Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (jct-vc) Contribution

6.6Non-normative: Encoder optimization, decoder speed improvement and cleanup, post filtering, loss concealment, rate control (1)

JCTVC-P0059 Unifying HM and RExt Inter-Prediction Search [K. Sharman, N. Saunders, J. Gamei (Sony)]

See BoG report P0288 and related notes.

Further study was suggested to reduce losses in SCC cases.

7Plenary Discussions and BoG Reports

7.1Project development

The VCEG and MPEG parent bodies held joint meetings with JCT-VC at 1600–1800 Monday, 1600–1800 Wednesday, and 1400–1500 Thursday.

Topics discussed in the joint discussion particularly included the following:

• 
  Liaison letter from SG 16 to WG 11 (m31807)
  
  • 
    4:4:4 8b and 4:4:4 generally
    
  • 
    Screen content coding CfP
    
  • 
    FPA versioning
    
  • 
    extended gamut / high dynamic range
    
  • 
    interlaced source content
    
  • 
    medical applications
    
  • 
    general
    
• 
  RExt profiles
  
• 
  SEI / VUI / uses of auxiliary pictures development methodology
  
• 
  SHVC with non-HEVC base layer (so-called "hybrid" scalability)
  
• 
  SHVC colour gamut and bit depth scalability
  
• 
  Field/frame issues in regard to scalability (for either AVC or HEVC base layers)
  
• 
  Frame packing SEI messages – versioning scheme agreed
  
• 
  New Call for Proposals on Screen Content Coding – issued jointly; technical work to be done in JCT-VC.
  
• 
  HEVC version 1 errata
  
  • 
    CPB removal delay
    
  • 
    Electro-optical transfer characteristics – esp. for BT.2020
    
  • 
    MinCR for high tier of Main and Main 10 profiles
    
  • 
    Desire for high visibility and rapid processing of corrections
    
  • 
    plan to merge errata into Amd.1
    
• 
  3D-HEVC status (outside the scope of JCT-VC, moved forward for standardization)
  
• 
  Interlaced single-layer coding (esp. in re technical changes specifically for that) – study work ongoing in WG 11 parent body with preparation of draft Requirements and possible Call for Proposals
  
• 
  Extended colour-gamut / high dynamic range video coding – study work ongoing in parent bodies
  
• 
  Colour-related SEI
  
• 
  Overlay auxiliary pictures (type code, carriage)
  
  • 
    Discussion 01-16 Rule for Aux pic type code: 5 unaffiliated proponents and interop needed and achieved
    
• 
  Whether functionality of decoding 4:4:4 content with v1 decoders is relevant
  
  • 
    Discussion 01-16 Not currently of interest
    
• 
  Depth view packing SEI message
  
  • 
    Deferred to the next meeting
    
• 
  MFC with depth (similar approach to MVC+D, only texture uses MFC, proposal JCT3V-G0115)
  
  • 
    Deferred to further study
    
• 
  Noted that there is a problem with the coding efficiency of the lossless coding of 16 b 4:4:4 in the design as of 2013-11.
  

[Add description of resolution outcome on SEI/VUI]

[Add description of on 4:4:4 8b profile]

[Add description of status of 4:4:4 profiles, SG 16 view expressed in m31807, VCEG continues to hold its previous position on 4:4:4 profiles]

[Add detail on hybrid scalability discussion – it was planned to establish a profile for this, but the design was insufficiently mature for current specification]
Regarding 4:4:4 profiles of RExt

• 
  Decision: Regarding 8 b 4:4:4 profile, the output draft output will say this is TBD, and not include such a profile definition.
  
• 
  Decision: Add 16 b 4:4:4 all-intra profile with 3 tiers
  
• 
  Wait until March/April to decide on what is in 4:4:4 profiles. The contention is primarily regarding intra block copy.
  
• 
  Decision: The output draft will identify all (~5?) identified features [add detail] as TBD in the new profile, and whatever it said before for other 4:4:4 profiles
  

Ballot results

m32217 Summary of Voting on ISO/IEC 23008-2:201X/PDAM 3 [SC 29 Secretariat]
Regarding colour gamut / bit depth scalability – it was agreed for there to be such a profile specified in the output draft, with a maximum of 10 bit support with the bit depth of the enhancement layer required to be greater than or equal to the bit depth of the base layer.

7.2BoGs

JCTVC-P0288 BoG report on Range Extensions [C. Rosewarne, K. Sharman]

See section 6.1.1.

JCTVC-P0298 BoG report on Palette mode [C. Rosewarne]

See section 6.1.6.

JCTVC-P0292 BoG Report on Colour Gamut Scalability (CGS) [A. Duenas]

See section 6.2.2.

JCTVC-P0290 Joint BoG report on High Level Syntax [J. Boyce]

See section 6.4.1.

JCTVC-P0302 BoG report on performance analysis and demos [J. Samuelsson]

See section 3.4.1.

JCTVC-P0312 BoG report on phase adjustment in SHVC re-sampling process [E. Alshina]

See section 6.2.5.

8Project planning

8.1WD drafting and software

The following agreement was established: the editorial team has the discretion to not integrate recorded adoptions for which the available text is grossly inadequate (and cannot be fixed with a reasonable degree of effort), if such a situation hypothetically arises. In such an event, the text would record the intent expressed by the committee without including a full integration of the available inadequate text.

8.2Plans for improved efficiency and contribution consideration

The group considered it important to have the full design of proposals documented to enable proper study.

Adoptions need to be based on properly drafted working draft text (on normative elements) and HM encoder algorithm descriptions – relative to the existing drafts. Proposal contributions should also provide a software implementation (or at least such software should be made available for study and testing by other participants at the meeting, and software must be made available to cross-checkers in CEs).

Suggestions for future meetings included the following generally-supported principles:

• 
  No review of normative contributions without WD text
  
• 
  HM text strongly encouraged for non-normative contributions
  
• 
  Early upload deadline to enable substantial study prior to the meeting
  
• 
  Using a clock timer to ensure efficient proposal presentations (5 min) and discussions
  

The document upload deadline for the next meeting was planned to be the Monday of the week preceding the meeting (17 Mar.).

As general guidance, it was suggested to avoid usage of company names in document titles, software modules etc., and not to describe a technology by using a company name. Also, core experiment responsibility descriptions should name individuals, not companies. AHG reports and CE descriptions/summaries are considered to be the contributions of individuals, not companies.