EE 5359

FALL 2010

MULTIMEDIA PROCESSING
PROJECT REPORT

Performance Analysis and Comparison of H.264 Intraframe coding, JPEG, JPEG-LS, JPEG-2000, JPEG-XR and AVS China Intraframe
INSTRUCTOR: DR. K. R. RAO

Shreyanka Subbarayappa Department of Electrical Engineering University of Texas at Arlington Email: shreyanka.subbarayappa@mavs.uta.edu
Page 1

AIC AVC AVS BMP

advanced image coding advanced video coding audio video standard bit map format

List of acronyms

CABAC DCT

context adaptive binary arithmetic coding

discrete cosine transform

DWT discrete wavelet transform EBCOT embedded block coding with optimized truncation

EZW embedded zero-tree wavelet coding FRExt fidelity range extensions HD-photo I-frame IP JM high-definition photo intra frame intra prediction joint model

JPEG joint photographic experts group JPEG-LS JPEG-XR LBT MSE PGM joint photographic experts group lossless coding joint photographic experts group extended range

lapped bi-orthogonal transform mean square error portable graymap

PPM portable pixel map PSNR peak signal to noise ratio SSIM structural similarity index metric VLC variable length coding

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2

1: Different prediction modes used for prediction in AIC and H.264 2: The specific coding parts of the profiles in H.264 3: Basic coding structure for H.264/AVC for a macroblock 4: Block diagram for CABAC 5(a): Zig-zag scan 5(b): Scan line order 6(a): Block diagram of JPEG encoder 6(b): Block diagram of JPEG decoder 7: Structure of JPEG 2000 codec. The structure of the (a) encoder (b) decoder 8: Tiling, DC level shifting, color transformation, DWT of each image component 9: JPEG-LS block diagram 10: Test sequences used 11: Structural similarity (SSIM) measurement system 12: Original and output decoded images LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Different parts of AVS 2: Different test sequences used

Performance Analysis and Comparison of H.264 Intraframe coding, JPEG, JPEG-LS, JPEG-2000, JPEG-XR and AVS China Intraframe
Page 3

Abtract: It is proposed to implement the H.264 intraframe coding using JM software [11] and compare the results with other image compression techniques like JPEG, JPEG2000, JPEG-LS, JPEG-XR and AVS China Part7. Coding simulations will be performed on various sets of test images. Experimental results are to be measured in terms of bit-rate, quality- PSNR, SSIM etc. This project considers only main and (FRExt) high profiles in H.264/AVC I-frame coding, JPEG using baseline profile, JPEG 2000 in non-scalable, but optimal mode and AVS China part 7. Introduction: H.264 technology aims to provide good video quality at considerably low bit rates, at reasonable level of complexity while providing flexibility to wide range of applications [2]. Coding efficiency is further improved in fidelity range extensions (FRExt) using 8x8 integer transform and works well for more complex visual content. JPEG [5] is first still image compression standard which uses 8x8 block based DCT decomposition, while JPEG 2000 is a wavelet-based compression standard which has improved coding performance over JPEG with additional features like scalability and lossless coding capability has best performance with smooth spatial data [4]. JPEG performs well in low complexity applications whereas JPEG 2000 works well in high complexity, lower bit-rate applications. JPEG2000 has rate-distortion advantage over JPEG. Microsoft HD photo [10] is a new still-image compression algorithm for continuous-tone photographic images which maintains highest image quality or delivers the most optimal performance. JPEG-XR [10] (extended range), a standard for HD-photo has high dynamic-range image coding and performance as the most desirable feature. Its performance is close to JPEG2000 with computational and memory requirement close to JPEG. With half the file size of JPEG, HD photo delivers lossy compressed image with better perceptual quality than JPEG and lossless compressed image at 2.5 times smaller than the original image. JPEG-LS [30] (lossless) is an ISO/ITU-T standard for lossless coding of still images. In addition, it also provides support for "near-lossless" compression. The main goal of JPEG-LS has been to deliver a low complexity solution for lossless image coding with the best possible compression efficiency. JPEG uses Huffman coding, H.264/AVC and AIC systems adopts CABAC encoding technique, and HD photo uses reversible integer-integer-mapping lapped bi-orthogonal transform [7]. LOCO-I (low complexity lossless compression for images), an algorithm for JPEG-LS uses adaptive prediction, context modeling and Golomb coding [3]. It supports near lossless compression by allowing a fixed maximum sample error. Transcoding converts H.263 compression format to that of H.264 and viceversa. Although the above mentioned compression techniques are developed for different signals, they work well for still image compression and hence worthwhile for comparison. Different softwares like JM software for H.264 [11], JPEG reference software [7] for JPEG, JasPer [8] for JPEG2000, HD-photo reference software [10], JPEG-LS reference software [9] and AVS Part7 software [28] are used for comparison between different codecs. The evaluation is carried out using bit rates, different quality assessment metrics like PSNR, SSIM [23] and complexity. H.264 standard: H.264 or MPEG-4 part 10 aims at coding video sequences at approximately half the bit rate compared to MPEG-2 at the same quality. It also aims at having significant improvements Page 4

in coding efficiency using CABAC entropy coder, error robustness and network friendliness. Parameter set concept, arbitrary slice ordering, flexible macroblock structure, redundant pictures, switched predictive and switched intra pictures have contributed to error resilience / robustness of this standard. Adaptive (directional) intra prediction (Fig.1) is one of the factors which contributed to the high coding efficiency of this standard [2]. Different modes used for block prediction are shown in Fig.1 .

Mode 0: Vertical

Mode 1: Horizontal

Mode 2: DC

Mode 3: Diagonal Down- Left

Mode 4: Diagonal Down- Right

Page 5

Mode 5: Vertical-Right

Mode 6: Horizontal-Down

Mode 7: Vertical-Left

Mode 8: Horizontal-Up

Fig.1: Different prediction modes used for prediction in AIC and H.264 [1]

H hP ig rofiles E xten edP file d ro A ap e tran d tiv sformblo size ck Q an u tizatio scalin m n g atrices M P ain rofile D p ata artitio n Bslice S slice I S slice P W h p ictio eig ted red n I slice P slice C VC A L A itrary slice o rb rder F ible m b lex acro lock o er rd R u dan slice ed n t B aselin P file e ro C B C AA

Fig.2: The specific coding parts of the profiles in H.264 [2] Each profile specifies a subset of entire bitstream of syntax and limits that shall be supported by all decoders conforming to that profile. There are three profiles in the first version: baseline, main, and extended. Main profile is designed for digital storage media and television broadcasting. H.264 main profile which is the subset of high profile was designed with compression coding efficiency as its main target. Fidelity range extensions Page 6

[3] provide a major breakthrough with regard to compression efficiency. The profiles are shown in Fig.2. There are four High profiles defined in the fidelity range extensions: High, High 10, High 4:2:2, and High 4:4:4. High profile is to support the 8-bit video with 4:2:0 sampling for applications using high resolution. High 10 profile is to support the 4:2:0 sampling with up to 10 bits of representation accuracy per sample. High 4:2:2 profile supports up to 10 bits per sample. High 4:4:4 profile supports up to 4:4:4 chroma sampling up to 12 bits per sample thereby supporting efficient lossless region coding [2]. The basic coding structure for H.264/AVC for a macroblock is shown in Fig.3. H.264/AVC FRExt High Profile Intra-Frame Coding: Main feature in FRExt that improves coding efficiency is the 8x8 integer transform- and all the coding methods as well as prediction modes associated with adaptive selection between 4x4 and 8x8 integer transforms. Other features include higher resolution for color representation such as YUV 4:2:2 and YUV 4:4:4 addition of 8x8 block size is a key factor in very high resolution, high bit rates achieve very high fidelity even for selective lossless representation of video

Fig.3: Basic coding structure for H.264/AVC for a macroblock [2]. Context-based Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding (CABAC): CABAC utilizes the arithmetic coding, also in order to achieve good compression. The CABAC encoding process, shown in Fig.4, consists of three elementary steps.

Page 7

Fig.4: Block diagram for CABAC [30] step 1 : binarization Mapping non binary symbols into binary sequence before given to arithmetic coder. step 2 : context modeling It is a probability model for defining one or more elements based on previously encoded syntax elements. step 3 : binary arithmetic coding Encodes elements based on selected probability model. JPEG: JPEG is the first ISO/ITU-T standard for continuous tone still images [20]. It allows lossy and lossless coding of still images. JPEG gives good compression results for lossy compression with the least complexity. There are several modes defined for JPEG including baseline, progressive and hierarchical. The baseline mode, which supports lossy compression alone, is most popular. Average compression ratio of 15:1 is achieved using lossy coding with the help of DCT-block based compression. Lossless coding is made possible with predictive coding compression techniques which include differential coding, run length coding and Huffman coding. JPEG employs non-uniform quantization with HVS weighting. Zig-zag scanning is performed on quantized coefficients since it allows entropy coding to be performed in the order from low frequency to high frequency components as shown in Fig.5(a) and Fig.5(b) [20].

Fig.5(a): Zig-zag scan [31]

Fig.5(b): Scan line order [31]

The process flow of JPEG baseline (lossy) algorithm is shown in the Fig.6. Page 8

(a)

(b) Fig.6(a): Block diagram of JPEG encoder (b): Block diagram of JPEG decoder [5] The process flow starts with the color conversion for color images followed by 8x8 block based DCT (process flow starts here for gray scale images), quantization, zig-zag ordering, and entropy coding using Huffman tables in the encoding process and vice versa for decoding process. Different quantization matrices are used for luminance and chrominance components. Quality factor Q is set using quantization tables and different kinds of artifacts in varied ranges are observed .

JPEG2000 JPEG 2000 [4] is image compression standard which supports lossy and lossless compression of gray scale or color images. In addition to the compression capability, JPEG 2000 supports excellent low bit rate performance without sacrificing the performance at high bit rate, region of interest coding, EBCOT (Embedded Block Coding with Optimized Truncation) which overcomes the limitations of EZW (embedded zero-tree wavelet coding) which are random access to specific regions of the image, error resilience. It also supports flexible file format and progressive decoding of the image to allow from lossless to lossy by fidelity and resolution. It is a transform based framework, uses wavelet based decomposition. Wavelet transform has 3dB improvement over DCT based compression . Lossless compression is the result of transform, entropy coding. Consider non-scalable, single layer mode since scalability feature leads to adverse effect on rate-distortion performance. Also we disable tiling mode because it also lowers rate-distortion performance. Tiling allows the image be partitioned into non-overlapped rectangular tiles Page 9

to be encoded independently. The encoder and decoder of JPEG 2000 is shown in Fig.7. The tiling, DC level shifting, color transformation, DWT of each image component is shown in Fig.8.

Fig.7: Structure of JPEG 2000 codec. The structure of the (a) encoder (b) decoder [4]

Fig.8: Tiling, DC level shifting, color transformation, DWT of each image component [4]

JPEG XR JPEG XR [32], a coded file format is designed mainly for storage of continuoustone photographic content. It supports wide range of color formats including n-channel encodings using fixed and floating point numerical representations, bit depth varieties giving a way for wide range of data compression scenarios. The ultimate goal is to support wide range of color encodings, maintain forward compatibility with existing formats and keep device implementation simple. It also aims at providing same algorithm for lossless as well as lossy compression. HD photo format [32] is a new file format standardized using JPEG-XR. Just like JPEG-2000, Microsoft HD photo works on advanced features like lossy-lossless compression, bit-rate scalability, editing, region-of-interest decoding, integer implementation without division etc. on top of compression capability. HD photo minimizes objectionable spatial artifacts preserving high frequency detail and outperforms other lossy compression technologies in this regard. Page 10

HD photo is a block-based image coder similar to traditional image-coding paradigm: color conversion, transform, coefficient scanning, scalar quantization and entropy coding. Main blocks of HD photo include transformation stage and the coefficientencoding stage. HD photo employs a reversible integer-to-integer-mapping lapped biorthogonal transform (LBT) as its decorrelation engine. The reversible property of the algorithm supports both lossy and lossless compression. Thus, it simplifies the overall implementation of the system. HD photos encoder contains many adaptive elements: adaptive coefficient scanning, flexible quantization, inter-block coefficient prediction, adaptive VLC table switching, etc. JPEG XR supports a number of advanced pixel formats in order to avoid limitations and complexities of conversions between different unsigned integer representations. This feature allows flexible approach to numerical encoding of image data. This results in low- complexity implementations in the encoder and decoder. JPEG-LS Hewlett Packard proposed a simpler predictive coder for low complexity [18]. LOCO-I (LOw COmplexity LOssless COmpression for Images) is a lossless compression algorithm for continuous-tone images which combines the simplicity of Huffman coding with the compression potential of context models. Lossless image compression schemes often consist of two distinct and independent components: modeling and coding. The modeling part can be formulated as an inductive inference problem, in which an image is observed pixel by pixel in some pre-defined order (e.g. raster-scan). The block diagram of JPEG-LS is shown in Fig.9.

Fig.9: JPEG-LS encoder block diagram [14] AVS CHINA Part7 Intra Frame [26]: AVS (Audio-video coding standard) is the digital video codec standard developed by China on a need to reduce the royalty fees paid by the Chinese people for using other international video coding standards like MPEG-2, MPEG-4 and MPEG-4 part 10 (H.264) . The three main characteristics of AVS China are that, it is technically an advanced second generation source coding standard and is totally controlled and formulated by China. At present AVS China is being used in IP television wherein TV programs are transmitted over the IP Page 11

protocols and is also being tested for Chinese mobile multimedia broadcasting. AVS China primarily aims at providing high definition and high quality video services. Since the basic syntax structure of AVS China is very similar to that of MPEG-2 standard it can be easily used in the present widely used MPEG-2 systems except for the fact that it has a higher coding efficiency. This refers that AVS China is compatible with the existing MPEG-2 systems and has an architecture model very similar to that of H.264 codec. AVS China has a coding efficiency similar to that of H.264 except that it has lower computational complexity. AVS China has been divided into various parts and thus dividing the AVS China architecture into various sub fields. The different parts of AVS China are as shown in Table1.

Table1: Different parts of AVS [25]

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CODECS: The main difference between the H.264, JPEG, JPEG2000, JPEG-LS and JPEGXR codecs is at the transformation stage. JPEG2000 decorrelates image data via the global discrete wavelet transform (DWT) or the more general decomposition of wavelet packet while H.264 and HD Photo choose the block-based coding framework with the same 16x16 macro-block size and a core 4x4 block transform that is very similar to the discrete cosine transform (DCT), JPEG use discrete cosine transform (DCT) to de-correlate the image. The major difference between H.264s and HD Photos transformation stage is the way the two coders handle inter-block decorrelation. While H.264 relies heavily on adaptive spatial prediction of the current block from its neighbors, HD Photo employs an overlap operator which performs preprocessing of pixels along the block boundaries before feeding them into the core DCT-like 4x4 block transform. Equivalently, the combination of the overlap operator and the core block transform generates a lapped transform. Similar to JPEG2000, the entire transform step of HD Photo is constructed with dyadic-rational lifting steps such that it maps integers to integers with perfect reversibility, allowing a unifying lossless to Page 12

lossy coding framework. On the contrary, H.264 and AVS China achieve lossless compression from residue coding. Another obvious difference is at the entropy coding stage where each coder tunes its context-based adaptive model to take advantage of the specific behavior of its transform coefficients and/or parameters. H.264/AVC employs intra prediction in spatial domain. AVS China follows the same technique. This avoids propagating the error due to the motion compensation in inter-coded macro-blocks. On the other hand, all the previous video coding standards like H.263 and MPEG-4 visual use intra prediction in transform domain. LOCO-I significantly outperforms other one-pass schemes (of comparable complexity (e.g. JPEG-Huffman), and it attains compression ratios similar or superior to those of higher complexity schemes based on arithmetic coding (e.g. JPEGArithmetic). The complexity of JPEG2000 is relatively high, compared with JPEG and JPEG-LS. Evaluation Methodology: Test Images Used: Image name Lena.bmp Baboon.bmp Barbara.bmp Lighthouse.bmp Vegetables.bmp Resolution 512x512x24 512x512x24 640x512x24 512x640x24 512x512x24 Size (bytes) 786,486 786,486 983,094 983,094 768,050 Description Classical test image. Smooth color changes, borders. Color image with lots of details and contains a great variation of color and a large amount of texture Color image with many stripes and basic human face and skin Color image with many details like fence, natural sky and hand-rail on top of the lighthouse. Color image with sudden change in color.

Table2: Different test sequences used

Page 13

Fig.10: Test sequences used Codec Settings: In the coding experiments, publicly available software implementations are used for H.264/AVC, JPEG2000, HD photo, JPEG-LS and AVS China. The latest release of the reference software (JM 17.2) [11] is used for H.264/AVC encoder, and each frame of the test sequences is coded in the Iframe mode. For JPEG, JPEG baseline reference software [7] is used. In JPEG, it is used to code each frame to reach the target quality factor to indirectly control bit rate for lossy coding. For JPEG 2000 coding, M.D. Adams JasPer (version 1.900.1) software [8] is used. This software is written in C programming language. This software can handle image data in many formats like PGM/PPM, windows BMP, but it does not accept all the BMP files. In JPEG 2000, it is used to code each frame to reach target rate specification in terms of compression factors, which is well defined for multicomponent images. Table1 shows the different test sequences used with their resolutions, size in bytes and the description on the image. Fig.10 shows the different test images used. H.264 INTRAFRAME: The configuration of the H.264/AVC JM17.2 encoder [11] is chosen as follows: H.264/AVC JM17.2 configuration for YUV 4:2:0 one frame video formats: ProfileIDC = 100 # Profile IDC (77=main, FRExt Profiles: 100=High) LevelIDC = 40 # Level IDC (e.g. 20 = level 2.0) Page 14

IntraProfile = 1 # Activate Intra Profile for FRExt (0: false, 1: true) Deblocking filter = OFF YUVFormat = 1 # YUV format (0=4:0:0, 1=4:2:0, 2=4:2:2, 3=4:4:4) QPISlice = 28 # Quant. param for I Slices, varied from 0 to 51

H.264/AVC JM17.2 configuration for YUV 4:2:2 one frame video formats: ProfileIDC = 122 # Profile IDC (77=main, FREXT Profiles: 122=High 4:2:2) LevelIDC = 40 # Level IDC (e.g. 20 = level 2.0) IntraProfile = 1 # Activate Intra Profile for FRExt (0: false, 1: true) Deblocking filter=OFF YUVFormat = 2 # YUV format (0=4:0:0, 1=4:2:0, 2=4:2:2, 3=4:4:4) QPISlice = 28 # Varied from 0 to 51 JPEG- XR: For Microsoft HD Photo [10], all options are set to their default values with the only control coming from the quality factor setting: No tiling One-level of overlap in the transformation stage No color space sub-sampling Spatial bit-stream order All sub-bands are included without any skipping. JPEG2000: For JPEG2000, M.D. Adams JasPer (version 1.900.1) software [8] is used with default configuration. Quantization value q (0.01 to 1.0) is varied to get different compression ratios and quality levels. Encoder: jasper --input inputfilename.bmp --output outputfilename.jp2 output-format jp2 O rate=0.01 JPEG-LS: HP LOCO-I [9] software is used for JPEG-LS encoding and decoding with all default parameters. Error value e is varied from 1-60 (low quality) to get different compressed images. Images should be in ppm or pgm format. Line interleaved mode is considered in the project. Error value is varied from 1 to 60. Error value of zero corresponds to no compression. T1, T2, T3 are thresholds. While giving the settings the following condition needs to be met. Error value+1<T1<T2<T3. Default RESET value of 64 is considered in the project Page 15

JPEG-XR: The JPEG-XR results were obtained by the HD Photo Device Porting Kit version 1.0 available at [10]. The default parameters settings of the HD Photo encoder/decoder modules were used to encode each original RGB image with 24 bits per pixels. The quality parameter (q) was varied between 2 and 255 (lossy coding). wmpdecapp i input.wdp o output.bmp c 0 where c denotes format, c 0 for 24bppBGR, c-2 for 8bppGray JPEG: JPEG baseline reference software [7] is used. Encoder: cjpeg quality N inputfile.bmp outputfile.jpg where quality factor N denotes the scale quantization tables to adjust image quality. Quality factor varies from 1 (worst) to 99 (best); default is 50. Decoder: djpeg outfile outputfilename.bmp outputfileformat inputfile.jpg

SUBJECTIVE VS. OBJECTIVE IMAGE QUALITY MEASURES: Lossless and lossy compression use different methods to evaluate compression quality. Standard criteria like compression ratio, execution time, etc are used to evaluate the compression in lossless case, which is a simple task whereas in lossy compression, it is complex in the sense, it should evaluate both the type and amount of degradation induced in the reconstructed image [24] .The goal of image quality assessment is to accurately measure the difference between the original and reconstructed images, the result thus obtained is used to design optimal image codecs. The objective quality measure like PSNR, measures the difference between the individual image pixels of original and reconstructed images. The SSIM [24] is designed to improve on traditional metrics like PSNR and MSE (which have proved to be inconsistent with human visual perception) and is highly adapted for extracting structural information. The SSIM index is a full reference metric, in other words, the measure event of image quality is based on an initial uncompressed or distortion free image as reference. The SSIM measurement system is shown in Fig. 11.

Page 16

Fig.11: Structural similarity (SSIM) measurement system [25] l (x, y ) = 2 x y + C1 , c (x, y ) = 2 x y + C2 , s (x, y ) =

+ + C1
2 x 2 y

+ + C2
2 x 2 y

xy + C3 , x y + C3

where x and y correspond to two different signals that we would like to match, i.e. 2 two different blocks in two separate images, x , x , and xy the mean of x , the variance of x , and the covariance of x and y respectively, while C1, C2, and C3 are constants given by C1 = ( K 1 L ) 2 , C 2 = ( K 2 L ) 2 , and C 3 = C 2 / 2 . L is the dynamic range for the sample data, i.e. L=255 for 8 bit content and K1<<1 and K2<<1 are two scalar constants. Given the above measures the structural similarity can be computed as SSIM (x, y ) = [ l (x, y )] [ c (x, y )] [ s(x, y )]

Where , and define the different importance given to each measure. TYPICAL ARTIFACTS ARE: Blocking effect is due to block-based DCT coding schemes. So it can be observed in JPEG, HD-photo Blurring effect result from wavelet based encoders. JPEG 2000 suffers from this kind of artifact. Ringing- result of quantization. Occurs in both luminance and chrominance components Almost all codecs employ quantization. So it can be an important factor. Color bleeding- due to chroma sub-sampling [33]. Page 17

In AIC, color bleeding can be neglected as it does not employ sub-sampling. All other codecs have this artifact. Standard distortion metrics can be used for transcoding, rate-distortion control and quality requirement for new standards. PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND ANALYSIS: In this section, the results of various still image coding techniques are plotted and analyzed. For JPEG2000, JPEG-LS, JPEG-XR, JPEG, H.264/AVC Intra frame and AIC, quality (PSNR) versus bit per pixel and SSIM versus bit per pixel is plotted for all range of compression. Bits per pixel for all original images is 24bpp. The original and output decoded images are shown in Fig.12.

Fig.12: Original and output decoded images LENA: Graph 1: PSNR Vs Bits per pixel plot for Lena Image

Page 18

Graph 2: SSIM Vs Bits per pixel plot for Lena Image

BARBARA:

Graph 3: PSNR Vs Bits per pixel plot for Barbara Image Page 19

Graph 4: SSIM Vs Bits per pixel plot for Barbara Image

BABOON:

Graph 5: PSNR Vs Bits per pixel plot for Baboon Image Page 20

Graph 6: SSIM Vs Bits per pixel plot for Baboon Image

PEPPERS:

Graph 7: PSNR Vs Bits per pixel plot for Peppers Image

Page 21

Graph 8: SSIM Vs Bits per pixel plot for Peppers Image

LIGHT HOUSE:

Graph 9: PSNR Vs Bits per pixel plot for Light House Image Page 22

Graph 10: SSIM Vs Bits per pixel plot for Light House Image

Page 23

CONCLUSIONS: In this project, compression performance was analyzed for H.264/AVC Intra frame coding, JPEG2000, JPEG-XR (HDPhoto), JPEG-LS, JPEG and AVS China part7 Intraframe. Both objective and subjective methodologies for the comparison of various still image coding techniques were used. While PSNR gives an objective quality metrics of image, SSIM gives subjective quality which takes human visual perception (HVS) into account. Form the results, the conclusion that can be drawn is that the performance of H.264/AVC Intra frame for 4:2:0 image is better compared to all other images. Test results for different set of images yield slightly different results for most of the image coding techniques. AVS China performs better than JPEG, but less compared to JPEG2000 and JPEG-XR. Among all these JPEG-LS performs poorly at high error rate (low bpp). The performance of these coding techniques vary for different sets of images as seen in the graphs (Graph 1- Graph 10). REFERENCES: [1] AIC website: http://www.bilsen.com/aic/ [2] T. Wiegand, G. Sullivan, G. Bjontegaard and A. Luthra, Overview of the H.264/AVC Video Coding Standard, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 13, pp.560-576, July 2003 [3] K. Sayood, Introduction to Data Compression, Third Edition, Morgan Kaufmann, 2006. [4] P. Topiwala, T. Tran and W.Dai, Performance comparison of JPEG2000 and H.264/AVC high profile intra-frame coding on HD video sequences, Proc. SPIE Intl Symposium, Digital Image Processing, San Diego, vol.6312, pp. 67- 72,Aug. 2006. [5] G. K. Wallace, The JPEG still picture compression standard, Communication of the ACM, vol. 34, pp. 31-44, April 1991. [6] I. Richardson, The H.264 advanced video compression standard, 2nd edition, Wiley, 2010. [7] JPEG reference software website: ftp://ftp.simtel.net/pub/simtelnet/msdos/graphics/jpegsr6.zip [8] JPEG2000 latest reference software (Jasper Version 1.900.0) [9] Website: http://www.ece.uvic.ca/~mdadams/jasper/ [10] JPEG-LS reference software website http://www.hpl.hp.com/loco/ [11] Microsoft HD photo specification: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/wmphotoeula.mspx [12] H.264/AVC reference software (JM 17.2) Website: http://iphome.hhi.de/suehring/tml/download/ [13] JPEG Encoder and Decoder Block Diagrams : http://www.cmlab.csie.ntu.edu.tw/cml/dsp/training/coding/jpeg/jpeg/decoder.htm [14] JPEG-LS Block Diagram: http://pam.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_JPEG [15] H.264 Encoder Block Diagram : http://conf.ncku.edu.tw/research/articles/e/20071102/2.html [16] H.264 Decoder Block Diagram : http://www.allgosystems.com/html/h264_arm11.htm Page 24

[17] A.Skodras, et al, The JPEG2000 still image compression standard, IEEE Signal Processing Mgazine, vol.17, pp.1-144, Jan. 2002. [18] M. J. Weinberger, G. Seroussi and G. Sapiro, The LOCO-I lossless image compression algorithm: principles and standardization into JPEG-LS, IEEE Trans. on Image Processing, vol.9, pp.1309-1324, Aug. 2000. [19] C. Christopoulos, A. Skodras and T.Ebrahimi, The JPEG2000 still image coding system: an overview, IEEE Trans. on Consumer Electronics, vol.46, pp.1103-1127, Nov. 2000. [20] G. K. Wallace, The JPEG still picture compression standard, Communication of the ACM, vol. 34, pp. 31-44, April 1991. [21] P. Schelkens, A. Skodras and T. Ebrahimi, The JPEG 2000 suite, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2009. [22] P. Topiwala, Comparative study of JPEG2000 and H.264/AVC FRExt I-frame coding on high definition video sequences, Proc. SPIE Intl Symposium, Digital Image Processing, San Diego, vol. 5909, issue.1, pp. 763-771, Aug. 2005. [23] T. Wiegand et al, Overview of the H.264/AVC Video Coding Standard, IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 13, pp.560-576, July 2003. [24] Z. Wang, et al, Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity, IEEE Trans. on image processing, vol. 13, pp. 600 612, Apr. 2004. [25] W.B.Pennebaker and J.L.Mitchell, The JPEG data compression standard for continuous tone still images, Van Nostrand, 1992. [26] Special Issue on AVS and its Applications in Signal Processing : Image Communication , vol.24, 2009. [27] X. Ji,et al, B-picture coding in AVS video compression standard, Signal Processing: Image Communication, vol.23, pp.31-41,Jan. 2008 . [28] AVS China software can be downloaded from the following site ftp://159.226.42.57/public/avs_doc/avs_software [29] D. Marpe, T.Weigand and G. Sullivan, The H.264/MPEG4 advanced video coding standards and its applications, IEEE Communications Magazine, vol.44, pp.134-143, Aug. 2006. [30] Z. Zhang, R Veerla and K.R. Rao, A modified advanced image coding , First international conference on complexity and intelligence of the artificial and natural complex systems, medical applications of the complex systems, biomedical computing, pp.110-116, Cans Univ. Press 2009. [31] D. Marpe, V. George, and T.Weigand, Performance comparison of intra-only H.264/AVC HP and JPEG 2000 for a set of monochrome ISO/IEC test images, JVT-M014, pp.18-22, Oct. 2004. [32] T. Tran, L.Liu and P. Topiwala, Performance comparison of leading image codecs: H.264/AVC intra, JPEG 2000, and Microsoft HD photo, Proc. SPIE Intl Symposium, Digital Image Processing, San Diego, Sept. 2007. [33] H.R. Wu and K.R. Rao (Editors), Digital video image quality and perceptual coding, Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis, 2006.

Page 25