International organisation for standardisation organisation internationale de normalisation

Profile and level definitions (requirements related) (11)

1. RExt profiles and levels (7)

Contributions in this area were considered in joint discussions at the parent level. See section 7.1.

14.1.97.1.1.1.1.1.100JCTVC-P0057 AHG 5: Profiles for Range Extensions [K. Sharman, N. Saunders, J. Gamei, T. Suzuki, A. Tabatabai (Sony)]

Discussion on profiles for RExt has been started, with a set of profiles included in the draft text. This contribution proposes the following:

• 
  Adding all intra coding profiles
  
• 
  Adding profiles supporting up to 16 bit video
  
• 
  Profiles for monochrome video (4:0:0)
  

This contribution reportedly encompasses the operating points defined in JCTVC-O1005 (v3).

14.1.97.1.1.1.1.1.101JCTVC-P0058 AHG 5 and 18: Request for 16 bit Profiles for Range Extensions [K. Sharman, N. Saunders, J. Gamei, T. Suzuki, A. Tabatabai (Sony)]

This document proposes to define 16 bit profiles as part of HEVC RExt. It was asserted that the following applications would make use of these profiles:

• 
  4:4:4 format for high end content creation, high end production, and medical applications
  
• 
  4:0:0 format for medical applications
  

All intra coding is reportedly used for high end production where 16 bit material is captured and used during the workflow; such 16 bit material has been added to the RExt test set. This contribution proposes to also include profiles for all intra coding.

The points of the proposed new profiles were suggested to be as follows:

• 
  No 14-bit profiles were proposed – the extended processing design is already scalable, and therefore 14-bits being encoded under the 16-bit profile will be identical to a 14-bit encoding under a 14-bit profile.
  
• 
  For 12-bit high end content creation applications that require the extended precision processing capability, the 16 bit profiles would be used, noting again that the extended precision system is bit-depth scalable.
  
• 
  16-bit for 4:4:4 and 4:0:0 – the 4:0:0 would be for non-video sensors, such as in medical. Other specific 16-bit profiles for different chroma formats would be unnecessary at this bit depth, noting that the16 bit 4:4:4 profile would also be able to code 4:2:2 at 16-bit.
  
• 
  The RExt tools indicated in the proposal may or may not include the current full set of tools present in the latest text and software. Such decisions are not part of this profile proposal and were suggested to be discussed separately following the profile definitions.
  

14.1.97.1.1.1.1.1.102JCTVC-P0086 A proposal on level specification of Main 4:2:2 profiles [A. Minezawa, K. Miyazawa, S. Sekiguchi, H. Sakate (Mitsubishi)]

JCTVC-N0312 and JCTVC-O0288 proposed some modifications of the specification of Main 4:2:2 profiles and levels. According to the discussion at the last meeting, Main 4:2:2 profiles are required to disable some RExt-specific features as in 4:2:0 related profiles. On the other hand, level specification of Main 4:2:2 profiles was asserted to not have been discussed sufficiently. This contribution proposes the modification of level-related definitions on Main 4:2:2 profiles as addressed in JCTVC-N0312 and JCTVC-O0288 again.

See notes for P0044. Detailed review was not requested.

14.1.97.1.1.1.1.1.103JCTVC-P0099 AHG5: Objective and subjective evaluations of cross-component decorrelation for range extensions profile [K. Kawamura, S. Naito (KDDI)]

This contribution reports objective and subjective performance of the cross-component decorrelation tool for the general content (camera captured content). The contribution proposed the inclusion of the cross-component decorrelation tool in all range extensions profiles to be finalized in April 2014. Experimental results reportedly indicated that the cross-component decorrelation tool obtained 5.2% gain without sacrificing the subjective quality under the random access Main tier condition of RExt CTC with a modified chroma λ value.

14.1.97.1.1.1.1.1.104JCTVC-P0106 AHG5: Recommended profiling of range extension coding tools [S. Lee, E. Alshina, C. Kim (Samsung), K. McCann (Zetacast)] [late]

This contribution provides recommendations on the profiling of range extension coding tools for 4:4:4 profiles. The contribution asserts that cross-component decorrelation is the only additional coding tool in the draft RExt text that provides a beneficial trade-off between performance and complexity with camera-view video content and proposes that the Main 4:4:4 profiles should include cross component de-correlation, but not the other coding tools in the current draft text, which are asserted to provide a beneficial performance/complexity trade-off only with screen content.

It is also suggested that screen content 4:4:4 profiles should be developed in coordination with the call for proposals for coding of screen content and medical visual content planned for January 2014. It is suggested that all of the coding tools in the draft RExt text should be included in the initial test model for this new activity.

14.1.97.1.1.1.1.1.105JCTVC-P0107 AHG5: Tools for lossless coding of medical image/video content in RExt profiles [P. Amon, P. Wojaczek, A. Hutter, U.-E. Martin, N. Wirsz (Siemens)]

This contribution analyses and discusses different coding tools currently under evaluation for incorporation into HEVC RExt profiles for compression of medical image/video content. Based on the analysis, especially the adoption of RDPCM is recommended for 12-bit and 16-bit monochrome profiles, for a potential 4.4:4 profile, and also for related higher profiles.

14.1.97.1.1.1.1.1.106JCTVC-P0224 Request for an HEVC 4:4:4 8 bit profile [G. Martin-Cocher (Blackberry), M. Mrak (BBC), P. Onno, C. Rosewarne (Canon), A. Fuldseth (Cisco), R. Sjöberg (Ericsson), A. Duenas (NGCodec), M. Karczewicz (Qualcomm), A. Segall (Sharp Labs), M. Budagavi (TI)] [late]

This document proposes to define a 4:4:4 8 bit profile as part of HEVC RExt, which would include coding tools designed for 4:4:4 color sampling as well as tools that are useful for coding mixed content.

It was asserted that the following consumer applications would make use of this profile:

• 
  wireless display
  
• 
  video conferencing with screen sharing
  
• 
  compression and transmission of computer generated sequences
  
• 
  mixed content scenarios
  

It was reported that computer generated content predominantly uses the 4:4:4 8 bit format, and was reportedly strongly expected that mixed content will also use a 4:4:4 8 bit format. It was asserted that a corresponding HEVC profile needs to be defined to match the video codec capabilities to corresponding applications and existing video formats. It was asserted that the definition of this profile cannot be postponed to a later amendment in order to ensure that the next generation of wireless display products could take advantage of HEVC.

It was reported that some tools, previously identified as screen content tools, are in fact performing pretty well on natural sequences (e.g. block copying) and/or on mixed content (e.g. transform skip). It was reported that those tools seemed to have been mischaracterised as only being screen content coding tools.

It was proposed that the coding tools currently defined in the HEVC Rext draft text be included in the proposed 4:4:4 8 bit profile.

2.