JVET-H0048 AhG8: Dynamic viewport based subjective evaluation of Balboa and Landing [P. Hanhart, Y. He, Y. Ye (InterDigital)]

This document reports results of a subjective evaluation comparing dynamic viewports for the newly adopted Balboa and Landing sequences. The HM and JEM CfP anchors were used in the evaluation, as well as the updated Landing sequence (JVET-H0021), which was encoded with HM-16.16 and JEM-7.0 in the padded equirectangular projection (PERP) format under CfP coding conditions for the current Landing sequence. The double stimulus impairment scale (DSIS) method was used to assess the subjective quality of these sequences coded using HM and JEM. Results show that JEM achieves some visual quality improvements over HM across the selected target bit rates. Finally, some comments regarding the Landing sequence are made based on the feedback from the viewers.

Experts viewing was performed (9 participants), using the 5 grade MOS scale.

For Balboa, the range of rates reportedly seems OK, differentiation between JEM and HM with non-overlapping confidence intervals was reported up to the highest bit rate.

Landing1 is rated at highest rate with a MOS of 3.x. Viewport 1 seems to be inappropriate, as high camera motion in the end may be disturbing. It was pointed out in the discussion that for 360° video with a high amount of camera motion that too much additional variation in dynamic viewport should be avoided.

Landing 2 is reportedly somewhat better. It was however observed that in the case of both JEM and HM coding the variation over rates 1–4 is not large for...

JVET-H1030 JVET common test conditions and evaluation procedures for 360° video [E. Alshina, J. Boyce, A. Abbas, Y. Ye] [2017-11-17]

This reflects updates of Excel sheets (as per JVET-H0030) and a new RSP version (JVET-H0056) and replacing the Landing sequence with the Landing2 sequence.

It was reminded that in cases where a JVET document is also made available as an MPEG output document, a version under the MPEG document header should also be generated. This version should be sent to GJS and JRO for upload.

AHGs established

JVET-H0008 JVET AHG report: 360º video coding tools and test conditions (AHG8) [J. Boyce, A. Abbas, E. Alshina, G. van der Auwera, Y. Ye]

This document summarizes the activity of AHG8: 360º video coding tools and test conditions between the 7th meeting in Torino, IT (13–21 July 2017) and the 8th meeting in Macao, CN, 18–24 Oct. 2017.

There were 7 contributions noted to be related to 360º video coding, which are classified below

• Projection formats and padding
  • JVET-H0056 AHG8: An Update on RSP Projection [Adeel Abbas (GoPro)]
• Test Conditions and Evaluation
  • JVET-H0048 AhG8: Dynamic viewport based subjective evaluation of Balboa and Landing [P. Hanhart, Y. He, Y. Ye (InterDigital)]
  • JVET-H0050 AhG8: Measurement of User Exploration Behavior for Omnidirectional (360°) Videos with Head Mounted Display [A. Singla, S. Fremerey, A. Raake, P. List, B. Feiten]
  • JVET-H0049 AhG8: On viewport size and field of view [P. Hanhart, Y. He, Y. Ye (InterDigital)]
  • JVET-H0035 AHG8: The guidance of WS-PSNR weights derivation for different formats [Y. Sun, L. Yu (Zhejiang University)]
• Content
  • JVET-H0021 AHG8: Test Sequences for Spherical Video Coding from GoPro [A. Abbas (GoPro)]
  • JVET-H0022 AHG8: New Sequences for Virtual Reality Video Coding from InterDigital [Y. He, P. Hanhart, E. Asbun, Y. He, Y. Ye]

The AHG recommended the following:

• Review input contributions
• Review new 360° video test material, and consider adding or replacing test sequences for common test conditions and/or CfP
• Refine common test conditions for 360° video, including objective metrics and viewports
• Finalize the 360° video section of the...