Page 210 - Video Coding for Mobile Communications Efficiency, Complexity, and Resilience
P. 210

Section 8.5.  Simulation  Results                             187


            Table 8.2: Comparison  between di+erent block-matching algorithms in terms of  prediction  quality
                         AKIYO               FOREMAN            TABLE  TENNIS
                   PSNR   7PSNR   % Global   PSNR   7PSNR   % Global   PSNR   7PSNR   %  Global
            FS    45.93   0.00   100.00   32.20   0.00   100.00   32.17   0.00   100.00
            SMS   45.93   0.00   100.00   32.04   −0:16   94.31   31.71   −0:46   95.80
            NSS   45.93   0.00   100.00   31.74   −0:46   87.25   31.50   −0:67   92.74
            TDL   45.93   0.00   100.00   31.81   −0:39   88.92   31.63   −0:54   93.39
            CSA   45.91   −0:02   99.86   30.95   −1:25   60.11   30.93   −1:24   81.23
            OTS   45.93   0.00   100.00   31.23   −0:97   76.35   31.23   −0:94   91.60


            Table  8.3:  Comparison  between  di+erent  blockmatching  algorithms  in  terms  of  computational
            complexity

                          AKIYO               FOREMAN           TABLE  TENNIS
                    Locations   Speed-up   Locations   Speed-up   Locations   Speed-up
            FS        65,621       –      77,439       –      65,621        –
            SMS         684       96       1,073       72       831        79
            NSS       2,464       27       2,823       27      2,473       27
            TDL       1,310       50       1,638       47      1,362       48
            CSA         115       571       920        84       461       142
            OTS         402       163       604       128       448       146


               Tables 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 compare the performance of the simulated BMME
            algorithms.  All  results  are  averages  over  sequences  with  a  frame  skip  of  1.
            Table 8.2 compares the prediction quality in terms of average luma PSNR in
            decibels. The di+erence in PSNR between each algorithm and the FS algorithm
                        2
            is  also  shown. The  table  also  shows  the  average  percentage  of  :nding  the
            global  minimum.  Table  8.3,  on  the  other  hand,  compares  the  computational
            complexity in terms of average searched locations per frame. It also shows the
                        3
            speed-up  ratio of  each  algorithm  with  reference  to  the  FS  algorithm.  Table
            8.4 shows the motion overhead generated by each algorithm and the di+erence
            between this overhead  and that produced  by the FS algorithm. 4
               As  expected,  the  FS  algorithm  provides  the  best  prediction  quality,  but
            at  the  expense  of  a  very  high  computational  complexity.  The  fast  BMME
            algorithms  in  this  simulation  can  be  split  into  three  di+erence  performance
            classes. In the :rst class, the CSA and the OTS algorithms provide the highest



              2 7PSNR = PSNR  of  fast  algorithm − PSNR  of  FS algorithm.
                       Searched  locations for  FS algorithm
              3 Speed-up =                      .
                       Searched  locations for  fast  algorithm
              4 7Bits = Motion  bits  of  fast  algorithm − Motion  bits  of  FS algorithm.
   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215