2017
DOI: 10.1186/s13640-017-0226-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Efficient AMP decision and search range adjustment algorithm for HEVC

Abstract: The advanced video encoder High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) utilizes several novel coding tools so that it can obtain improvement in coding performance for a huge number of video data. However, these tools increase the computational complexity greatly specially in the interprediction phase. Therefore, optimization for interprediction plays an important role in accelerating the whole HEVC encoding process. To this end, this paper proposes an efficient prediction algorithm for improving HEVC intercoding. Acco… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Table 3 describes the sequence information, including different resolutions, numbers of frames, and frame rates (FPS). We use (11) to compute time-saving and evaluate the coding efficiency by BDBR and BDPSNR [26,27] Table 4, the proposed algorithm saves 43.85% of the average coding time, which is better than 41.99% of the average coding time in [19]. The method in [19] is without CU early split, and early terminates the PU prediction only by motion vector and residual, so it will lead to the rising BDBR and less time-saving in the sequences with small resolution and high motion, such as Class D. Figure 16 draws the RD curve comparison of HM.16.3, the proposed method, and [19] for PartyScene (S10) sequence.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Table 3 describes the sequence information, including different resolutions, numbers of frames, and frame rates (FPS). We use (11) to compute time-saving and evaluate the coding efficiency by BDBR and BDPSNR [26,27] Table 4, the proposed algorithm saves 43.85% of the average coding time, which is better than 41.99% of the average coding time in [19]. The method in [19] is without CU early split, and early terminates the PU prediction only by motion vector and residual, so it will lead to the rising BDBR and less time-saving in the sequences with small resolution and high motion, such as Class D. Figure 16 draws the RD curve comparison of HM.16.3, the proposed method, and [19] for PartyScene (S10) sequence.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In [10], the CU splitting optimization is viewed as a classification task and solved by the weighted Support Vector Machine (SVM). Huang et al [11] efficiently switch AMP by posterior probability analysis and adaptively adjust the search range by motion degree. Huang et al [12] predict the CU depth range from neighboring CTUs.…”
Section: Background and Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…where ET proposal and ET VVC are the ET with the proposed VVC codec and the standard VVC codec, respectively. Two relevant adaptive motion search methods, proposed in [23] and [24], are used as the relevant competitors. It should be noted that Huang et al proposed an ASR method for HEVC codec in [23] where pre-set SR values are selected using an assessment of motion degree.…”
Section: Test Conditionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two relevant adaptive motion search methods, proposed in [23] and [24], are used as the relevant competitors. It should be noted that Huang et al proposed an ASR method for HEVC codec in [23] where pre-set SR values are selected using an assessment of motion degree. For a fair comparison, we have implemented this ASR method for the same VVC reference software and selected an optimized set of thresholds.…”
Section: Test Conditionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation