Complexity-Adaptive Video Encoding for Speed and Quality

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Conventional video transcoding systems incur long latency and degrade video quality due to ignoring video content and coding complexity, leading to a deteriorated user experience.

Innovation Solution

Segment media items into chunks and select between different encoders based on complexity, using a multiple pass encoder for complex chunks and a single pass encoder for less complex chunks, determined by spatial-temporal distribution and bitrate analysis.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Productivity

If a single pass encoder is used for all chunks, then processing speed is improved, but video quality degrades for complex chunks

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveprocessing speedVSAvoidvideo quality
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSManufacturing precision

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies local quality by selecting different encoder types (single-pass vs. two-pass) for different video chunks based on their individual complexity characteristics. Complex chunks are encoded with two-pass encoders to ensure high quality, while simple chunks use single-pass encoders for speed, thereby optimizing both video quality and processing efficiency locally rather than uniformly across the entire video.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements dynamics by dynamically selecting the encoder type based on real-time analysis of video chunk complexity metrics such as motion magnitude, gradient magnitude, and color variation. The system adapts the encoding approach for each chunk according to its specific characteristics rather than using a static encoding strategy for the entire video.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

2Manufacturing precision

If a two pass encoder is used for all chunks, then video quality is improved, but processing time increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvevideo qualityVSAvoidprocessing time
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies local quality by selecting different encoder types (single-pass vs. two-pass) for different video chunks based on their individual complexity characteristics. Complex chunks are encoded with two-pass encoders to ensure high quality, while simple chunks use single-pass encoders for speed, thereby optimizing both video quality and processing efficiency locally rather than uniformly across the entire video.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies partial action by using two-pass encoding only for the portion of the video that actually requires it (complex chunks), rather than applying it to the entire video. This partial application of the more resource-intensive encoding method significantly reduces processing time while maintaining quality where it matters most.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

3Productivity

If encoder selection is based on video complexity analysis, then encoding efficiency is improved, but system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveencoding efficiencyVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies preliminary action by performing complexity analysis on video chunks before the actual encoding process. Metrics such as motion magnitude, gradient magnitude, and color variation are calculated in advance to determine the appropriate encoder type, allowing the system to make informed encoding decisions without adding complexity to the encoding process itself.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies segmentation by dividing the video into discrete chunks and analyzing each chunk's complexity independently. This segmentation allows the system to manage complexity locally for each chunk rather than handling the entire video as a single complex unit, making the overall system more manageable despite the adaptive selection process.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentEP3596924B1Complexity-adaptive single- vs. two-pass coding
Publication Date: 2025.12.31 GOOGLE LLC
  • EP3596924B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3596924B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP3596924B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

Implementations disclose adaptive rate control technology that selects different encoders for different chunks of a media item based on the complexity of the individual chunks. A method includes accessing a media item comprising a first chunk and a second chunk; determining, by a processing device, a first media complexity measure for the first chunk and a second media complexity measure for the second chunk; selecting, by the processing device, a first encoder and a second encoder from a plurality of encoders, wherein the first encoder is selected based on the first media complexity measure of the first chunk and the second encoder is selected based on the second media complexity measure of the second chunk; and encoding the first chunk using the first encoder and encoding the second chunk using the second encoder.