1052 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 20, NO.

7, JULY 2010

2:1 Candidate Position Subsampling Technique for

Fast Optimal Motion Estimation
Hwal-Suk Lee, Student Member, IEEE, Jik-Han Jung, and Dong-Jo Park, Member, IEEE

Abstract—The candidate position subsampling technique
(CPST) basically chooses candidates in a search window at a
sampling rate. The 2:1 CPST chooses half the candidates, and
then selects one or more candidates that are considered as to be
close to the optimal motion vector before conducting a fine search.
The fine search is conducted by checking four neighbors of the
chosen candidate(s) referred to as winner(s). The CPST can be
combined with a fast optimal block-matching algorithm, such as
the multilevel successive elimination algorithm (MSEA), in order
to reduce the number of computations used in rejecting the non-
best candidate. We propose a new 2:1 CPST fitted to the MSEA.
The proposed algorithm adopts a new condition for the winner
which helps to find the best candidate efficiently. Moreover, a
fast motion estimation step is used to reduce the number of
computations of the MSEA, and the peak signal-to-noise ratio
(PSNR) compensation step is adopted to guarantee that the PSNR
performance of the proposed algorithm is very close to that of
the full search. Experimental results show that the proposed
algorithm reduces the computational loads of the MSEA by
47.26% on average with only −0.027 dB PSNR degradation in
the worst case.
Index Terms—Block matching, candidate position, fast full
search, motion estimation, subsampling, successive elimination.
I. Introduction
M OTION estimation via a block-matching algorithm
(BMA) has been used in almost all the video coding
standards, including ITU-T H.263/H.264 and ISO/IEC MPEG-
1/2/4. Although the full-search (FS) algorithm is the optimal
BMA with regard to motion estimation accuracy, its computa-
tional complexity limits practical usage. Hence, many BMAs
have been developed to reduce the complexity. The methods
used in BMAs can be divided into three types.
The first method is to use only a subset of all the search
locations in the search window [1], [2]. This method reduces
computational complexity because the sum of absolute differ-
ence (SAD) is not computed for all possible candidates. The
second method is to adopt lower bounds for the SAD [3], [4].
Before calculating the SAD of the current candidate, lower
bound values are obtained, and the necessity of calculating
the SAD is determined by comparing lower bound values with
the minimum SAD obtained from the previous candidates.
Given that fewer computations are required to compute the
Manuscript received September 26, 2008; revised August 7, 2009 and
December 30, 2009. Date of publication May 27, 2010; date of current version
July 16, 2010. This paper was recommended by Associate Editor H. Yu.
The authors are with the School of Electrical Engineering and Com-
puter Science, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Dae-
jeon 305-701, Korea (e-mail: seagall@kaist.ac.kr; honestok@gmail.com; dj-
park@ee.kaist.ac.kr).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TCSVT.2010.2051365
1051-8215/$26.00

c 2010 IEEE
lower bounds than the SAD, this method is quicker. The
third method is to use a pixel-subsampling technique [5]–[7].
When calculating the SAD, not all pixels are considered, but
pixels on the subsampling pattern are considered. This method
guarantees an improvement in speed by as much as the rate
of pixel-subsampling.
The third method is usually combined with the candidate
position subsampling technique (CPST) [5], [7]. The CPST
consists of three steps. First, candidates for the optimal
motion vector (MV) are selected by subsampling. Second,
one or more candidates that are considered to be close to the
optimal MV are selected from candidates that are chosen in
the first step. The candidates that are selected in the second
step are called winners. Finally, neighbors of each winner are
checked in the fine search step.
Recently, there has been an attempt to combine the ad-
justable partial distortion search (APDS) algorithm (an algo-
rithm that uses the second method of using lower bounds
of the SAD [3]) and the CPST [8]. The first and second
candidates that have the minimum SAD are selected as win-
ners from candidates to which the 2:1 subsampling pattern
is applied. Finally, the four neighbors of each winner are
checked. However, this algorithm does not perform well if the
multilevel successive elimination algorithm (MSEA) [4], one
of the most well-known algorithms using the second method,
is used instead of the APDS. This results mainly from the
inadequate specification of criteria for selecting the winners.
In this letter, we propose a 2:1 candidate position subsam-
pling technique that is used with the MSEA. The proposed
algorithm shows almost the same peak signal-to-noise ratio
(PSNR) performance as a FS algorithm (in the worst case,
−0.027 dB degradation) with only almost half the computa-
tions of the MSEA. This performance is achieved by adopting
a new condition for the winner, the fast motion estimation,
and the PSNR compensation steps.
II. Related Work
The APDS algorithm [3] and the MSEA [4] are both known
to be fast optimal block-matching algorithms, which means
that the algorithm can achieve the same PSNR performance
as the FS algorithm, but with fewer computations. The basic
procedure of the APDS and the MSEA is to calculate lower
bounds (also called boundary values) from the lowest to
the highest and to check whether each boundary value is
larger than the minimum SAD value that was obtained from
previously searched positions. This value will be referred to as
LEE et al.: 2:1 CANDIDATE POSITION SUBSAMPLING TECHNIQUE FOR FAST OPTIMAL MOTION ESTIMATION 1053

TABLE I
Algorithm 1: Pseudo code for the APDS and the MSEA
Number of Cases in Which the Optimal MV Is Missed With
(x, y) = initial position Different Conditions
Find SAD of (x, y)
SAD min = SAD of (x, y) Name Format Total Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3
(x, y) = next position Mobile CIF 12 586 1222 466 285
while !(last candidate position) do Foreman CIF 9650 2754 1792 536
for k=1 to number LB do Fun CIF 7106 622 233 219
Compute LB[k] Paris CIF 3093 325 116 59
if LB[k]>SAD min then Mobile CCIR601 15 362 2521 1304 800
go to (#) Football CCIR601 18 277 2309 946 1010
Flower CCIR601 16 908 2621 1756 1447
end
Tennis CCIR601 8178 5556 4680 2985
end Average 11395.0 2241.3 1411.6 917.6
SAD min = LB[number LB] Probability of Missing MV 0.197 0.124 0.081
MV = (x, y)
(#) (x, y) = next position Condition 1: Choose the one candidate with the minimum SAD. Condition 2: Choose the
end two candidates with the first and second minimum SADs. Condition 3: Choose candidates
updating the temporary minimum SAD.
· LB: Lower bound, MV: Motion vector, (x, y) : Current candidate

Fig. 1. Search patterns. (a) 2:1 candidate subsampling pattern. (b) Fine
search pattern.
Fig. 2. Sample plot for the proposed condition in 1-D space.

the temporary minimum SAD. If a certain lower bound of the
current position is larger than the temporary minimum SAD,
it is deemed unnecessary to compute the SAD of the current
position. This procedure is presented in Algorithm 1.
The main difference between the APDS and the MSEA
is the way of obtaining lower bounds. The APDS calculates
boundary values by using the partial distortion technique
which is derived from the fact that the SAD value for the
N × N block size is always larger than the partial sum of
the absolute value for difference between pixel-values in the
current and reference blocks. By contrast, the MSEA obtains
boundary values by using the triangle inequality as a basis:
|a + b| ≤ |a| + |b|.
The CPST addresses the issue of which candidates are
to be checked and the search order of selected candidates,
while the APDS and the MSEA are the candidate-rejection
algorithms (CRAs) that correspond to the inside of a while-
loop in Algorithm 1. In [8], the CPST consists of three steps
with the APDS as the CRA. In the first step, candidates are
searched using the candidate subsampling pattern, as depicted
in Fig. 1(a). In the second step, two candidates with the first
and second minimum SAD values are selected as winners.
Finally, the four candidates nearest neighbors to each winner
are searched, as in Fig. 1(b).
Given that, in the second step, two candidates with the first
and second minimum SAD values are selected, Algorithm 1
should be changed slightly. A noteworthy change is that a
certain lower bound is compared not with the first minimum
SAD but with the second minimum SAD. This modification
was also mentioned in [8].
III. Proposed 2:1 Candidate Position Subsampling
Technique for the MSEA
A. New Condition for Winner
The purpose of a fine search is to find the optimal MV in
the case that the optimal MV is not in the pattern yielded by
subsampling. Therefore, the best winner out of the candidates
selected by subsampling is the one that has the optimal MV
as a neighbor if the fine search checks four neighbors of
the winner, as depicted in Fig. 1(b). If the correlation between
the SAD values of the optimal MV and its neighbors is high,
the candidate selected by subsampling that has the minimum
SAD is likely to be the best winner. In most cases, it is
acceptable that the correlation is high, because the maximum
distance between the winner and a neighbor is just one
pixel.
Our experiments show that when the condition of selecting a
candidate that has the minimum SAD is used, the probability
of missing the optimal MV is 0.197, as shown in Table I,
where the total number (Total) stands for the number of cases
that the optimal MV is not in the subsampling pattern. The
simulation was executed using the same conditions as those
in Table III.
Missing the optimal MV means degradation of the PSNR
performance. To improve the PSNR performance, the condi-
tion for selecting the winner needs to be changed. One way is
to choose multiple winners using the increasing order of the
SAD values as a basis. For instance, two candidates with the
first and second minimum SAD are selected as winners in [8].
The condition used in [8] reduces the probability of missing
1054 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 20, NO. 7, JULY 2010
the optimal MV to 0.124 in Table I, but it requires additional
computational costs to choose the winners.
In Algorithm 1, for the non-best candidate, the number of
the boundary values used to make the decision to reject the
current candidate depends heavily on the temporary minimum
SAD (SAD min in Algorithm 1). The lower the value of the
temporary minimum SAD is set, the fewer boundary values are
used. When the CPST chooses two winners with the first and
second minimum SAD, the temporary minimum value used to
make the decision to reject the current candidate is not the first
minimum SAD, but the second minimum SAD. This implies
that computational load of the CRA is increased.
Usage of the second minimum SAD instead of the first
minimum SAD causes more boundary values to be calculated.
In the APDS, the difference in the SAD-computation numbers
between adjacent boundary values is maximally 16, while that
of the MSEA is 192 if the block size is 16 × 16. Thus, usage
of the second minimum SAD in the MSEA requires a much
greater amount of additional computation than the APDS.
It is preferable that the condition for selecting the winner
requires fewer computations and that the probability that any
winner selected by the condition is a neighbor of the optimal
MV is higher. By trial and error, we found the most efficient
condition for selecting the winner. The proposed condition
is that a candidate is chosen as a winner if it updates the
temporary minimum SAD value. Fig. 2 plots the difference
between the proposed condition and conventional conditions in
1-D space. Here, D(x) indicates the SAD value of a candidate
x. Note that the global minimum position C3 can be found
only if C2 or C4 are selected as winners, because the fine
search is conducted by checking left and right candidates of
the winner. In the first step, half of the candidates are checked
at a 2:1 subsampling rate (C0 → C2 → · · · C12 ). For the fine
search step, if Condition 1 in Table I is used, C8 is chosen as
the winner. Moreover, Condition 2 selects C8 and C10 as the
winners. However, if the proposed condition (Condition 3) is
used, C0 , C2 and C8 are selected as the winners. Note that
the first candidate (C0 in Fig. 2) is always considered to be
the winner, because it initializes the temporal minimum SAD
value.
Table I shows the superiority of the proposed condition. It
lessens the probability that the optimal MV will be missed
to 0.081 without requiring any additional computation. The
proposed condition requires additional Boolean memory space
that is equivalent to half of the size of search window, due to
a 2:1 sampling rate.
B. PSNR Compensation
The PSNR compensation step is introduced to improve
the PSNR performance of the algorithm when the PSNR
of the algorithm is much less that of the full search. The
PSNR compensation is conducted by executing three steps
(from the candidate subsampling step to the fine search step)
with a new search window that is centered at the final MV
that was obtained from the previous fine search step. The
PSNR compensation step is performed only if the final MV
that was obtained from the previous fine search step causes
unacceptable PSNR performance degradation compared with
TABLE II
Implemented Algorithms
Label STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3
Conv CPST Unused Condition 1 Unused
Prop CPST1 Unused Condition 3 Unused
Prop CPST2 Unused Condition 3 Used
Proposed Used Condition 3 Used
STEP 1: Fast motion estimation. STEP 2: Winner selection. STEP 3: PSNR
compensation.
that of the expected optimal MV. The PSNR compensation
step is performed when the SAD value of the final MV in the
previous fine search step is larger than the highest expected
SAD value of the optimal MV (SADmax ), because the PSNR
value is strongly related to the SAD value. In order to obtain
SADmax , the maximum SAD value among the SAD values
of the three MVs of the left, top, and top-right blocks of
the current block are calculated, and this result is compared
with a constant K. The larger value is selected as the highest
expected SAD value (SADmax ). K is adopted to prevent the
PSNR compensation step from being performed when SAD
values of the three MVs are simultaneously small. In our case,
we have selected K = 1792.
C. Fast Motion Estimation
The length of time it takes the CRA to complete its task
is strongly related to the temporary minimum SAD value
(SAD min in Algorithm 1). This implies that the CRA will
perform its task quickly if the optimal MV is found quickly.
Hence, we insert a fast motion-estimation (ME) step before
the candidate are subsampled. As a fast ME algorithm, we
adopt a simplified version of the algorithm proposed in [9].
The fast ME algorithm consists of two steps: 1) prediction
of the optimal MV, and 2) unrestricted search with a small
diamond-shaped pattern (SDSP), as shown in Fig. 1(b). In the
first step, the MV with the minimum SAD is selected among
MVL , MVT , MVTR , MVMED , and (0, 0). Here, MVL , MVT ,
and MVTR are MVs of the left, top, and top-right blocks of
the current block respectively, and MVMED is the median of
MVL , MVT , and MVTR . In the second step, a SDSP is formed
by positioning the MV that was found in the previous step at
the center of the SDSP. If the new minimum SAD point is still
at the center of the formed SDSP, then ME stops. Otherwise,
this step is repeated. Note that the CRA is also used in the
fast ME step to reject the non-best candidate efficiently.
IV. Simulation Results
A. Experimental Environment
The overall structure of the proposed algorithm is given in
Fig. 3 and its performance was evaluated by implementing
and comparing the FS algorithm, the MSEA, the CPST in [8]
with MSEA as the CRA, and various versions of the proposed
algorithm. Table II shows the implemented algorithms and
their labels. When determining SADmax , the SAD values of the
three MVs of the left, top, and top-right blocks of a current
block are required. If any of these three SAD values is not
available, we set the value of unavailable SAD at 2048. Also,
LEE et al.: 2:1 CANDIDATE POSITION SUBSAMPLING TECHNIQUE FOR FAST OPTIMAL MOTION ESTIMATION 1055

Fig. 3. Overall structure of the proposed algorithm.

TABLE III
Computations and PSNR Performance Comparison of Different Algorithms
Mobile (CIF) Foreman (CIF) Fun (CIF) Paris (CIF)
Total PSNR to FS Total PSNR to FS Total PSNR to FS Total PSNR to FS
FS 668516.3 0.000 668516.3 0.000 668516.3 0.000 668516.3 0.000
MSEA 33416.5 0.000 41878.2 0.000 38361.9 0.000 15265.40 0.000
Conv CPST 32919.3 −0.090 33540.9 −0.336 29052.0 −0.013 12237.9 −0.008
Prop CPST1 28986.4 −0.020 29248.2 −0.030 25521.9 −0.018 11488.9 −0.002
Prop CPST2 30999.7 −0.019 29345.5 −0.019 27157.9 +0.001 11707.2 +0.005
Proposed 20270.8 −0.027 24708.8 −0.018 21028.3 +0.003 10555.5 +0.001
Mobile (CCIR601) Football (CCIR601) Flower (CCIR601) Tennis (CCIR601)
Total PSNR to FS Total PSNR to FS Total PSNR to FS Total PSNR to FS
FS 2636526.3 0.000 2636526.3 0.000 2636526.3 0.000 2636526.3 0.000
MSEA 113322.0 0.000 216924.0 0.000 131796.0 0.000 823889.0 0.000
Conv CPST 137153.0 −0.074 145081.0 −0.010 106872.0 −0.023 496364.0 −0.194
Prop CPST1 73229.1 −0.014 126763.0 −0.016 78660.1 −0.014 459910.0 −0.054
Prop CPST2 77345.7 −0.010 140055.0 +0.073 82295.7 +0.002 482898.0 +0.004
Proposed 60985.1 −0.015 113452.0 +0.075 61163.8 +0.008 434055.0 +0.032

if any MVs in the three MVs of the left, top, and top-right
blocks of a current block for predicting the optimal MV is
not available, it is replaced with (0, 0). All versions of the
proposed algorithm adopt MSEA as the CRA.
The test platform for experiments was based on a simple
code only to perform motion estimation. Search order for
candidate subsampling is in Fig. 1(a). Simulations were per-
formed in eight sequences with the two different formats: CIF
(352 × 288, 50 frames, 25 frames/s) and CCIR601 (720 × 480,
30 frames, 30 frames/s) [11]. Only luminance components of
each sequence were used. The block size was set to 16 × 16.
The search range to ±15 for CIF and ±30 for CCIR601.
We set one operation of addition, subtraction, absolute value,
comparison, and shift each to equal one operation.
B. Experimental Results
1) New Condition for Winner (Prop CPST1): Even
though Conv CPST subsamples candidate positions at a 2:1
rate, an ineffective condition for choosing the winner results in
slower performance. Conv CPST requires more computations
even than the MSEA for the Mobile sequence in CCIR601.
This is because the fact that lower bounds are compared, not
with the first minimum SAD, but with the second minimum
SAD, while the MSEA always compares lower bounds with
the first minimum SAD.
Prop CPST1 only changes the condition for winner in
the Conv CPST (Condition 2 in Table I) into the proposed
condition of whether or not a MV updates the temporal
minimum SAD value (Condition 3). The proposed condition
does not change the basic procedure in Algorithm 1, but is able
to find winners effectively. Adopting a new winner condition
yields a 16.05% reduction in computation and an improvement
in PSNR of +0.073 dB over Conv CPST. It is noticeable
that the worst degradation of PSNR performance is reduced
from −0.336 dB (Foreman in CIF) to −0.054 dB (Tennis in
CCIR601) by using a new winner condition.
2) PSNR Compensation (Prop CPST2): The PSNR Com-
pensation step is performed if SAD(MVFS ) is larger than
SADmax , in Fig. 3. Our simulation shows that the probability
of conducting the PSNR compensation step is 0.1358. It is
natural to think that the PSNR compensation increases the
computational load of Prop CPST1 by 13.58%. However, it
requires only 5.76% additional computations, giving a PSNR
improvement of +0.026 dB, because some area of the new
search window overlaps with the original search window and
the temporal minimum SAD value is already very small.
It is remarkable that the PSNR compensation step reduced
the worst PSNR degradation from −0.054 dB (Tennis in
CCIR601) to −0.019 dB (Mobile and Foreman in CIF).
3) Fast Motion Estimation (Proposed): The proposed
algorithm applies the fast ME step to Prop CPST2 to reduce
the number of computations by having the lower temporal
minimum SAD value for the same candidate. On average the
proposed algorithm requires 15.38% fewer computations than
Prop CPST2. However, there is a small difference between
the PSNR performances of Prop CPST2 and the proposed al-
1056 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 20, NO. 7, JULY 2010
TABLE IV
Computations and PSNR Performance Comparison of the ESEA
and the Proposed Algorithm
Football (CCIR601) Tennis (CCIR601)
Total PSNR to FS Total PSNR to FS
ESEA 113131.0 0.000 376392.0 0.000
Proposed 60314.5 +0.075 200708.0 +0.032
gorithm (+0.003 dB), because the different temporal minimum
SAD value causes different MVs to be selected as winners.
When comparing the MSEA with the proposed algorithm,
computational loads are reduced by 47.26% with +0.007 dB
PSNR performance improvement on average. The minimum
speed gain is 30.85% for the Paris sequence in CIF, and the
maximum speed gain is 53.59% for the Flower sequence in
CCIR601. It is notable that the worst degradation in PSNR
performance (Mobile in CIF) is only −0.027 dB worse than the
FS. This shows the proposed algorithm has PSNR performance
that is comparable to that of the FS.
In five sequences (Fun and Paris in CIF; and Football,
Flower, and Tennis in CCIR601), the proposed algorithm
exhibits higher PSNR performance than the optimal algorithms
(FS and MSEA), which implies that some blocks in those se-
quences are more similar to blocks outside the search window
than to blocks inside the search window. We examined the
simulation results for those sequences and found that the mean
squared error (MSE) for the proposed algorithm was smaller
than that of the optimal algorithms in two cases. In these two
cases, better PSNR performance was achieved by shifting the
position of a search window either after the fast ME step or
before the PSNR compensation step in the proposed algorithm.
The first case is related to large motions which are not
covered by a search range, such as the motions in blocks
containing information of balls in Paris and Tennis and players
in Football. The second case is associated with bar-shaped
objects. If a block contains a part of a vertical or horizontal
bar-shaped object, occasionally a block outside the search
window has a smaller MSE than any block inside the search
window. A vertical or horizontal bar-shaped object tends to
appear in a series of blocks along the direction of bar-shaped
objects. Thus, a block outside the search window can have
a smaller MSE by reducing errors corresponding to a bar-
shaped object. The bar-shaped objects in Fun are the bars of a
merry-go-round and the bar-shaped objects in Flower are the
branches and logs of a tree.
The proposed algorithm does not modify the MSEA itself.
This implies that the proposed algorithm can be combined with
any of the fast full-search algorithms following Algorithm 1,
so we can expect that the proposed algorithm will reduce the
computational load of the fast full-search algorithm by 47%
with the almost same PSNR performance. The effective suc-
cessive elimination algorithm (ESEA) is an improved version
of the MSEA [10]. For two sequences in CCIR601, Football
and Tennis, the proposed algorithm that has the ESEA as
the CRA reduces computations of the ESEA by 46.69% and
46.68% with improvements in PSNR of +0.075 dB and +0.032
dB, respectively. Note that the proposed algorithm yields the
almost same speed gain over the ESEA and the MSEA. For
the Football sequence, speed gains yielded by the proposed
algorithm over the MSEA and ESEA are, respectively, 47.70%
and 46.69%. For Tennis, they are 47.32% and 46.68%.
V. Conclusion
A new 2:1 CPST that matches the MSEA has been
proposed. We proposed a new condition for choosing MVs,
which is used in the fine search step. This condition does
not need additional computation. Even so, it reduces the
probability that the CPST misses the optimal MV that is not
in the subsampling pattern to 0.081. In order to deal with the
case in which the CPST misses the optimal MV, a PSNR com-
pensation step repeats three steps from the candidate position
subsampling step to the fine search step with a new search
window. Moreover, the newly adopted fast ME step reduced
the number of computations required by the CPST by using
the smaller temporal minimum SAD for the same candidate.
Simulation results have shown that the proposed algorithm
produces significantly higher speedup gain over the MSEA
(47.26%) with +0.007 dB PSNR improvement for the tested
video sequences. This amount of performance improvement
with regards to speedup gain and PSNR performance can
be achieved regardless of the CRA if the CRA follows
Algorithm 1.
References
[1] T. Koga, K. Ilinuma, A. Hirano, Y. Iijima, and T. Ishiguro, “Motion-
compensated interframe coding for video conferencing,” in Proc. Nat.
Telecommun. Conf., 1981, pp. G5.3.1–G5.3.5.
[2] S. Zhu and K. K. Ma, “A new diamond search algorithm for fast block-
matching motion estimation,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 9, no.
2, pp. 287–290, Feb. 2000.
[3] C. H. Cheung and L. M. Po, “Adjustable partial distortion search
algorithm for fast block motion estimation,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst.
Video Technol., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 100–110, Jan. 2003.
[4] X. Q. Gao, C. J. Duanmu, and C. R. Zou, “A multilevel successive
elimination algorithm for block matching motion estimation,” IEEE
Trans. Image Process., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 501–504, Mar. 2000.
[5] F. Moschetti and E. Debes, “A fast block matching for SIMD processors
using subsampling,” in Proc. IEEE ISCAS, vol. 4. May 2000, pp. 321–
324.
[6] C. N. Wang, S. W. Yang, C. M. Liu, and T. Chiang, “A hierarchical
N-queen decimation lattice and hardware architecture for motion esti-
mation,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol., vol. 14, no. 4, pp.
429–440, Apr. 2004.
[7] R. Korah, M. Sankaralingam, and J. R. P. Perinbam, “Motion estimation
with candidate block and pixel subsampling algorithm,” in Proc. IEEE
Int. Workshop IST, May 2005, pp. 130–133.
[8] W. Jiang and M. Zhou, “A fast BMA based on combining search
candidate subsampling and APDS,” in Proc. IEEE ICME, vol. 2. Jun.
2004, pp. 1115–1118.
[9] A. M. Tourapis, O. C. Au, and M. L. Liou, “Highly efficient predictive
zonal algorithms for fast block-matching motion estimation,” IEEE
Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol., vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 934–947, Oct.
2002.
[10] H. S. Lee, J. H. Jung, and D. J. Park, “An effective successive elim-
ination algorithm for fast optimal block-matching motion estimation,”
in Proc. IEEE ICIP, Oct. 2008, pp. 1984–1987.
[11] Test Image Sequences. [Online]. Available: http://www.info-
ab.uclm.es/asignaturas/42609/Material.htm