Comparison of video

codecs

Α 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
The following characteristics are
compared in video codecs comparisons:

Video quality per bitrate (or range of

bitrates). 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.
General software characteristics – for
example:
 Manufacturer
Supported OS (Linux, macOS,
Windows)
Version number
Date of release
Type of license (commercial, free,
open source)
Supported interfaces (VfW,
DirectShow, etc.)
Price (value for money, volume
discounts, etc.)

Video quality
The quality the codec can achieve is
heavily based on the compression format
the codec uses. A codec is not a format,
and there may be multiple codecs that
implement the same compression
specification – for example, MPEG-1
codecs typically do not achieve
quality/size ratio comparable to codecs
that implement the more modern H.264
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 may
sometimes select sequences known to
favor a particular codec or style of rate-
control in reviews.

Objective video quality

Objective video evaluation techniques are

mathematical models that seek to predict
human judgments of picture quality, as
often exemplified by the results of
subjective quality assessment
experiments. 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

This is concerned with how video is

perceived by a viewer, and designates their
opinion on a particular video sequence.
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.500-13 and ITU-T
Recommendation P.910 .

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 stated as, or accompanied by, a
given confidence interval. Additional
procedures can be used for averaging. For
example, experts whose opinions are
considered unstable (such as if their
correlation with average opinion is found
to be low) may have their opinions
rejected.

In the 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 — deblocking and
deringing maintain PSNR, but increase
quality; graining (suggested in H.264)
essentially increases video quality,
especially on big plasma screens, but
decreases PSNR. 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 — those
sequences that are similar to the ones
used by developers to tune their codecs
are more competitive.

Performance comparison
Speed comparison

Number of frames per second (FPS)

commonly used for
compression/decompression speed
measurement.

The following issues should be considered

when estimating probable codec
performance differences:

Decompression (sometimes
compression) frame time uniformity –
Big differences in this value can cause
annoyingly jerky playback.
SIMD support by processor and codec
— E.g., MMX, SSE, SSE2, each of which
change CPU performance on some
kinds of tasks (often including those
with which codecs are concerned).
Multi-threading support by processor
and codec – Sometimes turning on
Hyper-threading support (if available on
a particular CPU) causes codec speed
to decrease)
RAM speed – generally important for
most codec implementations
Processor cache size – low values
sometimes cause serious speed
degradation, e.g. for CPUs with low
cache such as several of the Intel
Celeron series.
GPU usage by codec — some codecs
can drastically increase their
 performance by taking advantage of
GPU resources.

So, for example, codec A (being optimized

for memory usage – i.e., uses less
memory) may, on modern computers
(which are typically not memory-limited),
give slower performance than codec B.
Meanwhile, the same pair of codecs may
give opposite results if running on an older
computer with reduced memory (or cache)
resources.

Profiles support

Modern standards define a wide range of

features and require very substantial
software or hardware efforts and
resources for their implementation. Only
selected profiles of a standard are typically
supported in any particular product. (This
is very common for H.264
implementations for example.)

The H.264 standard includes the following

seven sets of capabilities, which are
referred to as profiles, targeting specific
classes of applications:

Baseline Profile (BP): Primarily for

lower-cost applications with limited
computing resources, this profile is used
widely in videoconferencing and mobile
applications.
Main Profile (MP): Originally intended as
the mainstream consumer profile for
broadcast and storage applications, the
importance of this profile faded when
the High profile (HiP) was developed for
those applications.
Extended Profile (XP): Intended as the
streaming video profile, this profile has
relatively high compression capability
and some extra tricks for robustness to
data losses and server stream
switching.
High Profile (HiP): The primary profile
for broadcast and disc storage
applications, particularly for high-
definition television applications. (This
is the profile adopted into HD DVD and
Blu-ray Disc, for example.)
High 10 Profile (Hi10P): Going beyond
today's mainstream consumer product
capabilities, this profile builds on top of
the High Profile, adding support for up to
10 bits per sample of decoded picture
precision.
High 4:2:2 Profile (Hi422P): Primarily
targeting professional applications that
use interlaced video, this profile builds
on top of the High 10 Profile, adding
support for the 4:2:2 chroma sampling
format while using up to 10 bits per
sample of decoded picture precision.
High 4:4:4 Predictive Profile (Hi444PP):
This profile builds on top of the High
4:2:2 Profile, supporting up to 4:4:4
chroma sampling, up to 14 bits per
sample, and additionally supporting
efficient lossless region coding and the
coding of each picture as three separate
color planes.
Multiview High Profile: This profile
supports two or more views using both
inter-picture (temporal) and MVC inter-
 view prediction, but does not support
field pictures and macroblock-adaptive
frame-field coding.

The standard also contains four additional

all-Intra profiles, which are defined as
simple subsets of other corresponding
profiles. These are mostly for professional
(e.g., camera and editing system)
applications:

High 10 Intra Profile: The High 10

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.e., not
supporting 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

Videocodecs' rate control strategies can

be classified as:

Variable bitrate (VBR) and

Constant bitrate (CBR).

Variable bitrate (VBR) is a strategy to

maximize the visual video quality and
minimize the bitrate. 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 – e.g. in
videoconferencing delivered on channels
of fixed bandwidth – a constant bitrate
(CBR) must be used.

CBR is commonly used for

videoconferences, satellite and cable
broadcasting. VBR is commonly used for
video CD/DVD creation and video in
programs.
Software characteristics
Codecs list
General video codec information — creator/company, license/price, etc.

First
Patented
public Latest stable Compress
Codec Creator/Maintainer License compression
release version method
formats
date

Patented,
libtheora 2002- BSD-
Xiph.org 1.1.1 (2009)[1] but freely lossy
(Theora) 09-25 style[2]
licensed[*]

MPL 1.1,
dirac-
BBC Research 2008- GNU GPL
research 1.0.2 (2009)[3] none lossy/lossl
Department 09-17 2, GNU
(Dirac)
LGPL 2.1

MPL 1.1,
GNU GPL
Schrödinger 2008- 1.0.11 2, GNU
David Schleef none lossy/lossl
(Dirac) 02-22 (2012)[3] LGPL 2,
MIT
License

MPEG-4
x264 x264 team 2003 2638(2015)[4] GNU GPL lossy/lossl
AVC/H.264

x265 x265 team 2013 2.4+9(2017)[5] GNU GPL HEVC/H.265 lossy/lossl

Xvid Xvid team 2001 1.3.5 (2017)[6] GNU GPL MPEG-4 ASP lossy

MPEG-1,
MPEG-2,
MPEG-4 ASP,
H.261,
H.263, VC-3,
FFmpeg 3.4.0 (2017
FFmpeg team 2000 GNU LGPL WMV7, lossy/lossl
(libavcodec) Oct 15)[7]
WMV8,
MJPEG, MS-
MPEG-4v3,
DV, Sorenson
codec etc.
 FFavs FFavs team 2009 0.0.3[8] GNU LGPL MPEG-1, lossy/lossl
(libavcodec) MPEG-2,
MPEG-4 ASP
etc.

Forbidden 2006-
Blackbird 2 Proprietary Blackbird lossy
Technologies plc 01

DivX Plus MPEG-4

DivX DivX, Inc. 2001 Proprietary lossy
(2010)[9] ASP, H.264

Microsoft's
a hack of
3.20 alpha[13] MPEG-4v3
DivX ;-) Microsoft's MPEG- 1998 Proprietary lossy
(2000) (not MPEG-4
4v3 codec[11][12]
compliant)

3ivx Technologies 5.0.5

3ivx 2001 Proprietary MPEG-4 ASP lossy
Pty. Ltd. (2012)[14]

MPEG-4
Nero Digital Nero AG 2003 Unknown Proprietary ASP, lossy
H.264[15]

ProRes 422 /
Apple Inc. 2007 Proprietary Unknown lossy
ProRes 4444

Sorenson Sorenson
Sorenson Media 1998 Proprietary lossy
Video Video

Sorenson Sorenson
Sorenson Media 2002 Proprietary lossy
Spark Spark

Patented,
BSD-
VP3 On2 Technologies 2000 but freely lossy
style[2]
licensed[*]

VP4 On2 Technologies 2001 Proprietary VP4 lossy

VP5 On2 Technologies 2002 Proprietary VP5 lossy

VP6 On2 Technologies 2003 Proprietary VP6 lossy

VP7 On2 Technologies 2005 Proprietary VP7 lossy

libvpx (VP8) On2 Technologies 2008 1.1.0 (2012) BSD-style Patented, lossy
(now owned by but freely
Google) licensed
 Patented,
libvpx (VP9) Google 2013 BSD-style but freely lossy/lossl
licensed

DNxHD Avid Technology 2004 Proprietary VC-3 lossy

Custom
Cinema Craft 1.00.01.09 MPEG-1,
Technology 2000 Proprietary lossy
Encoder SP2 (2009)[16] MPEG-2
Corporation

TMPGEnc 2.525.64.184 MPEG-1,

Pegasys Inc. 2001 Proprietary lossy
Free Version (2008)[17] MPEG-2

WMV, VC-1,
(in early
versions
Windows 9 (2003) MPEG-4 Part
Media Microsoft 1999 (WMV3 in Proprietary 2 and not lossy
Encoder FourCC) MPEG-4
compliant
MPEG-4v3,
MPEG-4v2)

Created by
SuperMac, Inc.

Currently
1.10.0.26
Cinepak maintained by 1991 Proprietary Unknown lossy
(1999)
Compression
Technologies,
Inc.[18]

Intel Corporation,
Indeo Video currently offered by 1992 5.2 Proprietary Indeo Video lossy
Ligos Corporation

TrueMotion The Duck TrueMotion

1995 Proprietary lossy
S Corporation S

RealVideo H.263,
RealVideo RealNetworks 1997 Proprietary lossy
10[19] RealVideo

Huffyuv Ben Rudiak-Gould 2000 2.1.1 GNU GPL none Lossless

 (2003)[20] 2

2004- 1.3.27 (2011- GNU GPL

Lagarith Ben Greenwood none Lossless
10-04 12-08)[21] 2

MPEG-1,
MPEG-2,
H.264/AVC,
MainConcept
MainConcept 1993 8.8.0 (2011) Proprietary H.263, VC-3, lossy
GmbH
MPEG-4 Part
2, DV,
MJPEG etc.

MPEG-1,
MPEG-2,
Elecard Elecard 2008 G4 (2010)[26] Proprietary lossy
MPEG-4,
AVC

First
Patented
public Latest stable Compress
Codec Creator/Maintainer License compression
release version method
formats
date

The Xiph.Org Foundation has negotiated

an irrevocable free license to Theora
and other VP3-derived codecs for
everyone, for any purpose.[27]

DivX Plus is also known as DivX 8. The

latest stable version for Mac is DivX 7
 for Mac.

Native operating system

support

Note that operating system support does

not mean whether video encoded with the
codec can be played back on the particular
operating system – for example, video
encoded with the DivX codec is playable
on Unix-like systems using free MPEG-4
ASP decoders (FFmpeg MPEG-4 or Xvid),
but the DivX codec (which is a software
product) is only available for Windows and
macOS.
Encoder Operating System Support
Codec macOS other Unix & Unix-like Windows

3ivx Yes Yes Yes

Blackbird Yes Yes Yes

Cinepak Yes No Yes

DivX Yes No Yes

FFmpeg Yes Yes Yes

RealVideo Yes Yes Yes

Schrödinger (Dirac) Yes Yes Yes

Sorenson Video 3 Yes No Yes

Theora Yes Yes Yes

x264 Yes Yes Yes

Xvid Yes Yes Yes

Elecard Yes No Yes

Technical details
 Highest Variable
Compression Basic Highest supported
Codec supported frame
type algorithm resolution
bitrate rate

lossy 384×288 (PAL), 320×240

Blackbird Unknown Unknown Yes
compression (NTSC)

lossy Vector
Cinepak Unknown Unknown Unknown
compression quantization[28]

lossy/lossless Wavelet
Dirac Unlimited[29] Unlimited[29] Yes
compression compression

Sorenson lossy
Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
3 compression

lossy Discrete cosine Via

Theora 2 Gibit/s 1,048,560×1,048,560[30][31]
compression transform chaining[*]

lossy Discrete cosine

RealVideo Unknown Unknown Yes
compression transform

lossy
Elecard Unknown Unlimited 16k Yes
compression

Theora streams with different frame

rates can be chained in the same file,
but each stream has a fixed frame
rate.[30]

Freely available codecs

comparisons
List of freely available comparisons and
their content description:
 List o
Name of Type of Date(s) of
compa
comparison comparison publication
codec

Series of Series of 2002 DivX4.1

Doom9 codec subjective 2003 On2 VP
comparisons comparison XviD 1/
2005
of popular and WM
codecs and
DivX5.0
XviD 3/
and ON
VP4 —
first ver
Dirac,
Elecard
HP,
libavco
MPEG-4
 NeroDig
ASP,
QuickT
Snow,
Theora
VideoS
H.264 H
XviD 1.
2 — in l
one

Series of Series of 2004 2005 (J

MSU annual objective 2005 Mpega
H.264 codecs H.264 Jan. AVC,
comparisons codecs Moonlig
2005
comparisons H.264,
Dec.
with MPEG-4 MainCo
2006
ASP H.264,
Dec.
reference Fraunh
IIS, Ate
2007 MPEG-4
Dec. AVC/H.
2009 Videos
May H.264,
Pro 5.1
2010
(Not 26
Apr.
Used fo
compa
with H.
codecs
well tun
codec f
previou
generat
MPEG-4
ASP)
2005 (D
DivX 6.
(MPEG
ASP
referen
ArcSoft
H.264,
Ateme
H.264,
H.264,
Elecard
H.264,
Fraunh
IIS H.26
VSS H.2
x264
2006: D
6.2.5 (M
4 ASP
referen
MainCo
H.264,
H.264,
H.264,
Apple H
(partial
Sorens
H.264
(partial
2007: X
(MPEG
ASP co
MainCo
H.264,
H.264,
AMD H
Artemis
H.264
2009: X
(MPEG
ASP co
Dicas H
Elecard
H.264,
IPP H.2
MainCo
H.264,
2010: X
(MPEG
ASP co
DivX H.
Elecard
H.264,
MediaS
AVC/H.
MainCo
H.264,
Microso
Express
 Encode
Theora

Series of Two size 2004 2004 (1

Lossless and time Oct. codecs
Video Codecs comparisons 2007 Alpary v
Comparison of lossless Mar. AVIzlib
codecs (with v2.2.3,
lossless CamStu
checking) GZIP v1
CorePN
v0.8.2,
ffdshow
08/08/
GLZW v
HuffYU
v2.1.1,
Lagarit
v1.0.0.1
LEAD J
v1.0.0.1
LOCO v
MindVi
beta 1,
MSUlab
v0.2.4,
MSUlab
v0.5.2,
PicVide
JPEG
v.2.10.0
VBLE b
2007 (1
codecs
Alpary,
ArithYu
AVIzlib,
CamStu
GZIP,
 CorePN
FastCo
FFV1,
Huffyuv
Lagarit
LOCO, L
MSU La
PICVide
Snow, x
YULS

MSU MPEG-4 Objective 2005 DivX 5.2.1

codecs comparison Mar. 4.12, DivX
comparison of MPEG-4 MS MPEG
codecs 3688 v3, X
1.0.3, 3ivx
4.5.1,
OpenDivX
 Scientifically
accurate
Subjective DivX 6.0,
subjective
Comparison 1.1.0, x26
comparison 2006
of Modern WMV 9.0
using 50 Feb.
Video bitrates fo
experts and
Codecs every cod
SAMVIQ
methodology

MPEG-2 Objective 2006 bitcontrol

Video MPEG-2 May. MPEG-2 V
Decoders Decoders Decoder,
Comparison comparison DScaler
MPEG2 V
Decoder,
Elecard M
2 Video
 Decoder,
ffdshow M
4 Video
Decoder
(libavcod
InterVideo
Video Dec
Ligos MP
Video Dec
MainConc
MPEG Vid
Decoder,
Pinnacle
MPEG-2
Decoder

Codecs Personal 2003 3ivx, Avid

comparison subjective Nov. 2.02, Cine
opinion DivX 3.11
4.12, DivX
5.0.2, DV,
Huffyuv, I
3.2, Indeo
Indeo 5.1
Microsoft
MPEG-4 v
Microsoft
MPEG-4 v
Microsoft
Microsoft
Video 1, X
3ivx,
Animation
Blackmag
bit, Blackm
8-bit, Cine
DV, H.261
H.263, Mo
JPEG, MP
 Video, PN
Sorenson
Video,
Sorenson
Video 3

Dirac, Dira
Pro, Theo
Evaluation of H.264, Mo
Scientific 2009
Dirac and JPEG200
paper Mar.
Theora tested co
are from Q
2008)

VP8 versus Objective 2010 VP8, x264

x264 and Jun.
subjective
quality
 comparison
of VP8 and
x264

See also
Comparison of media players
List of video players (software)
List of codecs
Open source codecs and containers
SSIM
MOVIE Index
Comparison of audio coding formats
Comparison of container formats
Comparison of video editing software
Notes and references
1. Xiph.Org Foundation (2009) Theora
development website - news , Retrieved
2009-10-06
2. "Redirect" . Retrieved 22 November
2016.
3. Dirac Video Compression Archived
2008-11-07 at the Wayback Machine.,
Retrieved on 2009-08-08
4. x264 - a free h264/avc encoder ,
Retrieved on 2014-12-28
5. x265 HEVC Encoder , Retrieved on
2015-12-07
6. "Xvid.com" . Retrieved 2015-12-27.
7. FFmpeg.org , Retrieved on 2018-02-10
8. FFavs Archived 2009-12-16 at the
Wayback Machine., Retrieved on 2009-08-
08
9. "DivX, Inc" . DivX, Inc. Retrieved 19 May
2011.
10. "HEVC - DivX Labs" . Retrieved
22 November 2016.
11. VirtualDub VirtualDub documentation:
codecs , Retrieved on 2009-08-08
12. FOURCC.org Video Codecs -
Compressed Formats , Retrieved on 2009-
08-08
13. Tom's Hardware (2001-10-22) A Tough
Choice: DivX 3.20a Codec Still Better Than
DivX 4.01 Codec , Retrieved on 2009-08-08
14. 3ivx , Retrieved on 2014-12-27
15. Nero AG What is Nero Digital ,
Retrieved on 2009-08-08
16. Custom Technology Corporation
CINEMA CRAFT - Download , Retrieved on
2009-08-11
17. Pegasys Inc. What Is New , Retrieved
on 2009-08-11
18. Compression Technologies, Inc. ,
current maintainer of Cinepak
19. RealNetworks Products - Codecs
Archived 2004-08-04 at the Wayback
Machine., Retrieved on 2018-02-10
20. Huffyuv v2.1.1 , Retrieved on 2009-08-
09
21. Lagarith Lossless Video Codec ,
Retrieved on 2018-02-10
22. GmbH, MainConcept. "SDKs - Software
Development Kits: MainConcept" .
Retrieved 22 November 2016.
23. [1]
24. GmbH, MainConcept. "SDKs - Software
Development Kits: MainConcept" .
Retrieved 22 November 2016.
25. GmbH, MainConcept. "SDKs - Adobe
Plugins - Transcoding Software -
MainConcept Products: MainConcept" .
Retrieved 22 November 2016.
26. "Elecard Group - Codec SDK G4 - h.264
codec, Codec SDK, software development
kit, mpeg2 decoder, mpeg-2 decoder, avc
codec, MPEG Decoder, MPEG Encoder,
MPEG Multiplexer, MPEG Audio Decoder,
Graph Viewer, AVC Encoder, AAC Decoder,
AAC encoder, mpeg-4, API, sample
application, source code" . Retrieved
10 February 2018.
27. Theora.org FAQ: isn't VP3 a patented
technology?
28. Technical description of the Cinepak
codec Archived 2007-02-05 at the
Wayback Machine.
29. Frame rate, resolution, etc. are coded
as variable length data.
30. "Theora format specification"
(PDF). (827 KB)

31. Requires about 3 terabytes per

uncompressed frame at maximum
resolution (pg 37, Theora I Specification.
March 7, 2006)

External links
Laboratory for Image and Video
Engineering (LIVE)
MSU Subjective Comparison of Modern
Video Codecs
Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Comparison_of_video_codecs&oldid=833277
613"

Last edited 3 months ago by Mike …

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.