Skip to main content

Table 12 The comparison of the bitrate saving performance of the three coding schemes

From: A novel texture-based asymmetric visibility threshold model for stereoscopic video coding

3D sequences QP Bitrate (kbps) ΔR (%)
Scheme I Scheme II Scheme III Scheme II Scheme III
Kendo 22 314.436 242.407 230.693 22.91 26.63
27 119.424 105.175 103.666 11.93 13.20
32 54.826 51.262 51.770 6.50 5.57
37 29.071 28.464 29.078 2.09 −0.02
GT_Fly 22 835.426 614.126 557.582 26.49 33.26
27 246.536 202.960 200.020 17.68 18.87
32 77.578 73.986 74.084 4.63 4.50
37 31.876 31.570 31.914 0.96 −0.12
Poznan_Street 22 1698.762 1025.426 908.394 39.64 46.53
27 384.906 304.574 295.814 20.87 23.15
32 127.966 117.668 118.514 8.05 7.39
37 52.350 50.872 52.176 2.82 0.33
Poznan_Hall2 22 656.564 491.244 476.698 25.18 27.40
27 195.836 168.718 169.342 13.85 13.53
32 83.378 78.420 79.860 5.95 4.22
37 41.812 40.870 41.820 2.25 −0.02
Shark 22 1101.391 882.893 797.345 19.84 27.61
27 433.618 386.830 374.455 10.79 13.64
32 183.406 174.151 174.970 5.05 4.60
37 84.002 82.778 83.846 1.46 0.19
Undo_Dancer 22 1525.504 1116.582 880.100 26.81 42.31
27 479.224 406.590 371.424 15.16 22.49
32 173.054 163.408 159.410 5.57 7.88
37 74.432 73.076 74.434 1.82 0.00
Average 22     26.81 33.95
27     15.05 17.48
32     5.96 5.69
37     1.90 0.06
     12.43 14.30