Perbandingan Codec AVC Dan HEVC Menggunakan Penilaian Subjektif Standar ITU-T P.900

  • Annisa Gatri Zakinah Universitas Amikom Yogyakarta
  • Arief Setyanto Universitas Amikom Yogyakarta
  • Asro Nasiri Universitas Amikom Yogyakarta
https://doi.org/10.34818/INDOJC.2023.8.2.719
Abstract views: 535 , 719 downloads: 113
Keywords: AVC, HEVC, ITU-T P.910, ITU-T P.913

Abstract

Berdasarkan Bitmovin Video Developer Report 2021, pengguna video streaming di Indonesia sebanyak 98,5% dari total populasi 181,9 juta masyarakat Indonesia pada rentang usia 16-64 tahun. Hal ini semakin meningkat karena adanya pandemi Covid-19. Kebutuhan penikmat video akan kualitas video yang baik tanpa adanya degradasi gambar namun dengan ukuran file yang ringan membutuhkan adanya teknologi encoding decoding yang tepat. Dalam video, dikenal teknik pengkodean AVC dan generasi terbarunya adalah HEVC. Walaupun berbagai penelitian membuktikan bahwa teknologi HEVC lebih baik daripada AVC, namun tingkat adopsinya masih cukup rendah. Hal inilah yang mendasari penelitian ini dilakukan menggunakan penilaian subjektif (standar ITU-T P.910 dan ITU-T P.913). Penelitian ini melibatkan 19 responden yang memberikan penilaian dari 9 sampel video yang disediakan dengan format bitrate dan framerate yang berbeda. Hasilnya, kualitas vdeo HEVC sedikit lebih tinggi dibanding AVC kualitas video AVC karena terdapat perbedaan skor yang tipis antara keduanya. Namun demikian, waktu kompresi yang dibutuhkan HEVC lebih lama 21 menit 53 detik dibanding codec video AVC, sehingga hal ini dapat menjadi salah satu faktor tingkat adopsi HEVC masih rendah jika dibandingkan dengan AVC.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] I. Saputra, H. Mukhtar, and J. Al Amien, “Analisis Perbandingan Performa Codec H.264 & H.265 Video Streaming Dari Segi Quality of Service,” Jurnal CoSciTech (Computer Science and Information Technology), vol. 2, no. 1, 2021, doi: 10.37859/coscitech.v2i1.2190.
[2] J. B. A. J. GREEN, YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture Second Edition, vol. 53, no. 9. 2018.
[3] S. Kemp, “DIGITAL 2021 INDONESIA.”
[4] “The biggest challenges Innovation Machine learning & artifi cial intelligence Encoding Video codecs Audio codecs Streaming formats Low latency Live streaming CDN solution Content-aware encoding.” [Online]. Available: www.bitmovin.com
[5] A. Shafira Tubagus, R. Saepul Mahdi, A. Rizal, and A. Suharso, “Analisis Perbandingan Teknik Video Codec H.264/AVC, H.265/HEVC, VP9 dan AV1,” Edumatic: Jurnal Pendidikan Informatika, vol. 5, no. 2, 2021, doi: 10.29408/edumatic.v5i2.3850.
[6] “The biggest challenges Innovation and priorities Artificial intelligence and machine learning Encoding Video codecs Audio codecs Streaming formats Low latency CDN Content-aware encoding Codebase Platform and device support.”
[7] Y. A. Syahbana and M. Akbar, “Pengaruh Frame yang Hilang pada Kualitas Video Konten Head-and-Shoulder dalam Layanan VoD,” 2017. [Online]. Available: http://jurnal.pcr.ac.id
[8] M. Jayaratne, P. Dhananjaya Gunawardhana, and U. Samarathunga, “Comparison of H.264 and H.265,” The Asian Institute of Research Engineering and Technology Quarterly Reviews, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 17–24, 2022, [Online]. Available: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4104336
[9] K. Om, T. McGill, M. Dixon, K. W. Wong, and P. Koutsakis, “H.264 and H.265 video traffic modeling using neural networks,” Comput Commun, vol. 184, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.comcom.2021.12.014.
[10] A. Rizal, A. Suharso, P. Abujabbar, and Munir, “Objective Quality Assessment of Multi-Resolution Video based on H.264/AVC and H.265/HEVC Encoding,” in Proceedings of the 7th Mathematics, Science, and Computer Science Education International Seminar, MSCEIS 2019, European Alliance for Innovation, 2020. doi: 10.4108/eai.12-10-2019.2296550.
[11] F. Fathul ’alam, R. Purnamasari, R. Yunendah, and N. Fuadah, “ANALISIS PERFORMANSI VIDEO ENCODER DAN DECODER (CODEC) HIGH EFFICIENCY VIDEO CODING DAN ADVANCED VIDEO CODING PADA VIDEO DIGITAL PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF VIDEO ENCODER AND DECODER (CODEC) HIGH EFFICENCY VIDEO CODING AND ADVANCED VIDEO CODING OF DIGITAL VIDEO,” 2018.
[12] W. Abdillah, Metode Penelitian Terpadu Sistem Informasi, Pemodelan Teoretis, Pengukuran, dan Pengujian Statis. 2018.
[13] Z. Li, A. Aaron, A. Katsavounidis, Ioannis Moorthy, and M. Manohara, “Toward A Practical Perceptual Video Quality Metric,” Netflix Blog, 2016.
[14] A. Haryadi and Y. Suyanto, “264 Menggunakan Metode Prediksi Temporal Article in IJEIS (Indonesian Journal of Electronics and Instrumentation Systems),” 2012, doi: 10.22146/ijeis.2435.
Published
2023-08-30
How to Cite
Annisa Gatri Zakinah, Arief Setyanto, & Asro Nasiri. (2023). Perbandingan Codec AVC Dan HEVC Menggunakan Penilaian Subjektif Standar ITU-T P.900. Indonesia Journal on Computing (Indo-JC), 8(2), 9-22. https://doi.org/10.34818/INDOJC.2023.8.2.719
Issue
Vol. 8 No. 2 (2023): August, 2023
Section
Computer Science

Copyright (c) 2023 Annisa Gatri

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

  • Manuscript submitted to IndoJC has to be an original work of the author(s), contains no element of plagiarism, and has never been published or is not being considered for publication in other journals. 
  • Copyright on any article is retained by the author(s). Regarding copyright transfers please see below.
  • Authors grant IndoJC a license to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher.
  • Authors grant IndoJC commercial rights to produce hardcopy volumes of the journal for sale to libraries and individuals.
  • Authors grant any third party the right to use the article freely as long as its original authors and citation details are identified.
  • The article and any associated published material is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0License