JVET-AJ2037 Report on subjective quality testing of the FGC SEI message, also issued as AG 5 N 140

b) documents produced as WG 5 documents only:

WG 5 N 318 Draft disposition of comments received on ISO/IEC 23002-7:202x/CDAM1

WG 5 N 320 Request for ISO/IEC 23008-2:202x (6th ed.) Amd.1 Additional profiles and SEI messages

WG 5 N 321 Disposition of comments received on ISO/IEC CD 23090-16:202x

WG 5 N 324 Liaison statement to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 1 (JPEG) on JPEG AI and explorations on video coding

WG 5 N 325 Liaison statement to DVB on film grain synthesis

WG 5 N 326 Liaison statement to ARIB, ATSC, SBTVD, and SCTE on film grain synthesis evaluation

WG 5 N 327 Liaison statement to ATSC on multi-layer coding

WG 5 N 329 Draft disposition of comments received on ISO/IEC 23090-3:202x/CDAM1

As main results, the JVET produced 16 output documents from the current meeting:

JVET-AJ2037 Report on subjective quality testing of the FGC SEI message, also issued as AG 5 N 140

b) documents produced as WG 5 documents only:

WG 5 N 318 Draft disposition of comments received on ISO/IEC 23002-7:202x/CDAM1

WG 5 N 320 Request for ISO/IEC 23008-2:202x (6th ed.) Amd.1 Additional profiles and SEI messages

WG 5 N 321 Disposition of comments received on ISO/IEC CD 23090-16:202x

WG 5 N 324 Liaison statement to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 1 (JPEG) on JPEG AI and explorations on video coding

WG 5 N 325 Liaison statement to DVB on film grain synthesis

WG 5 N 326 Liaison statement to ARIB, ATSC, SBTVD, and SCTE on film grain synthesis evaluation

WG 5 N 327 Liaison statement to ATSC on multi-layer coding

WG 5 N 329 Draft disposition of comments received on ISO/IEC 23090-3:202x/CDAM1

Further important goals were reviewing the results of the EE on Neural Network-based Video Coding, of the EE on Enhanced Compression beyond VVC capability, of other technical input on novel aspects of video coding technology, and planning next steps for investigation of candidate technology towards further standard development.

Documents and document handling considerations

General

The document distribution site https://jvet-experts.org/ was used for distribution of all documents.

Document registration timestamps, initial upload timestamps, and final upload timestamps are listed in Annex A of this report.

The document registration and upload times and dates listed in Annex A and in headings for documents in this report are in Paris/Geneva time. Dates mentioned for purposes of describing events at the meeting follow the CEST timezone (local time in Geneva), except as otherwise noted.

Highlighting of recorded decisions in this report is practised as follows:

Decisions made by the group that might affect the normative content of a future standard are identified in this report by prefixing the description of the decision with the string “Decision:”.

Decisions that affect one of the various software packages but have no normative effect on text are marked by the string “Decision (SW):”.

Decisions that fix a “bug” in one of the test model descriptions such as VTM, HM, etc. (an error, oversight, or messiness) or in the associated software package are marked by the string “Decision (BF):”.

Decisions that are merely editorial without effect on the technical content of a draft standard are marked by the string "Decision (Ed.):". Such editorial decisions are merely suggestions to the editor, who has the discretion to determine the final action taken if their judgment differs.

Other parenthetical comments may be used for describing the impact or motivation of a decision. Some decisions are recorded with the word “agreed” rather than “Decision:”, especially for work items under study, non-normative, editorial and planning matters.

This meeting report is based primarily on notes taken by the JVET chair. The preliminary notes were also circulated publicly by ftp and http during the meeting on a daily basis. It should be understood by the reader that 1) some notes may appear in abbreviated form, 2) summaries of the content of contributions are often based on abstracts provided by contributing proponents without an intent to imply endorsement of the views expressed therein, and 3) the depth of discussion of the content of the various contributions in this report is not uniform. Generally, the report is written to include as much information about the contributions and discussions as is feasible (in the interest of aiding study), although this approach may not result in the most polished output report. Expressions such as “X.XX%” indicate that the desired results were not available at the time the information was recorded.

Late and incomplete document considerations

The formal deadline for registering and uploading non-administrative contributions had been announced as Tuesday, 7 January 2025. Any documents uploaded after 1159 hours Paris/Geneva time on Wednesday 8 January 2025 were considered “officially late”, with a grace period of 12 hours (to accommodate those living in different time zones of the world). The deadline does not apply to AHG reports and other such reports which can only be produced after the availability of other input documents.

All contribution documents with registration numbers higher than JVET-AK0239 were registered after the “officially late” deadline (and therefore were also uploaded late). However, some documents in the “late” range might include break-out activity reports that were generated during the meeting, or documents which were requested to be produced for the purpose of improving specification text, and are therefore better considered as report documents rather than as late contributions.

In many cases, contributions were also revised after the initial version was uploaded. The contribution document archive website retains publicly accessible prior versions in such cases. The timing of late document availability for contributions is generally noted in the section discussing each contribution in this report.

One suggestion to assist with the issue of late submissions has been to require the submitters of late contributions and late revisions to describe the characteristics of the late or revised (or missing) material at the beginning of discussion of the contribution. This has been agreed to be a helpful approach to be followed at the meeting.

The following technical design proposal contributions were registered and/or uploaded late: