International organisation for standardisation

38.5Standard development procedure from July 1^st , 2010

7. 
   – Video report
   

Source: Jens Ohm and Gary Sullivan, Chairs

1MPEG-2 video

An erroneous stream is reported in MPEG-2 video conformance (motion vector ½ pel outside range). A draft corrigendum was issued, which will replace the erroneous bitstream (using a new name to help point out the change).

Document(s) reviewed:

m21167

Noncompliant MPEG-2 video test bitstream

Adrian Wise

Document(s) approved:

No.	Title	TBP	Available
12175	Text of 13818-4:2004/DCOR3	N	11/08/31

2MPEG-4 AVC

The video subgroup held one discussion session together with VCEG (ITU-T Q6/SG16) to discuss subjects related to MPEG-2 video (discussed above) and AVC. The results of DCOR1 ballot were reviewed, and improvements as suggested by the editors (and backed by NB comments) were addressed. The ballot text was issued as an output document. It was also suggested not to publish the Corrigendum separately, but rather proceed to publication of a new edition after finalization of Amd.1 (currently under FDAM ballot).

Document(s) reviewed:

m20323	Summary of Voting on ISO/IEC 14496-10:2010/DCOR 1	SC 29 Secretariat
m21403	Miscellaneous ITU-T H.264 | ISO/IEC 14496-10 Advanced Video Coding Errata Issues	Gary Sullivan, Heiko Schwarz

Further input documents were related to a requested change of subclause A.3.3 (item k) in terms of single-slice support, by the Canadian NB; and two input contributions on frame-packing concepts, one of them (m21339) backed by an Italian NB statement (m21375) and also related to a DVB liaison (m20298).

m20392	CAN NB Contribution: Comment on ISO/IEC 14496-10, A.3.3(k), High 10, High 4:2:2 Currently, single-slice operation is disallowed for A.3.3 and higher. However, per comments made in the room, decoder products exist which rely on multiple-slice operation at least for higher levels. (4.1 and above), therefore objection is raised. In fact, a corrigendum would not be the right action, as such a change may break existing decoders. A better option would be to define a new level. A resolution states that this issue needs further consideration, any change not compatible with existing decoders is not regarded to be a viable solution. NBs are kindly requested to further comment on this, as well as the desirability of a new Level definition providing such functionality.	Lowell Winger, Alexis Tourapis, Gaelle Martin-Cocher
m21278	Specification of a novel frame packing arrangement in the SEI message It is suggested to establish a tile structures which would chop two 720p pictures into rectangular pieces and fit them into a single 1080p picture. Questions: As there are hardly any legacy decoders being able to decode 1080p/60, is this really a useful approach (regarding backward compatibility)? What is the coding efficiency of the scheme? No opposition was expressed on technical reasons. Further study is recommended, if useful, possible inclusion in an amendment next meeting or later.	Marco Grangetto, Mario Stroppiana, Alessandra Mosca
m21339	Technical proposal to maintain interoperability and backward compatibility of frame compatible 3DTV transmission with legacy 2D and 3D aware receivers From the perspective of 2D display from a legacy decoder, this proposal is not a problem. Spec says to discard outside of the cropping window. With the current spec, the user can use an existing STB, and just put their TV into a special display mode to get 3D from the signal being sent from the STB to the TV. Main advantage would be automatic switching. In principle we could specify a new frame_packing_arrangement_type value to indicate this use, and change the spec to allow use of areas outside of the cropping window. A liaison letter was sent to DVB that we will study the issue, indicating that this usage is not what intended usage of the cropping window.	Paola Sunna
m21375	INB request to consider usage of cropping rectangle and sample aspect ratio to support 2D-compatible services in Frame compatible Plano-Stereoscopic 3DTV A resolution was issued the we have started studying this issue and believe that such an approach can potentially be specified in a new amendment to ISO/IEC 14496-10. It is however pointed out that the suggested usage of frame cropping does not comply with the original text, which specifies that pixels outside the cropping area are not output for display. Further study on this issue is necessary.	Giovanni Cordara (on behalf of the INB)

Document(s) approved:

No.	Title	TBP	Available
12192	Disposition of Comments on ISO/IEC 14496-10:2010/DCOR 1	N	11/07/22
12176	Text of ISO/IEC 14496-10:2010/COR 1	N	11/08/31