1 / 21

MULTIMEDIA PROCESSING

MULTIMEDIA PROCESSING. STUDY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF POPULAR PARALLELING TECHNIQUES APPLIED TO HEVC. By: Karthik Suresh (1000880819). Unde r the guidance of Dr. K. R. Rao. Work Done. The main intent of the project is to observe the impact of parallelization in video coding.

george-carlson
Download Presentation

MULTIMEDIA PROCESSING

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MULTIMEDIA PROCESSING STUDY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF POPULAR PARALLELING TECHNIQUES APPLIED TO HEVC By: Karthik Suresh (1000880819) Under the guidance of Dr. K. R. Rao

  2. Work Done The main intent of the project is to observe the impact of parallelization in video coding. Firstly, comparison is done between H.264 and HEVC using two standard test sequences. The main observation is the total encoding time taken. Then, the WaveFrontSynchro parameter is changed to observe the change in encoding time.

  3. Parametersconsidered • WaveFrontSynchro: WaveFrontSynchrocauses the changes to the bitstream (entry points on each row, with cabac flushes), to allow those aspects of wavefrontcoding to be assessed for quality, bitrate etc. • SliceMode: When this parameter is set to 3, it enforces maximum number of tiles in a slice.

  4. Test sequences used BasketballDrill_832x480_50.yuv

  5. Test sequences used RaceHorses_416x240_30.yuv

  6. Test Conditions • Initially the test sequences are encoded with H.264 and H.265 to compare the metrics. • Metrics considered are PSNR, bitrate, encoding time. • QP is varied from 22 to 37 in steps of 5. • 20 frames are encoded in each of the sequences.

  7. Results obtained

  8. Results obtained

  9. Comparison Graph

  10. Comparison Graph

  11. Comparison Graph

  12. Comparison Graph

  13. Result obtained

  14. Tabulation Parameter legend: 0 -> WaveFrontSynchro = 0 1 -> WaveFrontSynchro = 1 2 -> WaveFrontSynchro = 4

  15. Tabulation Parameter legend: 0 -> WaveFrontSynchro = 0 1 -> WaveFrontSynchro = 1 2 -> WaveFrontSynchro = 4

  16. Conclusion & Future work • Comparison between HEVC and H.264 clearly shows us the improvements in encoding times and the respective PSNRs and bitrates for defined QPs. • By modifying the WaveFrontSynchro parameter, we observe the changes is encoding time. • Future work would be to investigate the positive and negative impacts of the changes done and understanding of its working to further improve the encoding time.

  17. References • [1] G.J. Sullivan et al, “Overview of the high efficiency video coding (HEVC) standard”, IEEE Trans. CSVT, vol. 22,pp.1649-1668, Dec.2012. • [2] C.C.Chi et al, “Parallel scalability and efficiency of HEVC parallelization approaches”, IEEE Trans. CSVT, vol. 22, pp.1827-1838, Dec.2012. • [3] M.A.Mesa, et al., "Parallel video decoding in the emerging HEVC standard“, ICASSP 2012, pp. 1545 - 1548, March 2012. • [4] Intel tutorial on OpenMP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ1k_YpyG_A&list=SPLX-Q6B8xqZ8n8bwjGdzBJ25X2utwnoEG.

  18. References (contd) • [5] Ngai-Man Cheung, et al., "Video coding on multicore graphics processors", Signal Processing Magazine IEEE, Vol 27 Issue 2, pp. 79 - 89, March 2010. • [6] Thesis by SudeepGangavati on Complexity reduction of H.264 using parallel programming. http://www-ee.uta.edu/Dip/Courses/EE5359/index.html • [7] Project by Valay Shah on Study and optimization of Deblocking filter in H.265 and its advantages over H.246/AVC. http://www-ee.uta.edu/Dip/Courses/EE5359/index.html • [8] N.M. Cheung, et al, "Video coding on multicore graphics processors", IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol 27, Issue 2, pp. 79 - 89, March 2010.

  19. References (contd) • [9] E. Kalali, et al, "A High Performance And Low Energy Intra Prediction Hardware For HEVC Video Decoding", DASIP 2012, pp. 1 - 8, Karslruhe, Germany, Oct. 2012. • [10] K. Miyazawa, et al, "Real-Time Hardware Implementation of HEVC Encoder for 1080p HD Video", IEEE PCS 2013, pp. 225 - 228, San Jose, California, USA, Dec 2013. • [11] S. Kim, et al, "A Novel Fast and Low-complexity Motion Estimation for UHD HEVC", IEEE PCS 2013, pp. 105 - 108, San Jose, California, USA, Dec 2013. • [12] F. Bossen, et al, ” HEVC Complexity and Implementation Analysis”, IEEE Trans. on CSVT, vol.22, no.12, pp.1685-1696, Dec. 2012. • [13] K.R. Rao, D.N. Kim and J.J. Hwang, "Video Coding Standards: AVS China, H.264/MPEG-4 Part10, HEVC, VP6, DIRAC and VC-1", Springer, 2014.

  20. References (contd.) • [14] G.J. Sullivan, et al, "Standardized Extensions of High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)", IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 7, Issue 6, pp. 1001 - 1016, Dec. 2013. • [15] G.J. Sullivan, et al, "HEVC Range Extensions Draft 5", JCT-VC, version 1, Geneva, Nov. 2013. • [16] M. Jakubowski and G. Pastuszak, “Block-based motion estimation algorithms – a survey”, Opto-Electronics Review, vol 21, Issue 1, pp. 86 – 102, March 2013. • [17] Access to HM 13.0 Reference Software: https://hevc.hhi.fraunhofer.de/svn/svn_HEVCSoftware/branches/HM-13.0-dev/

  21. References (contd.) • [18] Access to HM Software Manual: https://hevc.hhi.fraunhofer.de/svn/svn_HEVCSoftware/branches/HM-13.0-dev/doc/ • [19] B. Bross et al, “High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Text Specification Draft 10”, Document JCTVC-L1003, ITU-T/ISO/IEC Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC), Mar. 2013 available on http://phenix.it-sudparis.eu/jct/doc_end_user/current_document.php?id=7243

More Related