of compression efficiency between HEVC/H.265 and VP9 based on subjective assessments". slideshare.com. Retrieved August 26, 2014.
  75. ^ Gary Sullivan; Jens-Rainer Ohm (July 27, 2013). "Meeting report of the 13th meeting of the Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC), Incheon, KR, 18–26 Apr. 2013". JCT-VC. Retrieved September 1, 2013.
  76. ^ "Highlights of the 88th Meeting". MPEG. April 24, 2009. Retrieved August 24, 2012.
  77. ^ "Vision, Applications and Requirements for High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC). ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11/N11872". ISO/IEC. January 2011. Retrieved August 24, 2012.
  78. ^ Christian Timmerer (February 9, 2009). "Vision and Requirements for High-Performance Video Coding (HVC). ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11/N10361". ISO/IEC. Retrieved August 24, 2012.
  79. ^ Jérôme VIERON (November 27, 2012). "HEVC: High-Efficiency Video Coding Next generation video compression" (PDF). Ateme. Retrieved May 21, 2013.
  80. ^ Gregory Cox (September 11, 2013). "An Introduction to Ultra HDTV and HEVC" (PDF). Ateme. Retrieved December 3, 2014.
  81. ^ "Description of High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)". JCT-VC. January 1, 2011. Retrieved September 15, 2012.
  82. ^ a b c V. Sze; M. Budagavi (January 13, 2013). "High Throughput CABAC Entropy Coding in HEVC" (PDF). IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology. Retrieved January 13, 2013.
  83. ^ Tung, Nguyen; Philipp, Helle; Martin, Winken; Benjamin, Bross; Detlev, Marpe; Heiko, Schwarz; Thomas, Wiegand (December 2013). "Transform Coding Techniques in HEVC". Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing. 7: 978–989.
  84. ^ Tung, Nguyen; Detlev, Marpe; Heiko, Schwarz; Thomas, Wiegand. "Reduced-Complexity Entropy Coding of Transform Coefficient Levels Using Truncated Golomb-Rice Codes in Video Compression" (PDF).
  85. ^ a b c Gary Sullivan; Jens-Rainer Ohm (October 13, 2012). "Meeting report of the 10th meeting of the Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC), Stockholm, SE, 11–20 July 2012". JCT-VC. Retrieved April 28, 2013.
  86. ^ a b c d Alistair Goudie (July 2, 2012). "Restrictions to the maximum motion vector range". JCT-VC. Retrieved November 26, 2012.
  87. ^ a b c Keiichi Chono; Minhua Zhou (July 19, 2012). "BoG on miscellaneous limits". JCT-VC. Retrieved November 26, 2012.
  88. ^ a b c d e f g h i Chih-Ming Fu; Elena Alshina; Alexander Alshin; Yu-Wen Huang; Ching-Yeh Chen; Chia-Yang Tsai; Chih-Wei Hsu; Shaw-Min Lei; Jeong-Hoon Park; Woo-Jin Han (December 25, 2012). "Sample adaptive offset in the HEVC standard" (PDF). IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology. Retrieved January 24, 2013.
  89. ^ a b "Meeting report of the 15th meeting of the Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC), Geneva, CH, 23 Oct. – 1 Nov. 2013" (DOC). ITU-T. November 3, 2013. Retrieved November 9, 2013.
  90. ^ Ali, Khairat; Tung, Nguyen; Mischa, Siekmann; Detlev, Marpe. "Adaptive Cross-Component Prediction for 4:4:4 High Efficiency Video Coding" (PDF).
  91. ^ a b Pierre Andrivon; Philippe Bordes; Edouard François (April 2, 2014). "SEI message for Colour Mapping Information". JCT-VC. Retrieved July 17, 2014.
  92. ^ Sally Hattori; Ohji Nakagami; Teruhiko Suzuki (January 15, 2014). "HLS: SEI message for Knee Function Information". JCT-VC. Retrieved July 17, 2014.
  93. ^ Adrian Pennington (August 1, 2012). "Ultra HD: Standards and broadcasters align". www.tvbeurope.com. p. 45. Retrieved November 25, 2012.
  94. ^ a b Jill Boyce; Jianle Chen; Ying Chen; David Flynn; Miska M. Hannuksela; Matteo Naccari; Chris Rosewarne; Karl Sharman; Joel Sole; Gary J. Sullivan; Teruhiko Suzuki; Gerhard Tech; Ye-Kui Wang; Krzysztof Wegner; Yan Ye (July 11, 2014). "Draft high efficiency video coding (HEVC) version 2, combined format range extensions (RExt), scalability (SHVC), and multi-view (MV-HEVC) extensions". JCT-VC. Retrieved July 11, 2014.
  95. ^ a b c Per Fröjdh; Andrey Norkin; Rickard Sjöberg (April 23, 2013). "Next generation video compression" (PDF). Ericsson. Retrieved April 24, 2013.
  96. ^ a b Jens-Rainer Ohm (January 28, 2014). "Recent MPEG/JCT-VC/JCT-3V Video Coding Standardization" (PDF). MPEG. Retrieved April 18, 2014.
  97. ^ "Joint Call for Proposals for Coding of Screen Content" (PDF). JCT-VC. January 17, 2014. Retrieved November 15, 2014.
  98. ^ "Meeting Report of 18th JCT-VC Meeting". ITU-T. October 17, 2014. Retrieved November 15, 2014.
  99. ^ a b c d e Carl Furgusson (June 11, 2013). "Focus on...HEVC: The background behind the game-changing standard- Ericsson". Ericsson. Retrieved June 21, 2013.
  100. ^ a b c d e Simon Forrest (June 20, 2013). "The emergence of HEVC and 10-bit colour formats". Imagination Technologies. Retrieved June 21, 2013.
  101. ^ a b c d Alberto Dueñas; Adam Malamy (October 18, 2012). "On a 10-bit consumer-oriented profile in High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)". JCT-VC. Retrieved November 3, 2012.
  102. ^ Philippe Bordes; Gordon Clare; Félix Henry; Mickaël Raulet; Jérôme Viéron (July 20, 2012). "An overview of the emerging HEVC standard" (PDF). Technicolor. Retrieved October 5, 2012.
  103. ^ "Rennes Research & Innovation Center: Publication". Technicolor. July 20, 2012. Retrieved October 5, 2012.
  104. ^ Detlev Marpe; Heiko Schwarz; Sebastian Bosse; Benjamin Bross; Philipp Helle; Tobias Hinz; Heiner Kirchhoffer; Haricharan Lakshman; Tung Nguyen. "Video Compression Using Nested Quadtree Structures, Leaf Merging and Improved Techniques for Motion Representation and Entropy Coding" (PDF). IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology. Retrieved November 8, 2012.
  105. ^ a b Alexandru Voica (June 20, 2013). "Decoding HEVC in 10-bit colours at 4K resolutions: PowerVR D5500, a Rosetta Stone for video decode". Imagination Technologies. Retrieved June 21, 2013.
  106. ^ Jani Lainema; Kemal Ugur (April 20, 2012). "On HEVC still picture coding performance". JCT-VC. Retrieved January 22, 2013.
  107. ^ a b T. Nguyen; D. Marpe (May 3, 2012). "Performance Comparison of HM 6.0 with Existing Still Image Compression Schemes Using a Test Set of Popular Still Images". JCT-VC. Retrieved December 31, 2012.
  108. ^ a b c d e Philippe Hanhart; Martin Rerabek; Pavel Korshunov; Touradj Ebrahimi (January 9, 2013). "AhG4: Subjective evaluation of HEVC intra coding for still image compression". JCT-VC. Retrieved January 11, 2013.
  109. ^ a b c Kemal Ugur; Jani Lainema (April 4, 2013). "Updated results on HEVC still picture coding performance". JCT-VC. Retrieved April 4, 2013.
  110. ^ a b c "Studying Lossy Image Compression Efficiency". Mozilla. October 17, 2013. Retrieved October 19, 2013.
  111. ^ a b c "Lossy Compressed Image Formats Study". Mozilla. October 17, 2013. Retrieved October 19, 2013.
  112. ^ Jianle Chen; Jill Boyce; Yan Ye; Miska M. Hannuksela; Gary J. Sullivan; Ye-kui Wang (July 10, 2014). "HEVC Scalable Extensions (SHVC) Draft Text 7 (separated text)". JCT-VC. Retrieved July 13, 2014.
  113. ^ a b K. Sharman; N. Saunders; J. Gamei; T. Suzuki; A. Tabatabai (June 20, 2014). "High 4:4:4 16 Intra profile specification". JCT-VC. Retrieved July 13, 2014.
  114. ^ a b "Work plan and time line". MPEG. Retrieved May 31, 2013.
  115. ^ "ISO/IEC 13818-1:2013/Amd 3:2014". International Organization for Standardization. April 10, 2014. Retrieved April 20, 2014.
  116. ^ "ISO/IEC 14496-15:2014". International Organization for Standardization. June 24, 2014. Retrieved June 28, 2014.
  117. ^ "Text of ISO/IEC 14496-15:2013/DCOR 1". MPEG. November 5, 2013. Retrieved December 14, 2013.
  118. ^ "ISO/IEC 23008-1:2014". International Organization for Standardization. May 23, 2014. Retrieved November 1, 2014.
  119. ^ "DivX HEVC Support in MKV". DivX. Retrieved June 5, 2013.
  120. ^ "Using MKVToolNix". DivX. Retrieved June 5, 2013.
  121. ^ "RTP Payload Format for High Efficiency Video Coding". Internet Engineering Task Force. September 6, 2013. Retrieved December 15, 2013.
  122. ^ a b Fabrice Bellard. "BPG Specification". Fabrice Bellard. Retrieved December 14, 2014.
  123. ^ https://lwn.net/Articles/625535/

Official websites

Videos

Websites