2016 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) 2016
DOI: 10.1109/icip.2016.7533155
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An adaptive QP offset determination method for HEVC

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Nevertheless, the proposed approach still shows consistent overall bitrate savings across video groups at various spatial resolutions, with an average BD-rate values at 1.1% and 0.5% for JCTVC-L1100 and JCTVC-X0038 respectively. According to the results in [40], the use of fixed QP offset values does not provide optimum R-D performance for all types of content. More significant bitrate savings may therefore be possible if our Lagrange multiplier determination approach is combined with a content-based adaptive QP model.…”
Section: Test Results On Adaptive Qp Configurations For Hmmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Nevertheless, the proposed approach still shows consistent overall bitrate savings across video groups at various spatial resolutions, with an average BD-rate values at 1.1% and 0.5% for JCTVC-L1100 and JCTVC-X0038 respectively. According to the results in [40], the use of fixed QP offset values does not provide optimum R-D performance for all types of content. More significant bitrate savings may therefore be possible if our Lagrange multiplier determination approach is combined with a content-based adaptive QP model.…”
Section: Test Results On Adaptive Qp Configurations For Hmmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…This differs from the recommended configurations in [33,39] and [35], where fixed QP offset values are used for different hierarchical B frame levels to improve overall rate-distortion (R-D) performance. Based on the recent work in [40], using constant QP offset values does not always offer optimum R-D performance for all types of content, and QP offset values in the HEVC reference encoder should be adapted based upon video content. Since the purpose of this paper is solely to investigate the influence of Lagrange multipliers on R-D performance, constant QP values are employed in our training process, as this eliminates the confounding influence of QP offset.…”
Section: A Experimental Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In [22], inter-frame dependency was measured by energy of prediction residuals, then the optimal QP was determined by taking inter-frame dependency into the Lagrange cost function. In [23], the optimal QP was related to mean squared error (MSE), and optimal QP offset was adaptively updated according to MSE of P frames and MSE of B frames. Xu et al [24] statistically analysed inter-frame dependency between GOPs and introduced GOP level empirical QP offset.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Rate-Distortion (RD) dependency between RA layers were also exploited in the QPC scheme of [12]. While in [13], texture content was taken into account to determine the GOP-level Qp offset. In Zhao's algorithm [14], the Qp allocation was formulated as a non-linear programming problem with layered dependency, which was further solved by Newton-Raphson method.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%