Search Results for "JVET-Y0190"

Found 8 document(s)

Search documents

Use number, keyword, author, or MPEG number. Filter by meeting when needed.

Not signed in yet.
Showing 1-8 of 8 result(s)
25th Meeting: by teleconference, January 2022 2022-01-13 01:57
AHG2/AHG8: Suggestions for the operation range extensions GCI
Authors: Jonathan Gan OPPO Yue Yu OPPO H. Yu OPPO
Abstract
It is asserted that the current text for general constraints information (GCI) in VVC version 2 contains two bugs. For the first bug, it is asserted that incorrect semantics and handling of gci_num_additional_bits lead to GCI decoding behaviour in VVC version 2 incompatible with VVC version 1 decoders. For the second bug, it is asserted that setting gci_present_flag to 1 and gci_num_additional_bits to 0 leads to undefined constraint behaviour for the 6 coding tools which are governed by the 6 additional GCI flags introduced in VVC version 2.
Meeting Notes
JVET-Y0190 AHG2/AHG8: Suggestions for the operation range extensions GCI [J. Gan, Y. Yu, H. Yu (OPPO)] [late]

It is asserted that the current text for general constraints information (GCI) in VVC version 2 contains two bugs. For the first bug, it is asserted that incorrect semantics and handling of gci_num_additional_bits lead to GCI decoding behaviour in VVC version 2 incompatible with VVC version 1 decoders. For the second bug, it is asserted that setting gci_present_flag to 1 and gci_num_additional_bits to 0 leads to undefined constraint behaviour for the 6 coding tools which are governed by the 6 additional GCI flags introduced in VVC version 2.

It is additionally asserted that VTM 15.0 contains a bug related to decoding of GCI as reported by JVET-Y0005.

The same issue is raised as in JVET-Y0049 (aspect 2).

Beyond that, it is pointed out (aspect 1) that a problem might occur when the gci_num_additional_bits has another value than 0 or 6 in version 2. The solution proposed appears appropriate.

Aspect 3 points out a software bug. Aspect 1 and 3 together are likely causing the problem with the conformance bitstreams.

New conformance streams need to be generated with all 6 GCI flags.

In the discussion, it is also mentioned that it might be desirable to rename the syntax element gci_reserved_zero_bit, as it could in have values of 0 or 1. This may however not be necessary.

Side activity with relevant experts, developing an integrated text to fix the bugs.

Follow-up discussion in session 9 Fri 14 Jan. No consensus yet on the question if a decoder should expect that only...

References:
JVET-T2001 JVET-W0133 JVET-W2005 JVET-X2005 JVET-Y0005
Cited:
JVET-Y0002 JVET-Y0005 JVET-Y0008 JVET-Y0237 JVET-Y0242
PATENTS:
AU2022431236A1 1.00 2024-06-13 2022430396 1.00 20250159223 0.95 WO/2023/132993 0.90 HK40107049A 0.88 2024-10-04 HK40110591A 0.88 2024-12-20 CN118511532A 0.87 2024-08-16 WO/2023/132992 0.85
ARCHIVE v2 :
JVET-Y0190-v2-clean.docx JVET-Y0190-v2.docx
Decisions
One argument is to retain decoder conformance of main profiles consistent across versions. Minhua Zhou will provide a text that accommodates this and further discuss with other experts.
See section 4.2.
Citation
25th Meeting: by teleconference, January 2022 2022-01-17 10:17
Integrated specification text for JVET-Y0049 and JVET-Y0190
Authors: Jonathan Gan OPPO Ye-Kui Wang ByteDance
Abstract
Following presentation of input contributions JVET-Y0005 [1], JVET-Y0049 [2], and JVET-Y0190 [3], it was asserted that several bugs exist in the VVC version 2 specification relating to the general constraints information syntax, two of which were the cause of errors in conformance testing reported by JVET-Y0005. Relevant experts were asked to develop an integrated text to fix the bugs. Although consensus was reached on the majority of the text, differences of opinion still remain on one section of the text, namely the semantics for gci_num_additional_bits. The differences have been captured in three options.
Meeting Notes
JVET-Y0237 Integrated specification text for JVET-Y0049 and JVET-Y0190 [J. Gan (OPPO), Y.-K. Wang (Bytedance)] [late]

Following presentation of input contributions JVET-Y0005, JVET-Y0049, and JVET-Y0190, it was asserted that several bugs exist in the VVC version 2 specification relating to the general constraints information syntax, two of which were the cause of errors in conformance testing reported by JVET-Y0005. Relevant experts were asked to develop an integrated text to fix the bugs. Although consensus was reached on the majority of the text, differences of opinion still remain on one section of the text, namely the semantics for gci_num_additional_bits. The differences have been captured in three options.

It is proposed to adopt the integrated text for one of options A, B or C. An associated software patch for the chosen option will be provided for VTM 16.0.

Option A would also allow values 1..5 in future, which is undesirable

Option B requires a decoder to ignore the values of GCI flags, in case that a value 1..5 would appear, and values >6.

Option C requires a a decoder to ignore the values of GCI flags, in case that a value >6 would appear (as values 1..5 could never happen). If values 1..5 would appear, this would be a non-conforming bitstream.

It is agreed that option C is the most logical solution.

Decision: Adopt JVET-0237 option C.

References:
JVET-X2005 JVET-Y0005 JVET-Y0049 JVET-Y0190
Cited:
JVET-Y0242 JVET-Y2005 JVET-Z0002 JVET-Z0003 JVET-Z0005
PATENTS:
2026200940 1.00 2022386662 0.95 2022334740 0.90 2026200957 0.85 2026200958 0.80 2026200956 0.75 2026200988 0.70 202227073675 0.65
ARCHIVE v1 :
JVET-X2005_GCI_fixes_integrated_A.docx JVET-X2005_GCI_fixes_integrated_B.docx JVET-X2005_GCI_fixes_integrated_C.docx JVET-Y0237.docx VVCv2_GCI_fixes_highlighted_A.docx VVCv2_GCI_fixes_highlighted_B.docx VVCv2_GCI_fixes_highlighted_C.docx
Decisions
adopted
Adopt JVET-0237 option C
Citation
25th Meeting: by teleconference, January 2022 2022-01-17 15:38
AHG8: On SPS extension syntax
Authors: Ye-Kui Wang ByteDance
Abstract
JVET-Y0237 provides three text options on GCI extension for the JVET to choose, for fixing some asserted bugs reported in JVET-Y0049 and JVET-Y0190.
Meeting Notes
JVET-Y0242 AHG8: On SPS extension syntax [Y.-K. Wang (Bytedance)] [late]

JVET-Y0237 provides three text options on GCI extension for the JVET to choose, for fixing some asserted bugs reported in JVET-Y0049 and JVET-Y0190.

This contribution presents a conditional proposal of a change to the SPS extension syntax, depending on JVET's decision on JVET-Y0237 text options. If JVET were to choose option A or B in JVET-Y0237, the SPS extension change would be proposed, for an asserted alignment of the two extensions following the same design principle, in terms of handling different forward and backward compatibilities in similar manners. If JVET were to choose option C in JVET-Y0237, the SPS extension change would not be proposed, for the same purpose.

There was no need for consideration of this, as “option C” was selected for JVET-Y0237.

Test conditions (6)

Contributions in this area were discussed in session 15 at 2100–2240 UTC on Monday 17 Jan. 2022 (chaired by JRO).

References:
JVET-X2005 JVET-Y0049 JVET-Y0190 JVET-Y0237
PATENTS:
20220394244 1.00 20230120726 0.95 20230046629 0.90 WO/2023/092019 0.85 202227007702 0.80 20230095312 0.75 4154524 0.70 202227009146 0.65
ARCHIVE v1 :
JVET-Y0242-v1.docx
Decisions
Contributions in this area were discussed in session 15 at 2100–2240 UTC on Monday 17 Jan. 2022 (chaired by JRO).
Citation
25th Meeting: by teleconference, January 2022 2022-03-18 21:38
Conformance testing for VVC operation range extensions (draft 3)
Authors: Dmytro Rusanovskyy Tomonori Hashimoto Hong-Jheng Jhu Iole Moccagatta Yue Yu Jens-Rainer Ohm
Abstract
This document is draft 2 of the conformance testing specification for VVC operation range extensions, for testing the new coding tool features being added in the second edition of VVC (Rec. ITU-T H.266 ISO/IEC 23090-3).
Meeting Notes
JVET-Y2026 Conformance testing for VVC operation range extensions (Draft 3), also issued as WG 5 DAM. For the organization and planning of its future work, the JVET established 13 “ad hoc groups” (AHGs) to progress the work on particular subject areas. At this meeting, 2 Exploration Experiments (EE) were defined. The next eight JVET meetings were planned for Wed. 20 – Fri. 22 and Mon. 25– Fri. 29 April 2022 under ISO/IEC JTC 1/‌SC 29 auspices, to be conducted as a teleconference meeting; during Wed. 13 – Fri. 22 July 2022 under ISO/IEC JTC 1/‌SC 29 auspices, to be conducted as a teleconference meeting; during October 2022 under ITU-T SG16 auspices, date and location t.b.d.; during 11 – 20 January 2023 under ISO/IEC JTC 1/‌SC 29 auspices, to be conducted as a teleconference meeting; during April 2023 under ISO/IEC JTC 1/‌SC 29 auspices, date and location t.b.d.; during July 2023 under ITU...
Cited:
JVET-AA0005 JVET-Z0001 JVET-Z0005 JVET-Z0008
ARCHIVE v1 :
JVET-Y2026-v1.docx
Decisions
JVET-X2008 Conformance testing for versatile video coding (Draft 7)
The meeting was closed at 0037 UTC on 2022-01-22.
Citation
25th Meeting: by teleconference, January 2022 2022-01-12 13:55
JVET AHG report: Conformance testing (AHG5)
Authors: Dmytro Rusanovskyy Iole Moccagatta F. Bossen K. Kawamura Tomonori Hashimoto Hong-Jheng Jhu Karsten Sühring Yue Yu Jens-Rainer Ohm
Abstract
This document summarizes the activity of AHG5: “Conformance testing” between the 24th Meeting (teleconference, 6-15 October 2021) and the 25th Meeting (teleconference, 12-21 January 2022).
Meeting Notes
JVET-Y0005 JVET AHG report: Conformance testing (AHG5) [D. Rusanovskyy, I. Moccagatta, F. Bossen, K. Kawamura, T. Hashimoto, H.-J. Jhu, K. Sühring, Y. Yu] Timeline The timeline of progress on the Conformance testing specification is as follows: 24th meeting Oct 2021: FDIS v1 conformance CDAM v2 conformance 25th meeting Jan 2022: ITU-T Consent for v1 DAM 1 v2 ballot in ISO/IEC 27th meeting July 2022: FDAM v2 28 th meeting October 2022 ITU consent for v2 Status on bitstream submission The status at the time of preparation of this report is as follows: conformance bitstreams for VVC: 104 bitstream categories have been identified At least one bitstream has been submitted in each identified category 283 total bitstreams have been provided, checked, and made available conformance bitstreams for VVC operation range extensions: 51 bitstream categories have been identified Volunteers have been id...
References:
JVET-R2008 JVET-X2008 JVET-X2026 JVET-Y0127 JVET-Y0190
Cited:
JVET-Y0190 JVET-Y0237
ARCHIVE v2 :
JVET-Y0005_v2.docx
Decisions
It was pointed out that JVET-Y0049 is also relating to GCI flags of range extensions, and JVET-Y0057 (on MinCr) might also have impact on the conformance of v2.
Citation
25th Meeting: by teleconference, January 2022 2022-01-12 12:31
JVET AHG report: High bit depth, high bit rate, and high frame rate coding (AHG8)
Authors: A. Browne Tomohiro Ikai Dmytro Rusanovskyy Mohammed Sarwer Xiaoyu Xiu Yue Yu Jens-Rainer Ohm
Abstract
This document summarizes the activity of AHG8: High bit depth, high bit rate, and high frame rate coding between the 24th meeting by teleconference (6-15 October 2021) and the 25th meeting by teleconference (12-21 January 2022).
Meeting Notes
JVET-Y0008 JVET AHG report: High bit depth, high bit rate, and high frame rate coding (AHG8) [A. Browne, T. Ikai, D. Rusanovskyy, M. Sarwer, X. Xiu, Y. Yu] Activities The AHG used the main JVET reflector, jvet@lists.rwth-aachen.de, with [AHG8] in message headers, but no correspondence marked as AHG8 was sent between the 24th and 25th meetings. The major area of work for the AHG in this meeting cycle was as follows: The development of conformance testing in coordination with AHG5. A revision of JVET-X2026 “Conformance testing for VVC operation range extensions (Draft 2)” was uploaded on 14th November 2021 and a notification was sent to the reflector. Updates to the draft text for the VVC version 2 extensions in coordination with AHG2. A revision of JVET-X2005 “VVC operation range extensions (Draft 5)” was uploaded on 12th November 2021. There were 3 related related contributions for the 2...
References:
JVET-U2018 JVET-X2005 JVET-X2026 JVET-Y0049 JVET-Y0127 JVET-Y0190
ARCHIVE v1 :
JVET-Y0008-v1.docx
Decisions
It was pointed out that potentially a combination of scalability with extended bit depth could be tested with the VTM software.
Citation
25th Meeting: by teleconference, January 2022 2022-01-12 10:12
JVET AHG report: Draft text and test model algorithm description editing (AHG2)
Authors: B. Bross Jie Chen C. Rosewarne F. Bossen Jill Boyce A. Browne S. Kim Shan Liu Jens-Rainer Ohm Gary J. Sullivan Alexis Tourapis Ye-Kui Wang Y. Ye
Abstract
This document reports on the work of the JVET ad hoc group on Draft text and test model algorithm description editing (AHG2) between the 24th meeting by teleconference, (6 - 15 October 2021) and the 25th meeting by teleconference, (12 - 21 January 2022).
Meeting Notes
JVET-Y0002 JVET AHG report: Draft text and test model algorithm description editing (AHG2) [B. Bross, J. Chen, C. Rosewarne, F. Bossen, J. Boyce, A. Browne, S. Kim, S. Liu, J.-R. Ohm, G. J. Sullivan, A. Tourapis, Y.-K. Wang, Y. Ye] Output documents produced JVET-X2005 VVC operation range extensions (Draft 5) This document contains the draft text for changes to the Versatile Video Coding (VVC) standard (ITUT H.266 | ISO/IEC 23090-3), for the support of the operation range extensions, the addition of Level 6.3 and some SEI messages, including the SEI manifest SEI message, and the SEI prefix indication SEI message, and the constrained RASL encoding indication SEI message. In addition, the document also contains SEI payload type values and other interfaces for SEI messages added to the VSEI specification, as well as some technical corrections to the content in first edition of VVC. Draft 5 i...
References:
JVET-X0048 JVET-X0050 JVET-X0059 JVET-X0073 JVET-X0076 JVET-X0093 JVET-X0096 JVET-X0101 JVET-X0106 JVET-X0128 JVET-X0143 JVET-X1004 JVET-X2002 JVET-X2005 JVET-X2006 JVET-Y0049 JVET-Y0050 JVET-Y0056 JVET-Y0057 JVET-Y0063 JVET-Y0072 JVET-Y0190
ARCHIVE v1 :
JVET-Y0002-v1.docx
Decisions
The AHG recommended to: Approve JVET-X1004, JVET-X2002, JVET-X2005, and JVET-X2006 documents as JVET outputs, Compare the VVC documents with the VVC software and resolve any discrepancies that may exist, in collaboration with the software AHG, Encourage the use of the issue tracker to report issues with the text of both the VVC specification text and the algorithm and encoder description, Continue to improve the editorial consistency of VVC text specification and Test Model documents, Ensure that, when considering changes to VVC, properly drafted text for addition to the VVC Test Model and/or the VVC specification text is made available in a timely manner, Review AHG2 related contributions, bug tickets, and other AHG2 related inputs and act on them if found to be necessary.
Citation
25th Meeting: by teleconference, January 2022 2022-01-04 00:30
AHG2/AHG8: On the range extensions GCI flags
Authors: Ye-Kui Wang ByteDance
Abstract
When gci_present_flag is equal to 0, no GCI syntax elements exist, including the new range extensions GCI flags. In that case, the general_constraint_info( ) syntax structure does not impose any constraint. However, when gci_present_flag is equal to 1, although all the GCI syntax elements specified in VVC edition 1 are surely present, the newly added range extensions GCI flags may or may not be present, depending on whether gci_num_additional_bits (which was gci_num_reserved_bits in VVC edition 1) is greater than 0.
Meeting Notes
JVET-Y0049 AHG2/AHG8: On the range extensions GCI flags [Y.-K. Wang (Bytedance)] When gci_present_flag is equal to 0, no GCI syntax elements exist, including the new range extensions GCI flags. In that case, the general_constraint_info( ) syntax structure does not impose any constraint. However, when gci_present_flag is equal to 1, although all the GCI syntax elements specified in VVC edition 1 are surely present, the newly added range extensions GCI flags may or may not be present, depending on whether gci_num_additional_bits (which was gci_num_reserved_bits in VVC edition 1) is greater than 0. An asserted problem arises when gci_present_flag is equal to 1 and gci_num_additional_bits is equal to 0, in which case the new range extensions GCI flags are not present while their values are not inferred, and thus it is unclear whether the constraints specified by the flags equal to 1 apply or...
References:
JVET-X2005
Cited:
JVET-Y0002 JVET-Y0008 JVET-Y0237 JVET-Y0242
PATENTS:
20240305831 1.00 WO/2023/092019 0.95 WO/2023/137477 0.90 20240373068 0.85 4325850 0.80 20230128218 0.75 202227074501 0.70 20230097856 0.65
ARCHIVE v1 :
JVET-Y0049-v1.docx
Decisions
It was pointed out that another option would be to globally define that whenever a specific GCI flag is not present, its value would be inferred to be zero. This would avoid that the problem happens again in future extensions and would not be specific to range extensions.
See section 4.2.
Citation
New Search