Results of use case 1, tests 1.A (second column) and 1.B (first column).
AI HEVC 2x 10-bit base
AI HEVC 2x 8-bit base
Y
U
V
Y
U
V
Class A+
Overall (Test vs Ref)
−0.9%
−4.1%
−3.3%
−2.2%
−5.1%
−4.1%
Overall (Test vs single layer)
17.7%
17.8%
14.6%
18.8%
18.4%
14.9%
Overall (Ref vs single layer)
18.5%
22.8%
18.1%
21.2%
24.7%
19.4%
EL only (Test vs Ref)
−2.3%
−5.6%
−4.2%
−4.7%
−7.5%
−6.1%
Overall (Test EL+BL vs single EL+BL)
−21.5%
−21.8%
−24.0%
−21.0%
−21.6%
−24.1%
Enc Time[%]
107.9%
108.4%
Dec Time[%]
101.7%
102.5%
RA HEVC 2x 10-bit base
RA HEVC 2x 8-bit base
Y
U
V
Y
U
V
Class A+
Overall (Test vs Ref)
−2.6%
−4.2%
−5.8%
−3.3%
−4.6%
−5.8%
Overall (Test vs single layer)
24.1%
28.2%
19.3%
24.9%
29.0%
20.3%
Overall (Ref vs single layer)
27.5%
33.7%
26.9%
29.2%
35.2%
27.8%
EL only (Test vs Ref)
−4.8%
−6.2%
−7.7%
−6.0%
−7.1%
−8.2%
Overall (Test EL+BL vs single EL+BL)
−16.6%
−13.4%
−19.3%
−16.4%
−13.2%
−19.0%
Enc Time[%]
70.7%
70.3%
Dec Time[%]
105.4%
102.9%
Use case 1, Test 2
The detailed experiment results are described in JCTVC-P0186. The cross-checking has been provided by Qualcomm (JCTVC-P0144).
Results of use case 1, tests 2.A (second column) and 2.B (first column).
AI HEVC 2x 10-bit base
AI HEVC 2x 8-bit base
Y
U
V
Y
U
V
Class A+
Overall (Test vs Ref)
−2.9%
−5.5%
−5.0%
−3.4%
−5.8%
−5.1%
Overall (Test vs single layer)
15.3%
16.1%
12.7%
17.3%
17.5%
13.9%
Overall (Ref vs single layer)
18.5%
22.8%
18.1%
21.2%
24.7%
19.4%
EL only (Test vs Ref)
−6.0%
−8.5%
−7.4%
−6.9%
−9.2%
−7.9%
Overall (Test EL+BL vs single EL+BL)
−23.2%
−22.9%
−25.3%
−22.0%
−22.1%
−24.8%
Enc Time[%]
99.9%
79.2%
Dec Time[%]
100.7%
101.1%
RA HEVC 2x 10-bit base
RA HEVC 2x 8-bit base
Y
U
V
Y
U
V
Class A+
Overall (Test vs Ref)
−3.8%
−5.1%
−7.3%
−4.0%
−5.2%
−6.9%
Overall (Test vs single layer)
22.6%
27.1%
17.4%
24.0%
28.4%
18.9%
Overall (Ref vs single layer)
27.5%
33.7%
26.9%
29.2%
35.2%
27.8%
EL only (Test vs Ref)
−6.9%
−7.9%
−10.0%
−7.2%
−8.1%
−9.7%
Overall (Test EL+BL vs single EL+BL)
−17.7%
−14.0%
−20.7%
−17.0%
−13.5%
−20.0%
Enc Time[%]
69.7%
57.7%
Dec Time[%]
107.1%
107.4%
Use case 2, Test 1
The detailed experiment results are described in JCTVC-P0128. The cross-checking has been provided by Qualcomm (JCTVC-P0143).
Results of use case 2, tests 1.A (second column) and 1.B (first column).
AI HEVC 2x 10-bit base
AI HEVC 2x 8-bit base
Y
U
V
Y
U
V
Class A+
Overall (Test vs Ref)
−5.6%
−7.8%
−9.9%
−5.9%
−8.0%
−10.0%
Overall (Test vs single layer)
11.9%
13.1%
6.7%
14.0%
14.7%
7.8%
Overall (Ref vs single layer)
18.5%
22.8%
18.1%
21.2%
24.7%
19.4%
EL only (Test vs Ref)
−11.5%
−13.3%
−15.4%
−12.0%
−13.7%
−15.7%
Overall (Test EL+BL vs single EL+BL)
−26.3%
−25.7%
−30.4%
−24.9%
−24.7%
−29.9%
Enc Time[%]
96.3%
96.7%
Dec Time[%]
96.2%
97.8%
RA HEVC 2x 10-bit base
RA HEVC 2x 8-bit base
Y
U
V
Y
U
V
Class A+
Overall (Test vs Ref)
−5.1%
−6.1%
−9.7%
−5.1%
−6.1%
−9.3%
Overall (Test vs single layer)
20.9%
25.7%
14.4%
22.5%
27.1%
15.9%
Overall (Ref vs single layer)
27.5%
33.7%
26.9%
29.2%
35.2%
27.9%
EL only (Test vs Ref)
−9.6%
−10.2%
−13.9%
−9.7%
−10.2%
−13.5%
Overall (Test EL+BL vs single EL+BL)
−19.3%
−15.5%
−23.4%
−18.4%
−14.8%
−22.6%
Enc Time[%]
67.4%
67.0%
Dec Time[%]
104.7%
107.7%
Use case 2, Test 2
The detailed experiment results are described in JCTVC-P0186. The cross-checking has been provided by Qualcomm (JCTVC-P0144) and Samsung (JCTVC-P0248).
Results of use case 2, tests 2.A (second column) and 2.B (first column).
AI HEVC 2x 10-bit base
AI HEVC 2x 8-bit base
Y
U
V
Y
U
V
Class A+
Overall (Test vs Ref)
−7.8%
−8.9%
−11.6%
−7.8%
−8.9%
−11.5%
Overall (Test vs single layer)
9.2%
11.8%
4.7%
11.8%
13.6%
6.1%
Overall (Ref vs single layer)
18.5%
22.8%
18.1%
21.2%
24.7%
19.4%
EL only (Test vs Ref)
−15.2%
−15.9%
−18.6%
−15.2%
−15.9%
−18.4%
Overall (Test EL+BL vs single EL+BL)
−28.3%
−26.5%
−31.9%
−26.6%
−25.4%
−31.1%
Enc Time[%]
90.9%
93.0%
Dec Time[%]
98.3%
98.6%
RA HEVC 2x 10-bit base
RA HEVC 2x 8-bit base
Y
U
V
Y
U
V
Class A+
Overall (Test vs Ref)
−6.3%
−6.5%
−11.0%
−6.2%
−6.5%
−10.6%
Overall (Test vs single layer)
19.3%
25.1%
12.7%
21.2%
26.6%
14.3%
Overall (Ref vs single layer)
27.5%
33.7%
26.9%
29.2%
35.2%
27.9%
EL only (Test vs Ref)
−11.7%
−11.4%
−16.0%
−11.5%
−11.4%
−15.4%
Overall (Test EL+BL vs single EL+BL)
−20.5%
−15.7%
−24.6%
−19.4%
−15.0%
−23.8%
Enc Time[%]
64.0%
65.1%
Dec Time[%]
106.1%
106.3%
Discussion:
Was the WP using same approach of optimization in use case 1 and 2? No – optimized per picture, “as is” in reference software by LMS.
If inter-layer texture prediction is used, WP is always used. Hypothetically, with two inter-layer references, it could be switched on or off.
It was pointed out during the discussion that in use case 1 (offline coding) optimization could also be done using several pictures.
It was also pointed out by one expert that the current software used in SCE1 crashes in LD configuration under Windows, but not Linux (needs further investigation).
The LUT table methods use 9x9x9x3 table entries.
The amount of side information is 6000 bits on average, but it is sequence dependent. If no oct-tree split occurs (as may be the case for less colorful sequences), the amount is much lower (it is mentioned that from the results of the last meeting, the number of bits varied between approx. 2000 and 9000).
The LUT methods require 4 multiplications per sample per component, whereas WP requires 1 mult per sample per component. Furthermore, some more logic is required at the pixel level to determine the table entry to be used.
However, LUT operations are applied before upsampling.
Overall Conclusion:
Several experts expressed concerns that the additional complexity (table size, inter component dependency) is undesirable
Continue CE: More thorough complexity analysis; analysis of the impact of encoder optimization; impact of table size; more test material (possibly)
(Was further discussed in context of non-CE; established BoG to discuss the items of the continuing CE, e.g. complexity analysis.)
