Of itu-t sg16 wp3 and iso/iec jtc1/SC29/WG11

1.11Liaison activity

The JCT-VC did not send or receive formal liaison communications at this meeting.

See section 8.1 regarding communication between the parent bodies and LS input from ITU-R regarding electro-optical transfer characteristics (esp. for BT.2020).

1.12Opening remarks (update)

The next meeting begins 30 June, so any editing period for that needs to be relatively short (to check on that).
Remarks on Lateness of documents.

Remarks on Number of documents.

Primary topic areas:

• 
  HLS
  
• 
  SHVC
  
• 
  RExt
  
• 
  Corrigenda items, preparation of new edition (how to progress RExt FDAM ballot)
  
• 
  Screen content coding CfP
  

Other

• 
  Verification test
  

Unfinished (or less-than-optimally finished) deliverables

• 
  HEVC conformance (& Draft DoCR)
  
• 
  RExt draft finalization
  
• 
  HM test model text
  

Two main tracks:

• 
  HLS
  
• 
  RExt & SCC
  

1.13Scheduling of discussions

Scheduling: Generally meeting time was scheduled during 0800 – 2000, with coffee and lunch breaks as convenient. The meeting had been announced to start with AHG reports and continue with parallel review on SHVC HLS, SHVC and RExt CE work and related contributions during the first few days. Ongoing refinements were announced on the group email reflector as needed.

Some particular scheduling notes are shown below, although not necessarily 100% accurate:

• 
  Thu. 27 Mar., 1st day 0900–2000
  
  • 
    JCT-VC opening and review of AHG reports [JRO & GJS] 0900–1315 (MP1)
    
  • 
    SCC CfP response presentations of technical proposals [JRO] 1445–2000 (MP1)
    
  • 
    HLS BoG [J. Boyce] 1445–2000 (Aud. 3B)
    
• 
  Fri. 28 Mar., 2nd day 0800–1900
  
  • 
    RExt [JRO] 0800–1300, 1630–1900 (MP1)
    
  • 
    HLS BoG [J. Boyce] 0900–1300, 1430–1900 (3B), esp.:
    
    • 
      7.5.2 IRAP alignment and POC derivation
      
    • 
      7.5.3 RPS signalling and derivation
      
    • 
      7.5.5 Parameter sets
      
  • 
    SCC CfP Summarization BoG [H. Yu. R. Cohen, R. Joshi] 0800–1300 (3A)
    
  • 
    SCC CfP results review [JRO] 1430–1600 (MP1)
    
  • 
    SCE1 and related non-CE SHVC contributions [GJS] 1430–1900 (3A)
    
• 
  Sat. 29 Mar., 3rd day 0800–2000
  
  • 
    Parallel activity: JCT-3V first day 0900–2000 (3A+B)
    
  • 
    Non-CfP SCC or RExt [R. Cohen] 0830–1330, 1500–1730 (MP1)
    
  • 
    HLS [Y.-K. Wang] 0900–1330, 1500–1630 (S2)
    
  • 
    SHVC position calculation [J. Boyce] 0800–1330 (S1)
    
  • 
    JCT-VC review of Non-CfP SCC / RExt and SHVC position calculation [GJS] 1600–2000 (MP1)
    
• 
  Sun. 30 Mar., 4th day 0900–2000 [Summer time change noted]
  
  • 
    JCT-VC review of SHVC position calculation and HLS [GJS] 0900–1200 (Aud. 2)
    
  • 
    JCT-VC remainders [GJS] 1200–1400, 1330–1800
    
  • 
    RExt BoG [D. Flynn & C. Rosewarne] 1830–2000
    
  • 
    HLS BoG [J. Boyce] 1830–2000
    
• 
  Mon. 31 Mar., 5th day 1430–2100
  
  • 
    Parent level: WG 11 plenary 0900–1400
    
  • 
    Parent level: VCEG plenary 1400–1600
    
  • 
    Parent level: Joint meeting 1600–1800 (SCC &c)
    
  • 
    JCT-VC HLS 1815–2100 (GJS) (3B)
    
  • 
    JCT-VC RExt 1815–2100 (JRO) (Aud. 2)
    
• 
  Tue. 1 Apr., 6th day 0800–2100
  
  • 
    JCT-VC RExt and next steps for SCC (GJS & JRO) 0800–1000+ (Aud. 2)
    
  • 
    SHVC position calculation [J. Boyce] 0800–1000 (Room A)
    
  • 
    HLS [J. Boyce] 0900–1100 (Room A)
    
  • 
    SCM [R. Cohen] (Aud. 2)
    
  • 
    RExt editorial review [GJS] 1000 (Foyer Aud. 2B)
    
  • 
    RExt colour VUI [GJS] 1200 (Foyer Aud. 2B)
    
  • 
    Parent level: Joint meeting 1600–1800 (various topics)
    
  • 
    RExt editorial review [DF] 1800–2100 (3A)
    
• 
  Wed. 2 Apr., 7th day 1130–2100
  
  • 
    Parent level: WG 11 plenary 0900–1100
    
  • 
    JCT-VC review of side activity, RExt profiling details 1130−1300 (Aud. 2)
    
  • 
    Parent level: VCEG plenary 1300–1400 (Aud. 2)
    
  • 
    SCC 1500−1700 BoG (Room 3A)
    
  • 
    HLS 1500−1800 (Aud. 2)
    
  • 
    JCT-VC remainders 1800-2100 (Aud. 2)
    
    • 
      SHVC CGS phase 2.1 vs. 2.2 [2.2 simpler?, 2.1 has 0.6% gain] Decision: 2.1, with se(v) coding.
      
    • 
      HEVC v1 Conformance 0219
      
    • 
      SHVC conformance (To be part of conformance AHG – volunteers: J. Boyce, Y. Ye, T. Suzuki, A. Ramasubramonian) & ref soft
      
    • 
      Verif test follow-up (0019, 0204  output doc)
      
    • 
      RExt conformance 0249
      
    • 
      RExt coding features 0051
      
  • 
    RExt finalization and editorial review BoG 1900−2100
    
  • 
    Parent level: ISO/IEC editor guidance 1700–1800 (Room 5)
    
• 
  Thu. 3 Apr., 8th day 0800–2100
  
  • 
    Parent level: Joint meeting 1500–1700 (various topics)
    
  • 
    BoG position & phase adj SHVC Room A 8am
    
  • 
    BoG HLS Room A 1000
    
  • 
    BoG SCC Room 3A 8am-1000
    
  • 
    JCT-VC & JCT-3V joint HLS review 1700-1800 Aud. 2
    
  • 
    JCT-VC Remainders 0800-1500 Aud. 2
    
    • 
      0800 Misc
      
    • 
      1000 Still picture
      
    • 
      1030 SCC Review
      
    • 
      AHG plans
      
    • 
      RExt DoCR (IT: FPA) – see joint meeting notes.
      
    • 
      Suggest removing reserved byte and type code and aspect ratio flag and shortening the content interpretation type to 2 bits with no intent to extend later
      
    • 
      It was suggested to prohibit sending both FPA messages together.
      
    • 
      A participant commented that if this new message is present, there should be some indication that the video should not be displayed in the normal fashion.
      
    • 
      1700 HLS BoG and revisits review Q0223
      
    • 
      Shared DPB revisit
      
    • 
      1900 SHVC position & phase adj BoG review
      
    • 
      CE planning (SCC, CGS WP?, 12 b SHVC?)
      
    • 
      Output doc planning
      
    • 
      Notes on some discussions completed
      
      • 
        (GJS a.m.) In RExt, CABAC initialization and CBF have been identified by the editors as areas of potential deficiencies in the text. Decision: Generally speaking, discrepancies should be resolved in these aspects by studying the software in case of doubt]
        
      • 
        Version 1 defects MinCR [confirmed Wed p.m. (GJS)], 0111 [Discussed Wed. (MMH) To be further discussed Thu., Discussed Thu. (YKW) Decision: Disallow CpbDpbDelaysPresentFlag being equal to 1 when NalHrdBpPresentFlag and VclHrdBpPresentFlag are both equal to 0.

        It was remarked that this modification may not require sequential ordering of APS SEI preceding BP SEI preceding PT SEI. Further study of the potential remaining parsing issues for BP and PT SEI was encouraged. It was also remarked that these SEI messages and possibly some others also may require delayed parsing.]

        
        
        Editorial action item: Editors are also requested to review and add clarification as necessary regarding concept of POC being increasing in output order within each CVS
        
        
        
      • 
        (AD) Notes to be added for performance analysis 0046, 0050
        
      • 
        SCC Project desc.
        
      • 
        Profiles – see joint meeting notes.
        
        • 
          CPB size effect for all-intra profiles
          
        • 
          Bit rates for high-throughput profile
          
        • 
          12 bit profile Q0206
          
• 
  Fri. 4 Apr., 9th day 0800–1230
  
  • 
    Parent level: WG 11 plenary 1400–2200
    
  • 
    JCT-VC closing plenary 0800–1230
    
    • 
      AHG plans
      
    • 
      Output docs
      
    • 
      WG11 DoCRs, NBs, resolutions
      
    • 
      CE plans
      
    • 
      Q0256 check
      

      Q0256 was a late contribution providing modified proposed text relative to the WG 11 IT NB ballot input, responding to comments made in joint review on Thu. It was reviewed in closing plenary on Fri. a.m. (GJS):

      A participant questioned whether the suggested name was the best choice (although not preferring "FPA version 2") and suggested giving the editors the discretion to select an alternative name (with follow-up consultation with the proponent).

      It was questioned how to deal with the backward compatibility issue of decoders that may understand the existing FPA but not the new one. It was noted that the proposed text suggested for encoders to use the "default display window" to manage that case. It was suggested to mandate rather than advise that the "default display window", but the contributor suggested that the encoder may have valid reasons for choosing not to do that (e.g., not wanting to provide a lower-resolution 2D viewable picture as an acceptable alternative to 3D viewing). It was also noted that decoders may ignore the default display window.

      It was remarked that the frame0_self_contained_flag was removed in the modified syntax, but would actually be useful.

      It was suggested to clarify that both types of FPA should not be allowed in the same CVS. This was agreed.

      It was suggested that it could be desirable to be able to cancel the new FPA using the cancellation signal specified by the old FPA SEI message.

      It was suggested that document availability was somewhat unfortunate in this case; however, there is a need to proceed, and the text seems generally adequate at this stage.

      
      
      Decision: Include in RExt, prohibit both types in the same CVS.