Joint Video Experts Team (jvet) of itu-t sg 6 wp and iso/iec jtc 1/sc 29/wg 11

2.11Opening remarks

Activities on the oOpening cross-checking day of the meeting 0900 Tuesday 10 April (chaired by GJS, & Jill Boyce, and & Alexis Tourapis) were as follows.

• 
  Reviewed The logistics, agenda, working practices, policies, document allocation, and IPR policy were reviewed.
  
• 
  The checking used data brought by proponents and prior data from the submissions to the test coordinator.
  
• 
  Each proposal was checked by one cross-checker.
  
• 
  Data provided by proponents was checked against md5sums of executable files and bitstreams, and executable files were run to produce decoded video.
  
• 
  Things requested to be checked included the b: Bitstream and executable file sizes, bitstream and executable md5sums, decoded video md5sums, in some cases fidelity metric values for some individual test points (passing the PSNR numbers to Alexis Tourapis for confirmation).
  
• 
  The checking was not exhaustive.
  
• 
  Cross-checking was performed primarily (but not necessarily always) between proponents within each category (i.e., SDR submissions checked by other SDR proposal submitters, HDR/WCG submissions checked by other HDR/WCG proposal submitters, and 360° submissions checked by other 360° proposal submitters).
  
• 
  Checkers were instructed not to keep copies of the data.
  
• 
  No significant problems were found with the submissions.
  
• 
  Issues that arose:
  
  • 
    The submitted md5sums for decoded video were not available for checking 18 (of 46) proposals. (It was noted that some follow-up checking may could be done later after getting access to that data, although this may not have occurred in practice.). Other aspects could be checked for these proposals, such as md5sums provided by the proponents, decodability of bitstreams, file sizes, etc.
    
  • 
    At least two decoders were too slow to be able to cross-check any full bitstream that was encoded for the high-complexity decoding mode; in one case a cross-checker checked just a few frames of each sequence, and in the other case the cross-checker didn't seem to get that far.
    
  • 
    A minor problem was encountered for one proposal due to md5sums accidentally computed in the 8 bit domain instead of the 10 bit domain.
    
  • 
    One decoder would crash on one PC but run on another one.
    
  • 
    There was a case or two of platform problems where multiple decoder executables had been submitted for the same proposal and one of those would not run properly, but there was one that would run properly.
    
  • 
    There was a virus scan warning for one proposal executable (but we went ahead and cleaned it and used it).
    

Opening remarks on Wednesday:

• 
  Reviewed The meeting logistics, agenda, working practices, policies, and document allocation were reviewed.
  
• 
  The rResults of the previous meeting,: CfP preparation, meeting report, etc., were reviewed.
  
• 
  The pPrimary goal of the meeting was to r: Review and summarize responses to the joint Call for Proposals (CfP), and identify promising technology directions.
  
• 
  There had been a sStrong response to the call.
  
• 
  The rResults from the cross-checking conducted on Tuesday were discussed; – no serious problems with any proposals had been identified.
  
• 
  At the previous meeting, we had said that "Multiple documents are needed for multiple submissions in a single category." This was not followed by two proposals, likely due to simply forgetting the decision, and this was considered agreed to be a minor issue and not a real problem.
  
• 
  The need for a pPlan towards establishing a framework for verification and experimentation was noted.
  
• 
  To discuss fFurther planning of standards development beyond the CfP was deferred for consideration with the parent bodies later during the meeting.
  

2.12Scheduling of discussions

Scheduling: Generally meeting time was scheduled during 0900–2000 hours, with coffee and lunch breaks as convenient. Ongoing scheduling refinements were announced on the group email reflector as needed. Some particular scheduling notes are shown below, although not necessarily 100% accurate or complete:

• 
  Tue. 10 Apr.April, 1^st day
  

• 
  0900–1900 Crosschecking of CfP submissions (chaired by GJS, assisted by JB and AT)
  

• 
  Wed. 11 Apr.April, 2^nd day
  

• 
  0900–1130 Opening plenary and AHG reports (chaired by GJS & JRO)
  
• 
  1200–1320, 1435–1540, 1610–2015 Review CfP submissions (initially focused on SDR aspects)
  

• 
  Thu. 12 Apr.April, 3^rd day
  

• 
  0910–1100, 1155–1300, 1430–1610, 1655–1730 Review of CfP submissions (initially focused on SDR aspects)
  
• 
  1745–1900 Preliminary subjective test results
  

• 
  Fri. 13 Apr.April, 4^th day
  

• 
  0900–1100 BoG on survey of CfP submissions (M. Zhou)
  
• 
  1140–1310, 1440–1550, 1550–1610, 1640–1830 Review of HDR and 360° CfP submissions
  

• 
  Sat. 14 Apr.April, 5^th day
  

• 
  0900–0935 Review of 360° aspects of JVET-J0023 CfP response by RWTH Aachen Univ.
  
• 
  0935–0950 Review of BoG report JVET-J0082 on SDR proposal technical feature survey
  
• 
  0950–1040 Non-CfP additional information on CfP contributions (section 7.1)
  
• 
  1110–1300 Non-CfP intra prediction and coding contributions (section 7.2)
  
• 
  1430–~1600, ~1630–1735 Non-CfP inter prediction and coding contributions (section 7.3)
  
• 
  1430–1600 BoG on 360° proposal technical feature survey (J. Boyce, in parallel)
  
• 
  1630–1730 BoG on HDR proposal technical feature survey (A. Segall, in parallel)
  
• 
  1735–1900 Non-CfP loop filter contributions (section 7.4)
  

• 
  Sun. 15 Apr.April, 6^th day
  

• 
  0900-0935 Non-CfP transform contributions (section 7.5)
  
• 
  0935-1010 Review of BoG report JVET-J0084 on HDR proposal technical feature survey
  
• 
  1010-1050 Review of BoG report JVET-J0085 on 360° proposal technical feature survey
  
• 
  1130-1305 Non-CfP transform contributions (section 7.5)
  
• 
  1430-1520 Non-CfP partitioning contributions (section 7.6)
  
• 
  1520–1640 Non-CfP NN-based contributions (section 7.7)
  
• 
  1710–1715 Complexity analysis (section 10)
  
• 
  1715–1805 Encoder optimization (section 11)
  

• 
  Mon. 16 Apr.April, 7^th day
  

• 
  0900–1400 MPEG opening plenary (parent body activity)
  
• 
  1400–1530 VCEG opening plenary (parent body activity)
  
• 
  1600–1800 Joint meeting on JVET CfP outcome
  

• 
  Tue. 17 Apr.April, 8^th day
  

• 
  1000–1300 and 1430–-1800 Project development: Steps towards test model, draft text, software (including review of related input documents)
  

• 
  Wed. 18 Apr.April, 9^th day
  

• 
  0900–1100 MPEG opening plenary (parent body activity)
  
• 
  1130–-1300 Project development: benchmark set approach, software
  
• 
  1430–-1600 Review of HDR topics
  
• 
  1430–-1600 BoG on benchmark set definition (chaired by J. Boyce)
  
• 
  1600–-1800 Experimentation procedure, setup of initial CE list
  

• 
  Thu. 19 Apr.April, 10^th day
  

• 
  0900–-1040 Review of 360 CfP results
  
• 
  1100–-1120 Review BoG report on benchmark set
  
• 
  1120–-1310 Review remaining documents
  
• 
  1430–-1600 BoG on HDR/WCG (chaired by A. Segall)
  
• 
  1430–-1800 Discuss CE rules and setup, CTC, coordination issues
  
• 
  1800–-1900 BoG on 360 video (chaired by J. Boyce)
  

• 
  Fri. 20 Apr.April, 11^th day
  

• 
  0900–-1335 Finalization of meeting results
  
• 
  1345–-1400 Joint meeting with parent bodies on selecting the nick: Nname of the project
  
• 
  1400–2000 MPEG opening closing plenary (parent body activity)