Copyright and reuse:The Warwick Research Archive Portal (WRAP) makes this work by researchers of the University of Warwick available open access under the following conditions. Copyright © and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable the material made available in WRAP has been checked for eligibility before being made available.Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way.
A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or, version of record, if you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the 'permanent WRAP URL' above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.
AbstractA number of High Dynamic Range (HDR) video compression algorithms proposed to date have either been developed in isolation or only-partially compared with each other. Previous evaluations were conducted using quality assessment error metrics, which for the most part were developed for qualitative assessment of Low Dynamic Range (LDR) videos. This paper presents a comprehensive objective and subjective evaluation conducted with six published HDR video compression algorithms. The objective evaluation was undertaken on a large set of 39 HDR video sequences using seven numerical error metrics namely: PSNR, logPSNR, puPSNR, puSSIM, Weber MSE, HDR-VDP and HDR-VQM. The subjective evaluation involved six short-listed sequences and two ranking-based subjective experiments with hidden reference at two different output bitrates with 32 participants each, who were tasked to rank distorted HDR video footage compared to an uncompressed version of the same footage. Results suggest a strong correlation between the objective and subjective evaluation. Also, non-backward compatible compression algorithms appear to perform better at lower output bit rates than backward compatible algorithms across the settings used in this evaluation.