The resolution of the whole image was 1920 x 1080. Image 1: Three parts of the image that were comparedĪ comparison was made of the image quality for parts A, B, and C.
Videoconferencing presume o very fast compression (. With the clips in a version stack, you can use the side-by-side comparison view to look at two different codecs side by side, including their Difference videos.
The three parts (Ⓐ, Ⓑ, and Ⓒ) of Image 1 on the under were compared to assess the image quality obtained with 4:2:2 chroma format and that obtained with 4:2:0 chroma format for three successive encoding/decoding operations. Video quality per bitrate (or range of bitrates) is considered the main characteristic of codec comparisons. One of such video codecs is VP8 codec 7-9, which was developed privately by On2 Technolo- gies Inc. We uploaded all 552 resulting video clips to the Codec Comparison Project, and we used Frame.io’s Version Stack feature to combine all of the different codecs for each clip into a single asset. The following section compares the image quality of AVC/H.264 High Profile, which is incompatible with the 4:2:2 chroma format, and that of High 4:2:2 Profile, which is compatible with this format. To limit degradation in the quality of the video images delivered to viewers, it is essential that any image quality degradation that may be caused by the use of cascaded codec systems be minimized.įigure 1: Example process for the delivery of live images to viewers Comparison of image quality of AVC/H.264 High Profile and High 4:2:2 Profile in cascaded codec connection
Video codec comparison full#
Full reference methods (FR), where the whole original video signal is available. For the live broadcasting of sports or other events from the venue itself, video codec systems are generally connected in cascade (for multiple encoding and decoding), as shown in Figure 1 below, to deliver images recorded by the cameras to TV viewers. Comparison of video codecs Video quality per bitrate (or range of bitrates).