Implementation of H.264 using JM and Intel IPP Software

Implementation of H.264 using
JM and Intel IPP Software
Final Presentation,
By,
Spoorthy Priya Yerabolu
spoorthy.yerabolu@mavs.uta.edu
(1000659642)

Goal
The main aim of this project is to study and implement
different profiles of H.264 [1].
Comparison is done based on metrics like MSE (Mean
Square Error), PSNR (Peak – to- Peak Signal to Noise Ratio),
SSIM (Structural Similarity Index Metric), encoding time,
decoding time and the compression ratio of the H.264 file
size (encoded output).
Various test sequences in different formats like CIF
(Common Intermediate Format), QCIF (Quarter Common
Intermediate Format) and SD/HD are used.
Softwares used JM 17.2 [13] and Intel IPP 6.1 [14].

H.264/AVC/MPEG-4 Part 10
H.264 is a block-oriented motion compensation based codec.
It is most commonly used formats for the recording,
compression and distribution of high definition video.
One of the codec standards for blue-ray discs.
It provides variable block-size motion compensation
(VBSMC) with block sizes as large as 16 x 16 and as small as
4x4.
Layered structure:
Network abstraction layer (NAL)
Video coding layer (VCL)

Variable Block Sizes
Figure 1: Variable block sizes for motion estimation and motion compensation [3].

H.264 Profiles
The standard sets 17 different profiles which target specific classes
of applications.
Constrained Baseline Profile (CBP)
Baseline Profile (BP)
Main Profile (MP)
Extended Profile (XP)
High Profile (HiP)
High 10 Profile (Hi10P)
High 4:2:2 Profile (Hi422P)
High 4:4:4 Predictive Profile (Hi444PP)
High 10 Intra Profile
High 4:2:2 Intra Profile

High 4:4:4 Intra Profile
CAVLC 4:4:4 Intra Profile
Scalable Baseline Profile
Scalable High Profile
Scalable High Intra Profile
Stereo High Profile
Multiview High Profile
H.264 Profiles….

Figure 2: Profiles in H.264/AVC [5].

Table 1: Specific applications for each profile [6].

H.264 Encoder
Figure 3. Coding Structure for H.264 encoder [3].

H.264 Decoder
Figure 4. H.264 decoder block diagram [3].

Video Formats
Format Luminance resolution (horiz x vert.) Bits per frame (4:2:0, 8 bits per
Sub – QCIF
Quarter CIF (QCIF)
CIF
4CIF
SD
128 x 96
176 x 144
352 x 288
704 x 576
720x480
sample)
147456
304128
1216512
4866048
1228800
Table 2: Luminance resolution and Bits per frame for each format [10].

Figure 5: Supporting picture format for 4:2:0 chroma sampling for QCIF test sequence [13].
Figure 6: Supporting picture format for 4:2:0 chroma sampling for QCIF test sequence [13].

Format Application
SQCIF Mobile multimedia applications where the display
resolution and the bit rate are limited.
QCIF Video conferencing and mobile multimedia applications.
CIF Video conferencing applications.
4CIF Standard-definition television and DVD – video.
Table 3: Range of applications for each video format [10].

JM 17.2 Software
Encoder input configuration file (*.cfg)
Input file
Number of frames to be encoded
Frame rate
Output frame width and Height
Profile, level selection
Bit rate control

QCIF (Baseline Profile)
QP Bitrate (kbps) PSNR (dB) Encoding
time
(sec)
Decoding
time
(sec)
ME time (sec)
0 3903.22 69.374 151.320 3.279 129.382
10 1650.93 51.471 137.195 2.866 118.930
20 360.73 43.758 134.012 1.589 117.079
30 80.96 36.045 146.272 1.616 129.304
40 22.88 29.424 164.762 0.855 144.614
50 6.69 23.057 136.406 0.613 116.407
Table 4: Results obtained using JM 17.2 for Carphone QCIF test sequence.

PSNR
PSNR (dB)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
PSNR
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Bitrate (Kbps)
Figure 7: PSNR vs Bitrate using JM 17.2 for Carphone QCIF test sequence.
PSNR

MSE
MSE
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
MSE
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Figure 8: MSE vs QP using JM 17.2 for Carphone QCIF test sequence.
MSE

SSIM
SSIM
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
SSIM
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Figure 9: SSIM Vs Bitrate using JM 17.2 for Carphone test sequence.
SSIM

QCIF (Baseline Profile)
QP BitRate
(Kbps)
PSNR(dB) Encoding
time (Sec)
Decoding
time (Sec)
ME time
(sec)
0 3729.47 69.164 122.871 4.757 97.103
10 1654.47 51.514 136.672 3.733 110.691
20 436.80 42.816 120.038 2.442 98.679
30 115.49 35.230 106.573 1.260 89.764
40 36.94 28.506 99.976 1.029 84.153
50 10.87 21.704 91.541 0.590 74.347
Table 5: Results obtained using JM 17.2 for Foreman QCIF test sequence.

PSNR
PSNR
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
PSNR
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Bitrate (Kbps)
Figure 10: PSNR Vs Bitrate using JM 17.2 for Foreman QCIF test sequence.
PSNR

SSIM
SSIM
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
SSIM
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Figure 11: SSIM Vs Bitrate using JM 17.2 for Foreman QCIF test sequence.
SSIM

MSE
MSE
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
MSE
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Figure 12: MSE Vs Bitrate using JM 17.2 for Foreman QCIF test sequence.
MSE

CIF (Foreman)
QP Bitrate
(kbps)
PSNR (dB) Encoding
time
(sec)
Decoding
time
(sec)
ME time
(sec)
0 16737.42 69.785 742.471 15.379 655.998
10 8026.28 51.579 713.142 12.740 637.021
20 1642.46 42.597 616.887 7.113 553.565
30 338.15 35.869 633.715 4.412 573.552
40 112.81 30.114 609.422 3.072 550.785
50 43.41 23.909 576.105 2.345 505.838
Table 6: Results obtained using JM 17.2 for Foreman CIF test sequence.

PSNR
PSNR(dB)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
PSNR
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Figure 13: PSNR Vs Bit rate using JM 17.2 for Foreman CIF sequence.
PSNR

MSE
MSE
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
MSE
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Figure 14: MSE Vs Bit rate using JM 17.2 for Foreman CIF
sequence.
MSE

SSIM
SSIM
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
SSIM
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Figure 15: SSIM Vs Bit rate using JM 17.2 for Foreman CIF
sequence.
SSIM

CIF (Football)
QP Bitrate
(Kbps)
PSNR (dB) Encoding
time (sec)
Decoding
time (sec)
ME time
(sec)
0 18235.53 69.752 768.570 16.668 681.242
10 9575.72 51.649 959.500 11.069 859.159
20 3365.02 43.707 927.807 10.618 835.050
30 1011.22 36.424 801.816 7.427 729.127
40 277.15 30.659 702.272 5.237 630.341
50 104.79 25.780 725.502 3.176 624.922
Table 7: Results obtained using JM 17.2 for Football CIF test sequence.

PSNR (dB)
PSNR
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
PSNR
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Figure 16: PSNR Vs Bitrate using JM 17.2 for Football CIF test sequence.
PSNR

SSIM
SSIM
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
SSIM
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Figure 17: SSIM Vs Bitrate using JM 17.2 for Football CIF test sequence.
SSIM

MSE
MSE
250
200
150
100
50
0
MSE
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Figure 18: MSE Vs Bitrate using JM 17.2 for Football CIF test sequence.
MSE

QP Bitrate
(Kbps)
HD (High Profile)
PSNR (dB) Encoding
time (sec)
Decoding
time (sec)
ME time
(sec)
0 13044.45 67.56 17002.19 26.668 1181.242
10 7998.45 63.117 14044.44 21.069 859.159
20 1799.99 52.86 7989.98 17.618 835.050
30 959.54 47.424 2001.91 7.427 629.127
40 476.25 37.834 476.98 5.237 630.341
50 109.25 10.716 109.25 3.176 624.922
Table 8: Results obtained for HD test sequence using JM 17.2.

PSNR (dB)
PSNR
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
PSNR (dB)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Figure 19: PSNR Vs Bitrate using JM 17.2 for Sintel HD test sequence.
PSNR (dB)

SSIM
SSIM
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
SSIM
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Figure 20: SSIM Vs Bitrate using JM 17.2 for Sintel HD test sequence.
SSIM

Intel IPP 6.1
System Requirements
IA-32 for Microsoft Windows Compiler Compatibility (tested with
the following)
Intel® Parallel Composer
Intel® C++ Compiler for Windows versions 10.1, 11.0 and 11.1
Microsoft Visual Studio 2008
Microsoft Visual Studio 2005
Microsoft Visual C++ .NET 2003
Microsoft Windows Software Development Kit for Microsoft
Windows Vista
Microsoft Windows Software Development Kit for Microsoft
Windows 7
Intel IPP Library Intel 64 Requirements

Intel 64 for Microsoft Windows Compiler Compatibility (tested
with the following)
Microsoft Visual Studio 2008
Microsoft Visual Studio 2005
Intel® C++ Compiler for Windows versions 10.1, 11.0 and 11.1 for
Intel® 64 processors
Microsoft Platform SDK, Version 3790.1830 (April 2005)
Microsoft Platform SDK R2, Version 3790.2075 (March 2006)
Run build_ia32 or build_intel64

Results
QCIF – baseline Profile
QP Bitrate
(Kbps)
PSNR (dB) Encoding
time (sec)
Decoding
time (sec)
ME time
(sec)
0 3729.57 69.26 3.41 0.1257 2.51
10 1654.48 51.54 3.31 0.1519 2.58
20 436.87 42.84 3.93 0.1061 3.07
30 115.56 35.33 3.74 0.1232 2.88
40 36.96 37.84 3.77 0.1386 2.94
50 10.97 21.77 4.13 0.1577 3.25
Table 9: Results obtained for Foreman QCIF sequence using Intel IPP 6.1.

PSNR (dB)
PSNR
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
PSNR (dB)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Figure 21: PSNR Vs Bitrate using Intel IPP 6.1 for Foreman QCIF test sequence.
PSNR (dB)

SSIM
SSIM
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
SSIM
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Figure 22: SSIM Vs Bitrate using Intel IPP 6.1 for Foreman QCIF test sequence.
SSIM

MSE
MSE
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
MSE
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Figure 23: MSE Vs Bitrate using Intel IPP 6.1 for Foreman QCIF test sequence.
MSE

CIF – Baseline Profile
QP Bitrate
(Kbps)
PSNR (dB) Encoding
time (sec)
Decoding
time (sec)
ME time
(sec)
0 18235.53 69.70 25.86 0.0898 2.53
10 9575.72 52.64 22.93 0.0628 2.47
20 3365.02 44.40 23.71 0.0629 2.38
30 1011.22 37.42 28.58 0.0642 2.25
40 277.15 30.75 29.27 0.0567 1.96
50 104.79 25.68 18.77 0.0483 1.47
Table 10: Results obtained for Football CIF sequence using Intel IPP 6.1.

PSNR (dB)
PSNR
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
PSNR (dB)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Figure 24: PSNR vs Bitrate using Intel IPP 6.1 for Football CIF test sequence.
PSNR (dB)

SSIM
SSIM
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
SSIM
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Figure 25: SSIM Vs Bitrate using Intel IPP 6.1 for Football CIF test sequence.
SSIM

MSE
MSE
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
MSE
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Figure 26: PSNR Vs Bitrate using Intel IPP 6.1 for Football CIF test sequence.
MSE

HD – High Profile
QP Bitrate
(Kbps)
PSNR (dB) Encoding
time (sec)
Decoding
time (sec)
ME time
(sec)
0 13044.45 61.755 15.7 0.2357 3.53
10 7998.45 55.8701 11.71 0.2619 3.47
20 1799.99 42.128 9.85 0.2261 3.38
30 959.54 35.188 4.76 0.2332 3.25
40 476.25 30.659 4.2 0.2486 2.96
50 109.25 25.780 4.17 0.2677 2.47
Table 11: Results obtained for Sintel HD sequence using Intel IPP 6.1.

PSNR (dB)
PSNR (dB)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
PSNR
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Figure 27: PSNR Vs Bitrate using Intel IPP 6.1 for Sintel HD test sequence.
PSNR

SSIM
SSIM
1.02
1
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.9
0.88
SSIM
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Bitrate (Kbps)
Figure 28: SSIM Vs Bitrate using Intel IPP 6.1 for Sintel HD test sequence.
SSIM

PSNR - Intel IPP 6.1 Vs JM 17.2
PSNR (dB)
CIF – Baseline Profile
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Bitrate (Kbps)
PSNR
Figure 29: PSNR Vs Bitrate for Intel IPP 6.1 Vs JM 17.2 using CIF Football test
sequence.
Intel IPP
JM

SSIM - Intel IPP 6.1 Vs JM 17.2
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
CIF – Baseline Profile
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Figure 30: SSIM Vs Bitrate for Intel IPP 6.1 Vs JM 17.2 using CIF
Football test sequence.
SSIM
Intel IPP
JM

MSE
MSE - Intel IPP 6.1 Vs JM 17.2
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
CIF – Baseline Profile
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Figure 31: MSE Vs Bitrate for Intel IPP 6.1 Vs JM 17.2 using CIF Football test sequence.
Intel IPP
JM

Encoding Time (sec)
Encoding time
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
18235.53 9575.72 3365.02 1011.22 277.15 104.79
Figure 32: Encoding time Vs Bitrate for JM 17.2 Vs Intel IPP using CIF Football test
sequence.
JM
Intel IPP

Conclusions
Metrics Performance
SSIM Intel IPP 6.1 offers better results than
JM 17.2
MSE Intel IPP 6.1 offers better results than
JM 17.2
PSNR Intel IPP 6.1 offers better results than
JM 17.2
Encoding time and decoding time Intel IPP6.1 is faster than JM 17.2
Table 12 : Performance analysis between JM 17.2 and Intel IPP 6.1 using different metrics.

Bibliography
[1]. K. R. Rao and D. N. Kim, “Current Video Coding Standards: H.264/AVC, Dirac, AVS
China and VC-1,” IEEE 42nd Southeastern symposium on system theory (SSST), pp. 1-
8, Mar. 2010.
[2]. J. Zhang, A. Perkis and N. D. Georganas, “H.264/AVC and Transcoding for
Multimedia Adaptation,” Proc. of the 6 th COST, 2006.
[3]. T. Wiegand et al, “ Overview of the H.264/AVC Video Coding Standard ,” IEEE Trans.
on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, Vol. 13, No. 7, pp. 560-576, July 2003.
[4]. Soon-kak Kwon, A. Tamhankar and K.R. Rao, “Overview of H.264 / MPEG-4 Part 10”,
J. Visual Communication and Image Representation, vol. 17, pp.186-216, Apr. 2006.
[5]. A.Puri, X.Chen and A. Luthra , “ Video coding using H.264/MPEG-4 AVC compression
standard”, Science Direct. Signal processing: Image communication, vol.19, pp 793-849,
Oct. 2004.
[6]. D. Marpe, T. Wiegand and G. J. Sullivan, “The H.264/MPEG-4 AVC standard and its
application”, IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 44, pp. 134-143, Aug. 2006.
[7]. R. Schäfer, T. Wiegand and H. Schwarz, “The emerging H.264/AVC standard”, EBU
Technical Review, Jan. 2003.

[8]. P.Carrillo, H.Kalva, and T.Pin, “Low complexity H.264 video encoding”, Applications
of Digital Image Processing. Proc. of SPIE, vol. 7443, 74430A, Sept.2009.
[9]. H. Kalva, “ The H.264 Video Coding Standard,” IEEE Conference on Multimedia,
Vol. 13, pp. 86-90, 2006.
[10]. I.E.G. Richardson, “H.264 and MPEG-4 video compression: video coding for nextgeneration
multimedia”, 2 nd edition, Wiley, 2010.
[11]. V. Roden and T. Praktische, “H.261 and MPEG1- A comparison” Conference
Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE Fifteenth Annual International Phoenix Conference on
Computers and Communications, pp.65-71, Mar. 1996.
[12]. JM software : http://iphome.hhi.de/suehring/tml/
[13].CIF and QCIF formats:http://www.birds-eye.net/definition/c/cifcommon_intermediate_format.shtml/
[14]. Intel IPP software: http://software.intel.com/en-us/
[15]. H.264 profiles: http://www.innocodec.com/H.html
[16].C. Li and A. C. Bovik, “Content – weighted video quality assessment using a threecomponent
image model”, Journal of Electronic Imaging, Vol. 19, pp. 65-71, Mar. 2010.
[17]. Z. Wang, E. P. Simoncelli and A.C. Bovik, “Multi-scale structural similarity for image
quality assessment”, Proc. of 37 th IEEE Asilomar Conference on Signal Systems and
Computers, Nov. 9 -12, 2003.

Thank You!