Rate-constrained coder control and comparison of video coding standards

By Thomas Wiegand, Heiko Schwarz, Anthony Joch, F. Kossentini, Gary J. Sullivan. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol., 2003

3,221 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Performance Analysis of SVC (2007, methodology): “The Lagrangian multiplier and the parameter MQP are connected via the relationship given in [ 17 ].”
Efficient Prediction Structures for Multiview Video Coding (2007, methodology): “264/AVC at picture/sequence level in comparison to former video coding standards through the availability of the multiple reference picture technique [3], [24].”
Video coding with H.264/AVC: tools, performance, and complexity (2004, methodology): “Average bit rate savings for video streaming applications (from [ 10 ]).”
H.264/AVC in wireless environments (2003, neutral): “This makes H.264/AVC a prime candidate for the use in wireless systems, because of its superior compression efficiency [3].”
Video coding using the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC compression standard (2004, background): “Regardless of the preferred name, the standard achieves clearly higher compression efficiency, often quoted as, up to a factor of 2 [38], over the MPEG-2 video standard.”
H.264/AVC baseline profile decoder complexity analysis (2003, background): “264/AVC video coding standard [1] promises improved coding efficiency over existing video coding standards [2], [3].”
Analysis of Hierarchical B Pictures and MCTF (2006, neutral): “264/MPEG4-AVC encoder following [2] has been used.”