Fig 1.
A complete CU coding tree in HEVC.
Fig 2.
An example of CU mode decision for optimal CU size.
CU64, CU32, CU16, CU08 represent the optimal CU size ranged from depth = 1 to depth = 4.
Fig 3.
CU coding tree complexity.
Table 1.
Encoding Time Saving (%) under Different CU Coding Tree Structure Compared with HEVC Coding Tree with Depth 4 and CTU Size 64×64.
Fig 4.
Optimal CU size after coding tree complete traversal for lossless mode with 63% CU size of 16×16, visually lossless mode with 59% CU size of 8×8 and lossy mode with 42% CU size of 32×32.
Fig 5.
CU distribution caused by QP offset.
The Nth frame and the (N + 4)th frame have the similar CU distribution.
Table 2.
Lossy Encoder Configuration.
Table 3.
CU distribution probability (%) with various videos and GOPSizes (Traffic: 2160×1600).
Table 4.
CU distribution probability (%) with various videos and GOPSizes (BQSquare: 416×240).
Fig 6.
CU distribution probability caused by CC.
Table 5.
Performance of Proposed Mechanism Compared with HM15.0 under Low Delay Condition and Random Access Condition.
Table 6.
Visually Lossless Encoder and Lossless Encoder Configurations under Low Delay Condition.
Table 7.
Performance of Proposed Method Compared with HM15.0 for Visually lossless Coding and lossless Coding.