Download video codecs, filters, plugins, codec related tools to play movies, video clips or other video files. Imgv is a unique and feature rich Image Viewer. It is released as free software with full source code. Imgv is portable and can run on. This codec offers you a higher compression and faster speed compared. Basically freeware is free software that is available for personal use, without any limitations or Adware attached to it. You can find freeware for. Comparison of video codecs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. A video codec is software or a device that provides encoding and decoding for digital video, and which may or may not include the use of video compression and/or decompression. The compression may employ lossy data compression, so that quality- measurement issues become important. Shortly after the compact disc became widely available as a digital- format replacement for analog audio, it became feasible to also store and use video in digital form. A variety of technologies soon emerged to do so. The primary goal for most methods of compressing video is to produce video that most closely approximates the fidelity of the original source, while simultaneously delivering the smallest file- size possible. However, there are also several other factors that can be used as a basis for comparison. Introduction to comparison. Commonly video quality is considered the main characteristic of codec comparisons. Video quality comparisons can be subjective or objective. Performance characteristics such as compression/decompression speed, supported profiles/options, supported resolutions, supported rate control strategies, etc. Freeware Reviews What is FreeWare? I can't always offer you true freeware, but if it's got strings attached, I'll generally tell you what they are. How to record a game with Camstudio (Video) Download Size: 2 MB Price: Free Restrictions: None. A nice recorder that might need some fiddeling around with.
General software characteristics . A codec is not a format, and there may be multiple codecs that implement the same compression specification . But quality/size ratio of output produced by different implementations of the same specification can also vary. Each compression specification defines various mechanisms by which raw video (in essence, a sequence of full- resolution uncompressed digital images) can be reduced in size, from simple bit compression (like Lempel- Ziv- Welch) to psycho- visual and motion summarization, and how the output is stored as a bit stream. So long as the encoder component of the codec adheres to the specification it can choose any combination of these methods to apply different parts of the content. The decoder component of a codec that also conforms to the specification recognises each of the mechanisms used, and thus interprets the compressed stream to render it back into raw video for display (although this will not be identical to the raw video input unless the compression was lossless). Each encoder implements the specification according to its own algorithms and parameters, which means that the compressed output of different codecs will vary, resulting in variations in quality and efficiency between them. Prior to comparing codec video- quality, it is important to understand that every codec can give a varying degree of quality for a given set of frames within a video sequence. Numerous factors play a role in this variability. First, all codecs have a bitrate control mechanism that is responsible for determining the bitrate and quality on a per- frame basis. A difference between variable bitrate (VBR) and constant bitrate (CBR) creates a trade- off between a consistent quality over all frames, on the one hand, and a more constant bitrate, which is required for some applications, on the other. Second, some codecs differentiate between different types of frames, such as key frames and non- key frames, differing in their importance to overall visual quality and the extent to which they can be compressed. Third, quality depends on prefiltrations, which are included on all present- day codecs. Other factors may also come into play. For a sufficiently long clip, it is possible to select sequences that have suffered little from the compression, and sequences that have suffered heavily, especially if CBR has been used, whereby the quality between frames can vary highly due to different amounts of compression needed to achieve a constant bitrate. So, in a given long clip, such as a full- length movie, any two codecs may perform quite differently on a particular sequence from the clip, while the codecs may be approximately equal (or the situation reversed) in quality over a wider sequence of frames. Press- releases and amateur forums sometimes select sequences known to favor a particular codec or style of rate- control in reviews. They are based on criteria and metrics that can be measured objectively and automatically evaluated by a computer program. Objective methods are classified based on the availability of an original pristine video signal, which is considered to be of high quality (generally not compressed). Therefore, they can be classified as: Full reference methods (FR), where the whole original video signal is available. Reduced reference methods (RR), where only partial information of the original video is available, and. No- reference methods (NR), where the original video is not available at all. Subjective video quality. Subjective video quality tests are quite expensive with regard to time (preparation and running) and human resources. There are many ways of showing video sequences to experts and recording their opinions. A few of them have been standardized, mainly in ITU- R Recommendation BT. ITU- T Recommendation P. The reason for measuring subjective video quality is the same as for measuring the Mean Opinion Score for audio. Opinions of experts can be averaged, and the average mark is usually given with confidence interval. Additional procedures can be used for averaging. For example, experts who give unstable results may be rejected (for instance, if their correlation with average opinion is low). In case of video codecs, this is a very common situation. When codecs with similar objective results show results with different subjective results, the main reasons can be: Pre- and postfilters are widely used in codecs. Codecs often use prefilters such as video denoising, deflicking, deshaking, etc. Denoising and deflicking normally maintain PSNR value while increasing visual quality (the best slow denoising filters also increase PSNR on medium and high bitrates). Deshaking greatly decreases PSNR, but increases visual quality. Postfilters show similar characteristics . All filters increase compression/decompression time, so they enhance visual quality but decrease the speed of coding and decoding. Motion estimation (ME) search strategy can also cause different visual quality for the same PSNR. So- called true motion search commonly will not reach minimum sum of absolute differences (SAD) values in codec ME, but may result in better visual quality. Such methods also require more compression time. Rate control strategy. VBR commonly cause better visual quality marks than CBR for the same average PSNR values for sequences. It is difficult to use long sequences for subjective testing. Commonly, three or four ten- second sequences are used, while full movies are used for objective metrics. Sequence selection is important . Meanwhile, the same pair of codecs may give opposite results if running on an older computer with reduced memory (or cache) resources. Profiles support. Only selected profiles of a standard are typically supported in any particular product. These are mostly for professional (e. High 1. 0 Intra Profile: The High 1. Profile constrained to all- Intra use. High 4: 2: 2 Intra Profile: The High 4: 2: 2 Profile constrained to all- Intra use. High 4: 4: 4 Intra Profile: The High 4: 4: 4 Profile constrained to all- Intra use. CAVLC 4: 4: 4 Intra Profile: The High 4: 4: 4 Profile constrained to all- Intra use and to CAVLC entropy coding (i. CABAC). Moreover, the standard now also contains three Scalable Video Coding profiles. Scalable Baseline Profile: A scalable extension of the Baseline profile. Scalable High Profile: A scalable extension of the High profile. Scalable High Intra Profile: The Scalable High Profile constrained to all- Intra use. An accurate comparison of codecs must take the profile variations within each codec into account. See also MPEG- 2 Profiles and Levels. Supported rate control strategies. On fast- motion scenes, a variable bitrate uses more bits than it does on slow- motion scenes of similar duration, yet achieves a consistent visual quality. For real- time and non- buffered video streaming when the available bandwidth is fixed . VBR is commonly used for video CD/DVD creation and video in programs. Software characteristics. The latest stable version for Mac is Div. X 7 for Mac. Native operating system support! Used for comparison with H. MPEG- 4 ASP)2. 00. Dec.): Div. X 6. 0 (MPEG- 4 ASP reference), Arc. Soft H. 2. 64, Ateme H. ATI H. 2. 64, Elecard H. Fraunhofer IIS H. VSS H. 2. 64, x. 26. Div. X 6. 2. 5 (MPEG- 4 ASP reference), Main. Concept H. 2. 64, Intel H. VSS H. 2. 64, x. 26. Apple H. 2. 64, (partially), Sorenson H. Xvi. D (MPEG- 4 ASP codec), Main. Concept H. 2. 64, Intel H. AMD H. 2. 64, Artemis H. Xvi. D (MPEG- 4 ASP codec), Dicas H. Elecard H. 2. 64, Intel IPP H. Main. Concept H. 2. Xvi. D (MPEG- 4 ASP codec), Div. X H. 2. 64, Elecard H. Intel Media. SDK AVC/H. Main. Concept H. 2. Microsoft Expression, Encoder, Theora, x. Detailed objective comparisons. Series of Lossless Video Codecs Comparison. Two size and time comparisons of lossless codecs (with lossless checking)2. Alpary v. 2. 0, AVIzlib v. Cam. Studio GZIP v. Core. PNG v. 0. 8. FFV1 ffdshow 0. 8/0. GLZW v. 1. 0. 1, Huff. YUV v. 2. 1. 1, Lagarith v. LEAD JPEG v. 1. 0. LOCO v. 0. 2, Mind. Vid v. 1. 0 beta 1, MSUlab beta v. MSUlab v. 0. 5. 2, Pic. Video JPEG v. 2. 1. VBLE beta. 20. 07 (1. Alpary, Arith. Yuv, AVIzlib, Cam. Studio GZIP, Core. PNG, Fast. Codec, FFV1, Huffyuv, Lagarith, LOCO, LZO, MSU Lab, PICVideo, Snow, x. YULSin 2. 00. 7 . The Xvid results may be erroneous, as deblocking was disabled for it while used for Div. X. Subjective Comparison of Modern Video Codecs. Scientifically accurate subjective comparison using 5. SAMVIQ methodology. Div. X 6. 0, Xvid 1. WMV 9. 0 (2 bitrates for every codec)PSNR via VQM via SSIM comparison was also done. MPEG- 2 Video Decoders Comparison. Objective MPEG- 2 Decoders comparisonbitcontrol MPEG- 2 Video Decoder, DScaler MPEG2 Video Decoder, Elecard MPEG- 2 Video Decoder, ffdshow MPEG- 4 Video Decoder (libavcodec), Inter. Video Video Decoder, Ligos MPEG Video Decoder, Main.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |