Comparison of Video Compression Standards

Abstract

In order to ensure compatibility among video
codecs from different manufacturers and applications and to
simplify the development of new applications, intensive efforts
have been undertaken in recent years to define digital video
standards Over the past decades, digital video compression
technologies have become an integral part of the way we
create, communicate and consume visual information. Digital
video communication can be found today in many application
sceneries such as broadcast services over satellite and
terrestrial channels, digital video storage, wires and wireless
conversational services and etc. The data quantity is very large
for the digital video and the memory of the storage devices and
the bandwidth of the transmission channel are not infinite, so
it is not practical for us to store the full digital video without
processing. For instance, we have a 720 x 480 pixels per
frame,30 frames per second, total 90 minutes full color video,
then the full data quantity of this video is about 167.96 G
bytes. Thus, several video compression standards, techniques
and algorithms had been developed to reduce the data
quantity and provide the acceptable quality as possible as can.
Thus they often represent an optimal compromise between
performance and complexity. This paper describes the main
features of video compression standards, discusses the
emerging standards and presents some of its main
characteristics.

Full text


Abstract—In order to ensure compatibility among video
codecs from different manufacturers and applications and to
simplify the development of new applications, intensive efforts
have been undertaken in recent years to define digital video
standards Over the past decades, digital video compression
technologies have become an integral part of the way we
create, communicate and consume visual information. Digital
video communication can be found today in many application
sceneries such as broadcast services over satellite and
terrestrial channels, digital video storage, wires and wireless
conversational services and etc. The data quantity is very large
for the digital video and the memory of the storage devices and
the bandwidth of the transmission channel are not infinite, so
it is not practical for us to store the full digital video without
processing. For instance, we have a 720 x 480 pixels per
frame,30 frames per second, total 90 minutes full color video,
then the full data quantity of this video is about 167.96 G
bytes. Thus, several video compression standards, techniques
and algorithms had been developed to reduce the data
quantity and provide the acceptable quality as possible as can.
Thus they often represent an optimal compromise between
performance and complexity. This paper describes the main
features of video compression standards, discusses the
emerging standards and presents some of its main
characteristics.
Index Terms–Video compression, MPEG-1, MPEG-4, H.264,
redundancies.
I. INTRODUCTION
Digital video has become main stream and is being used
in a wide range of applications including DVD, digital TV,
HDTV, video telephony, and teleconferencing. These digital
video applications are feasible because of the advances in
computing and communication technologies as well as
efficient video compression algorithms. The rapid
deployment and adoption of these technologies was possible
primarily because of standardization and the economies of
scale brought about by competition and standardization.
Most of the video compression standards are based on a set
of principles that reduce the redundancy in digital video.
Digital video is essentially a sequence of pictures
displayed overtime [1]. Each picture of a digital video
sequence is a 2D projection of the 3D world. Digital video
thus is captured as a series of digital pictures or sampled in
space and time from an analog video signal. A frame of
digital video or a picture can be seen as a 2D array of pixels.
Each pixel value represents the color and intensity values of
a specific spatial location at a specific time. The Red-Green-
Blue (RGB) color space is typically used to capture and
 Manuscript received May 9, 2013; revised July 9, 2013.
S. Ponlatha is with Department of ECE, AVS Engineering College,
Salem (e-mail: ponlathasenthil@gmail.com).
R. S. Sabeenian is with Department of ECE, Sona College of
Technology.
display digital pictures. Each pixel is thus represented by
one R, G, and B components. The 2D array of pixels that
constitutes a picture is actually three 2D arrays with one
array for each of the RGB components. A resolution of 8
bits per component is usually sufficient for typical consumer
applications.
A. The Need for Compression
Fortunately, digital video has significant redundancies
and eliminating or reducing those redundancies results in
compression. Video compression can be lossy or loss less.
Loss less video compression reproduces identical video
after de-compression. We primarily consider lossy
compression that yields perceptually equivalent, but not
identical video compared to the uncompressed source.
Video compression is typically achieved by exploiting four
types of redundancies: 1) perceptual, 2) temporal, 3) spatial,
and 4) statistical redundancies.
B. Perceptual Redundancies
Perceptual redundancies refer to the details of a picture
that a human eye cannot perceive. Anything that a human
eye cannot perceive can be discarded without affecting the
quality of a picture [2]. The human visual system affects
how both spatial and temporal details in a video sequence
are perceived.
C. Temporal Redundancies
The persistence property can be exploited to select a
frame rate for video display just enough to ensure a
perception of continuous motion in a video sequence. Since
a video is essentially a sequence of pictures sampled at a
discrete frame rate, two successive frames in a video
sequence look largely similar. Fig. 1. shows two successive
pictures in a video. The extent of similarity between two
successive frames depends on how closely they are sampled
(frame interval) and the motion of the objects in the scene
[3], [4]. If the frame rate is 30 frames per second, two
successive frames of a news anchor video are likely to be
very similar. Exploiting the temporal redundancies accounts
for majority of the compression gains in video encoding.
D. Spatial Redundancies
Spatial frequencies refer to the changes in levels in a
picture. The sensitivity of the eye drops as spatial
frequencies increase; i.e., as the spatial frequencies increase,
the ability of the eye to discriminate between the changing
levels decreases. Any detail that cannot be resolved is
averaged [5]. This property of the eye is called spatial
integration. This property of the eye can be exploited to
remove or reduce higher frequencies without affecting the
perceived quality. The human visual perception thus allows
exploitation of spatial, temporal, and perceptual
redundancies.
Comparison of Video Compression Standards
S. Ponlatha and R. S. Sabeenian
549
International
Journal of Computer and Electrical Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 6, December 2013
DOI: 10.7763/IJCEE.2013.V5.770

E. Statistical Redundancies
The transform coefficients, motion vectors, and other data
have to be encoded using binary codes in the last stage of
video compression. The simplest way to code these values is
by using fixed length codes; e.g., 16 bit words. However,
these values do not have a uniform distribution and using
fixed length codes is wasteful. Average code length can be
reduced by assigning shorter code words to values with
higher probability. Variable length coding is used to exploit
these statistical redundancies and increase compression
efficiency further.
II. MOTION JPEG AND MPEG
A. Motion JPEG
A digital video sequence can be represented as a series of
JPEG pictures. The advantages are the same as with single
still JPEG pictures – flexibility both in terms of quality and
compression ratio. The main disadvantage of Motion JPEG
(a.k.a. MJPEG) is that since it uses only a series of still
pictures it makes no use of video compression techniques
[4]. The result is a slightly lower compression ratio for
video sequences compared to “real” video compression
techniques.
B. Motion JPEG 2000
As with JPEG and Motion JPEG, JPEG 2000 can also be
used to represent a video sequence. The advantages are
equal to JPEG 2000, i.e., a slightly better compression ratio
compared to JPEG but at the price of complexity. The
disadvantage reassembles that of Motion JPEG. Since it is a
still picture compression technique it doesn’t take any
advantages of the video sequence compression. This results
in a lower compression ration compared to real video
compression techniques.
C. MPEG-1
The first public standard of the MPEG committee was the
MPEG-1, ISO/IEC 11172, which first parts were released in
1993. MPEG-1 video compression is based upon the same
technique that is used in JPEG[6]. In addition to that it also
includes techniques for efficient coding of a video sequence.
Fig. 1. A three-picture JPEG video sequence.
Consider the video sequence displayed in Fig. 2. The
picture to the left is the first picture in the sequence
followed by the picture in the middle and then the picture to
the right. When displayed, the video sequence shows a man
walking from right to left with a tree that stands still.In
Motion JPEG/Motion JPEG 2000 each picture in the
sequence is coded as a separate unique picture resulting in
the same sequence as the original one. In MPEG video only
the new parts of the video sequence is included together
with information of the moving parts [7]. The video
sequence of Fig. 4 will then appear as in Fig. 4. But this is
only true during the transmission of the video sequence to
limit the bandwidth consumption. When displayed it
appears as the original video sequence again.
Fig. 2. A three-picture MPEG video sequence.
MPEG-1 is focused on bit-streams of about 1,5 Mbps and
originally for storage of digital video on CDs. The focus is
on compression ratio rather than picture quality. It can be
considered as traditional VCR quality but digital instead.
MPEG-1, the Coding of Moving Pictures and Associated
Audio for Digital Storage Media at up to about 1.5 Mbps, is
an International Standard ISO-11172, completed in October,
1992. International Standard ISO-11172, completed in
October, 1992. MPEG-1 is intended primarily for stored
interactive video applications (CD-ROM); with MPEG-1,
one can store up to 72 minutes of VHS quality (640 x 480 s
30fps) video and audio on a single CD-ROM disk. MPEG-1
can deliver full-motion color video at 30 frames per second
from CD-ROM. Because audio is usually associated with
full motion video, the MPEG standard also addresses the
compression of the audio information at 64, 96, 128, and
192 kbps[8] and identifies the synchronization issues
between audio and video by means of time stamps. The first
volume application for MPEG-1 decode chips (from C-
Cube Microsystems) was a Karaoke entertainment system
by JVC.
D. MPEG-2
MPEG-2 is the "Generic Coding of Moving Pictures and
Associated Audio." The MPEG-2 standard is targeted at TV
transmission and other applications capable of 4 Mbps and
higher data rates. MPEG-2 features very high picture
quality. MPEG-2 supports interlaced video formats,
increased image quality, and other features aimed at HDTV.
MPEG-2 is a compatible extension of MPEG-1, meaning
that an MPEG-2 decoder can also decode MPEG-1 streams.
MPEG-2 audio will supply up to five full bandwidth
channels (left, right, center, and two surround channels),
plus an additional low-frequency enhancement channel, or
up to seven commentary channels. The MPEG-2 systems
standard specifies how to combine multiple audio, video,
and private-data streams into a single multiplexed stream
and supports a wide range of broadcast,
telecommunications, computing, and storage applications.
MPEG-2, ISO/IEC 13818, also provides more advanced
techniques to enhance the video quality at the same bit-rate.
The expense is the need for far more complex equipment.
Therefore these features are not suitable for use in real-time
surveillance applications.As a note, DVD movies are
compressed using the techniques of MPEG-2.
550
International Journal of Computer and Electrical Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 6, December 2013

E. MPEG-4
The most important new features of MPEG-4, ISO/IEC
14496, concerning video compression are the support of
even lower bandwidth consuming applications, e.g. mobile
units, and on the other hand applications with extremely
high quality and almost unlimited bandwidth. The making
of studio movies is one such an example [9]. Most of the
differences between MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 are features not
related to video coding and therefore not related to
surveillance applications MPEG involves fully encoding
only key frames through the JPEG algorithm (described
above) and estimating the motion changes between these
key frames. Since minimal information is sent between
every four or five frames, a significant reduction in bits
required to describe the image results. Consequently,
compression ratios above 100:1 [10] are common. The
scheme is asymmetric; the MPEG encoder is very complex
and places a very heavy computational load for motion
estimation. Decoding is much simpler and can be done by
today's desktop CPUs or with low cost decoder chips.
MPEG-3 was merged into MPEG-2 and no longer exists.
The basic scheme is to predict motion from frame to
frame in the temporal direction, and then to use DCT's
(discrete cosine transforms) to organize the redundancy in
the spatial directions. The DCT's are done on 8x8 blocks,
and the motion prediction is done in the luminance (Y)
channel on 16x16 blocks. For a 16x16 block in the current
frame being compressed, the encoder looks for a close
match to that block in a previous or future frame (there are
backward prediction modes where later frames are sent first
to allow interpolating between frames). The DCT
coefficients (of either the actual data, or the difference
between this block and the close match) are quantized.
Many of the coefficients end up being zero. The
quantization can change for every macroblock, which is
16x16 of Y and the corresponding 8x8's in both U and V.
The results of all of this, which include the DCT
coefficients, the motion vectors, and the quantization
parameters are Huffman coded using fixed tables. The DCT
coefficients have a special Huffman table that is two-
dimensional that one code specifies a run-length of zeros
and the non-zero value that ended the run. Also, the motion
vectors and the DCT components are DPCM (subtracted
from the last one) coded.
F. H.261
H.261 (last modified in 1993) is the video compression
standard included under the H.320 umbrella (and others) for
videoconferencing standards. H.261 is a motion
compression algorithm developed specifically for
videoconferencing, though it may be employed for any
motion video compression task. H.261 allows for use with
communication channels that are multiples of 64 kbps (P=1,
2, 3...30.), the same data structure as ISDN [11]. H.261 is
sometimes called P×64.
H.261 encoding is based on the discrete cosine transform
(DCT) in Fig. 3. and allows for fully-encoding only certain
frames (INTRA-frame) while encoding the differences
between other frames (INTER-frame). The main elements
of the H.261 source coder are prediction, block
transformation (spatial to frequency domain translation),
quantization, and entropy coding. While the decoder
requires prediction, motion compensation is an option.
Another option inside the recommendation is loop filtering.
The loop filer is applied to the prediction data to reduce
large errors when using interframe coding. Loop filtering
provides a noticeable improvement in video quality but
demands extra processing power. The operation of the
decoder allows for many H.261-compliant CODECs to
provide very different levels of quality at different cost
points. The H.261 standard does not specify a particular
adaptive quantization method.
Fig. 3. H.261 block diagram from ITU recommendation.
The H.261 source code operates on non-interlaced
pictures occurring 30 000/1001 (approximately 29.97) times
per second. The tolerance on picture frequency is ± 50 ppm.
Pictures are coded as luminance and two color difference
components (Y, CB, and CR). These components and the
codes representing their sampled values are as defined in
CCIR Recommendation 601: black = 16, white = 235, zero
color difference = 128, and peak color difference = 16 and
240. These values are nominal ones and the coding
algorithm functions with input values of 1 through to 254.
Fig. 4. H.261 source coder block diagram.
It is important to understand the hierarchical structure of
video data used by H.261 in Fig. 4. At the top layer is the
picture. Each picture is divided into groups of blocks
(GOBs). Twelve GOBs make up a CIF image; three make
up a QCIF picture in Fig. 5. A GOB relates to 176 pixels by
48 lines of Y and the spatially corresponding 88 pixels by
24 lines for each chrominance value.
551
International Journal of Computer and Electrical Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 6, December 2013

Fig. 5. Arrangement of groups of blocks in an H.261 picture.
Each GOB is divided into 33 macroblocks. A macroblock
relates to 16 pixels by 16 lines of Y and the spatially
corresponding 8 pixels by 8 lines of each chrominance
value. Macroblocks are the basic element used for many
prediction and motion estimation techniques.
When an H.261 controller decides to perform an
intraframe compression or an interframe compression, or
when it segments data as transmitted or non-transmitted,
these decisions are made on a block-by-block basis, not on a
picture-by-picture basis.
G. H.263
H.263 is the video codec introduced with H.324, the ITU
recommendation "Multimedia Terminal for Low Bitrate
Visual Telephone Services Over the GSTN". H.324 is for
videoconferencing over the analog phone network (POTS).
While video is an option under H.324, any terminal
supporting video must support both H.263 and H.261.
H.263 is a structurally similar refinement (a five year
update) to H.261 and is backward compatible with H.261.
At bandwidths under 1000 kbps [12], H.263 picture quality
is superior to that of H.261. Images are greatly improved by
using a required 1/2 pixel new motion estimation rather than
the optional integer estimation used in H.261. Half pixel
techniques give better matches, and are noticeably superior
with low resolution images (SQCIF).
The 4:3 pixel aspect ratio is the same for each of these
picture formats.
TABLE I: H. 263 PICTURE FORMATS
Pict
ure
For
mat
pixels
lumina
nce
lines
lumin
ance
pixels
chromi
nance
lines
chro
mina
nce
H.261
H.263
sub-
QCI
F
128
96
64
48
optiona
l
Requir
ed
QCI
F
176
144
88
72
requir
ed
Requir
ed
CIF
352
288
176
144
optiona
l
Option
al
4CIF
704
576
352
288
NA
Option
al
16CI
F
1408
1152
704
576
NA
Option
al
With H.263, as with H.261, each picture is divided into
groups of blocks (GOBs). A group of blocks (GOB)
comprises of k*16 lines, depending on the picture format (k
= 1 for sub-QCIF, QCIF and CIF; k = 2 for 4CIF; k = 4 for
16CIF) and is given in Table I. The number of GOBs per
picture is 6 for sub-QCIF, 9 for QCIF, and 18 for CIF, 4CIF
and 16CIF.
H. H.264
H.264 is the result of a joint project between the ITUT’s
Video coding Experts group and the ISO/IEC Moving
Picture Experts Group (MPEG). ITU-T is the sector that
coordinates Telecommunication standard on behalf of the
International Telecommunication Union. ISO stands for
International Organization for Standardization and IEC
stands for International Electrotechnical Commission, which
oversees standards for all electrical, electronic and related
technologies [13]. H.264 is the name used by ITU-T, while
ISO/IEC has named it MPEG-4 Part 10/AVC since it is
presented as a new part in its MPEG-4 suite. The MPEG-4
suite includes, for example, MPEG-4 Part 2, which is a
standard that has been used by IP-based video encoders and
network cameras.
Designed to address several weaknesses in previous video
compression standards, H.264 delivers on its goals of
supporting:
1) Implementations that deliver an average bit rate
reduction of 50%, given a fixed video quality
compared with any other video standard.
2) Error robustness so that transmission errors over
various networks are tolerated.
3) Low latency capabilities and better quality for higher
latency.
4) Straightforward syntax specification that simplifies
implementations.
5) Exact match decoding, which defines exactly how
numerical calculations are to be made by an encoder
and a decoder to avoid errors from accumulating.
III. MPEG COMPARISON
All MPEG standards are back compatible. This means
that an MPEG-1 video sequence also can be packetized as
MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 video. Similarly, MPEG-2 can be
packetized as an MPEG-4 video sequence. The difference
between a true MPEG-4 video and an MPEG-4-packetized
MPEG-1 video sequence is that the lower standard does not
make use of the enhanced or new features of the higher
standard[14].
The comparison of the MPEGs in Table II, contains the
MPEG-1 with its most often used limitation (Constrained
Parameters Bitstream, CPB), MPEG-2 with its Main Profile
at Main Level (MP@ML), and MPEG-4 Main Profile at L3
Level. TABLE II: MPEG COMPARISON
Standards
MPEG 1
MPEG 2
MPEG 4
Max bit rate
(Mbps)
1,86
15
15
Picture width
(pixels)
352
720
720
Picture height
(pixels)
288
576
576
Picture rate
(fps)
30
30
30
When comparing the performance of MPEG standards
such as MPEG-4 and H.264, it is important to note that
results may vary between encoders that use the same
standard. This is because the designer of an encoder can
552
International Journal of Computer and Electrical Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 6, December 2013

choose to implement different sets of tools defined by a
standard. As long as the output of an encoder conforms to a
standard’s format and decoder, it is possible to make
different implementations. An MPEG standard, therefore,
cannot guarantee a given bit rate or quality, and
comparisons cannot be properly made without first defining
how the standards are implemented in an encoder. A
decoder, unlike an encoder, must implement all the required
parts of a standard in order to decode a compliant bit stream.
A standard specifies exactly how a decompression
algorithm should restore every bit of a compressed video.
Fig. 6. H.264 encoder was at least three times more efficient than an
MPEG-4 encoder and at least six times more efficient than with Motion
JPEG.
The graph on the above page provides a bit rate
comparison, given the same level of image quality[14],
among the following video standards: Motion JPEG,
MPEG-4 Part 2 (no motion compensation), MPEG-4 Part 2
(with motion compensation) and H.264 (baseline profile) in
Fig. 6.
TABLE III:MPEG Comparison with Pros & Cons
Standards/
Formats
Compression
Factor
Pros
Cons
M-JPEG
1 is to 20
1.
Low CPU utilisation
2.
Clearer images at
lower frame rates,
compared to MPEG-
4
3.
Not sensitive to
motion complexity,
i.e. highly random
motion
1.
Nowhere near as
efficient as MPEG-4
and H.264
2.
Quality deteriorates
for frames with
complex textures,
lines, and curves
MPEG-4
Part 2
1 is to 50
1.
Good for video
streaming and
television
broadcasting
2.
Compatibility with a
variety of digital and
mobile devices
1.
Sensitive to motion
complexity
(compression not as
efficient)
2.
High CPU
utilisation
H.264
1 is to 100
1.
Most efficient
2.
Extremely efficient
for low-motion
video content
1.
Highest CPU
utilisation
2.
Sensitive to motion
complexity
(compression not as
efficient)
Since the H.261/H.263 recommendations are neither
international standards nor offers any compression
enhancements compared to MPEG, they are not of any real
interest. There are two approaches to achieving video
compression, viz. intra-frame and inter-frame. Intra-frame
compression uses the current video frame for compression:
essentially image compression. Inter-frame compression
uses one or more preceding and/or succeeding frames in a
sequence, to compress the contents of the current frame. An
example of intra-frame compression is the Motion JPEG
(M-JPEG) standard [15]. The MPEG-1 (CD, VCD), MPEG-
2 (DVD), MPEG-4, and H.264 standards are examples of
inter-frame compression.
The popular video compression standards in the IP video
surveillance market are M-JPEG, MPEG-4, and H.264are in
Table III.
IV. CONCLUSION
There is a constant improvement in video compression
factors, thanks to new techniques and technology, and some
new formats in the horizon are H.265 and VP8:
1) H.265 is still in the process of being formulated, and
aims to achieve a 25% improvement in the
compression factor while lowering computational
overhead by 50%: for the same perceived video
quality.
2) VP8 is a codec from On2 Technologies (which
recently agreed to be acquired by Google), who claims
that the codec brings bandwidth savings and uses less
data than H.264: to the extent of 40%. There is
currently a fight over the standard to be chosen for
Web video (fuelled by the upcoming HTML5
standard), and VP8 is slugging it out with H.264.
REFERENCES
[1] ITU
-T
and
I
SO
/I
EC
JTC
1, “Generic coding of moving pictures
and
associated
audio
i
nf
ormat
i
on
–
Part
2: Video,”
I
S
O
/
I
E
C
13818-2
(MPEG-2),
1994.
[2] ISO
/I
EC
JTC1/SC29,
“Coding of
Audio-Visual
Objects,”
I
SO
/I
EC
14496-
2,
I
n
t
e
rnat
io
nal
S
t
a
n
dard: 1999/Amd1,
2000.
[3] A. Puri, X. Chen, and A.
Luthra,
“Video Coding Using
t
he
H.264/MPEG-4
AVC
C
o
mpressi
on
Standard,”
Signal
Processing: Image
Communication,
S
ept
e
m
b
er
2004
i
ssue.
[4] ISO
/I
EC
JTC
1, “Advanced video coding,”
I
S
O
/
I
E
C
FDIS
14496-10,
I
n
t
e
rnat
io
nal
S
t
andard,
2003.
[5] M.
Horo
wi
t
z,
A.
Joch,
F.
K
ossen
t
i
n
i
,
and A.
Hallapuro,
“H.264/AVC
Baseline Profile Decoder
C
ompl
exi
t
y
Analysis,”
IEEE
Transactions
on
C
i
rcui
t
s
and Systems for Video
Technology,
vol. 13, no. 7,
pp.
704-716,
2003.
[6] T. Wiegand, G.
J.
Sullivan, G.
B
jo
n
t
e
gaard,
and A.
Luthra,
“Overview of
t
he
H.264/AVC
V
i
deo
C
o
d
i
n
g
Standard,”
IEEE
Transactions
on
C
i
rcui
t
s
and Systems for Video
Technology,
vol.
13,
no. 7,
pp.
560-576, 2003.
[7]
I. E. G. Richardson, H.264 and MPEG-4 Video Compression,
UK Wiley, 2003.
[8]
M. Flierl, T. Wiegand, and B. Girod, “Multihypothesis Pictures
for H.26L,” IEEE ICIP 2001, Greece,2001
[9] M. Flierl and B. Girod,
“Generalized
B
P
ic
t
u
res
and
the
D
raf
t
H.264/AVC
V
i
deo-
C
o
mpressi
on
Standard,”
IEEE
Transactions
on
C
i
rcui
t
s
and Systems for Video
Technology,
vol. 13, no. 7,
pp.
587-597,
2003.
[10] D. Marpe, H. Schwarz, and T.
Wiegand,
“C
on
t
e
xt
-
Based
Adaptive
Binary
A
r
i
t
hmet
ic
Coding in
t
h
e
H.264/AVC
Video
Compression
Standard,”
IEEE
Transactions
on
C
i
rcui
t
s
and
Systems for
Video
Technology,
vol. 13,
no.
7, pp. 620-636,
2003.
[11] Z. Zhou, M. T. Sun, and S. Hsu, “Fast Variable Block-size Motion
Estimation
A
l
gor
i
t
hm
s
Based on
Me
r
ge
and
Spl
i
t
Procedure for
H.264/MPEG-4
AVC,” IEEE ISCAS 2004
C
o
nf
erence.
553
International Journal of Computer and Electrical Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 6, December 2013

[12] Z. Zhou and M. T. Sun, “Fast Macroblock
I
n
t
er
Mode Decision
and Motion
Estimation
f
or
H.264/MPEG-4
AVC,” IEEE ICIP
2004
C
o
nf
erence.
[13] P. Chen and
J.
W. Woods,
“Improved
MC-EZBC
wi
t
h
quarter-
pixel
motion
vectors,”
I
SO
/I
EC
JTC1/SC29/WG11,
MPEG2002/m8366,
2002.
[14] J. Xu, R. Xiong, B. Feng, G. Sullivan, M. Lee, F. Wu, and S. Li, “3D
Sub-band
Video Coding
u
si
ng
Barbell
li
f
t
i
ng,” ISO/IEC
JTC/WG11
M10569.
[15] M. Karczewicz and R.
Kurceren,
“The SP- and SI-Frames Design
for
H.264/AVC,”
IEEE
T
r
an
sact
io
n
s
on
C
i
rcu
i
t
s
and Systems
for Video
Technology,
vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 637-644,
2003.
R. S. Sabeenian is currently working as a professor
in ECE Department in Sona College of Technology,
Salem, Tamil Nadu, and India. He received his
Bachelors in Engineering from Madras University
and his Masters in Engineering in Communication
Systems from Madurai Kamaraj University. He
received his Ph.D. Degree from Anna University,
Chennai in the year 2009 in the area of Digital
Image processing. He is currently heading the
research group named Sona SIPRO (SONA Signal and Image
PROcessing Research Centre) centre located at the Advanced Research
Centre in Sona College of Technology, Salem. He has published more
than 65 research papers in various International, National Journals and
Conferences. He has also published around seven books. He is a
reviewer for the journals of IET, UK and ACTA Press Singapore. He
received the “Best Faculty Award” among Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and
Kerala states for the year 2009 given by the Nehru Group of Institutions,
Coimbatore and the “Best Innovative Project Award” from the Indian
National Academy of Engineering, New Delhi for the year 2009 and
“ISTE Rajarambapu Patil National Award” for Promising Engineering
Teacher for Creative Work done in Technical Education for the year
2010 from ISTE. He has also received a Project Grant from the All India
Council for Technical Education and Tamil Nadu State Council for
Science and Technology, for carrying out research. He received two
“Best Research Paper Awards” from Springer International Conference
and IEEE International Conference in the year 2010.He was also
awarded the IETE Biman Behari Sen Memorial National Award for
outstanding contributions in the emerging areas of Electronics and
Telecommunication with emphasis on R&D for the year 2011.The
Award was given by Institution of Electronics and Telecommunication
Engineers (IETE), New Delhi. He is the Editor of 6 International
Research Journals Research Journal of Information Technology, Asian
Journal of Scientific Research, Journal of Artificial Intelligence,
Singapore Journal of Scientific Research, International Journal of
Manufacturing Systems and ICTACT Journal of Image Processing. He is
also associated with the Image Processing Payload of the PESIT.
S. Ponlatha
is currently working as an associate professor in ECE
Department in AVS Engineering College ,Salem.
She received her
Bachelors in Engineering from Madras University and her Masters in
Engineering in Communication Systems from Anna University
and She is
Pursuing Ph.D.
Degree under Anna University, Chennai in the area of
Digital Image processing.She published papers in International Journals &
Conferences.She is a Member of ISTE, IEEE, IETE.
.
554
International Journal of Computer and Electrical Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 6, December 2013