# Quality Assessment of Dual-Parallel Edge Deblocking Filter Architecture for HEVC/H.265
## 8 Results and Discussion  
The quality assessment of the five-stage pipelined dual-edge deblocking filter architecture implemented for the HEVC standard [40] is performed using Matlab. Different test video sequences are used to obtain the _PSNR_ values of the PEDBF architecture using different QP values. The typical QP value is 32. Hence, the quality assessment is performed with the typical QP value (32), the QP value lesser than the typical value (27), and QP value greater than the typical QP (37). Figure 13 shows an image frame of the original video sequence. This original/raw video sequence is given as input to the HM software to obtain two different types of encoded video. One type of encoded video is obtained from the HM software with the deblocking filter turned off (without DBF), and another type of encoded video is obtained from the HM software with the deblocking filter turned on (with DBF). Figures 14 and 15 show a sample frame of the output video sequence from the HM software without DBF and with DBF, respectively. The encoded output video from the HM software without DBF is used to perform the quality analysis of the PEDBF architecture. This video encoded without DBF is given as the input video sequence to the PEDBF implemented in Matlab to undergo deblocking filtering. Figure 16 shows a sample frame of the output video obtained from the PEDBF. The _PSNR_ value of the output video obtained from the PEDBF is computed. Figure 14: Frame of output video from HM with DBF disabled. Figure 13: Frame of the original input video. The quality of this architecture is assessed by comparing the _PSNR_ value of the output video of the PEDBF architecture and the _PSNR_ value of the video obtained using the HM software with DBF turned on for different QP values. The results for QCIF video sequences are tabulated in Table 1 and the comparison graph is shown in Figure 17 with QP = 32. The results for CIF video sequences are tabulated in Table 2 and the comparison graph is shown in Figure 18 with QP = 32. It is noted that the implemented architecture shows a slight improvement in quality concerning the _PSNR_ metrics. The execution time for QCIF and CIF video sequences are tabulated in Tables 3 and 4, respectively, and the comparison graphs are shown in Figures 19 and 20. It is seen that, as the two edges are filtered in the same order, the performance of the _PSNR_ metrics is higher than the _PSNR_ metrics. Figure 16: Frame of output video from dual PEDBF. Figure 15: Frame of output video from HM with DBF enabled. Table 5 and 6 show the results of QCIF and CIF video sequences, respectively, filtered with QP = 37, and the comparison graphs are shown in Figures 21 and 22. The execution \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline \hline
**Video Sequence** & **HM (Sec)** & **PEDBF (Sec)** \\ \hline Akiyo & 264.989 & 165.49741 \\ \hline Coastguard & 376.373 & 196.2231 \\ \hline Foreman & 278.388 & 176.485 \\ \hline Mobile Calendar & 312.898 & 193.3375 \\ \hline Hall & 219.416 & 112.2503 \\ \hline Tempete & 229.776 & 152.46557 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Processing time of CIF video sequences with QP = 32. Figure 19: Comparison of processing time with HM for QCIF video sequences using QP = 32. Figure 20: Comparison of processing time with HM for CIF video sequences using QP = 32. Table 9 and 10 show the results of QCIF and CIF video sequences, respectively, filtered with QP = 27, and the comparison graphs are shown in Figures 25 and 26. The execution time for QCIF and CIF video sequences are tabulated in Tables 11 and 12, and the comparison graphs are shown in Figures 27 and 28. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline \hline
**Video Sequence** & **HM (Sec)** & **PEDBF (Sec)** \\ \hline Akiyo & 46.354 & 23.904816 \\ \hline Coastguard & 52.02 & 27.976072 \\ \hline Foreman & 48.861 & 28.335635 \\ \hline Mobile Calendar & 70.905 & 38.544973 \\ \hline Hall & 50.138 & 28.943229 \\ \hline Carphone & 63.938 & 33.216266 \\ \hline Miss America & 23.778 & 15.006227 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}