Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC)
`of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11
`4th Meeting: Daegu, KR, 20-28 January, 2011
`
`Document: JCTVC-D500
`
`Title:
`
`Status:
`Purpose:
`Author(s) or
`Contact(s):
`
`Source:
`
`Meeting report of the fourth meeting of the Joint Collaborative Team on Video
`Coding (JCT-VC), Daegu, KR, 20-28 January, 2011
`Report Document from Chairs of JCT-VC
`Report
`Gary Sullivan
`Microsoft Corp.
`1 Microsoft Way
`Redmond, WA 98052 USA
`Jens-Rainer Ohm
`Institute of Communications Engineering
`RWTH Aachen University
`Melatener Straße 23
`D-52074 Aachen
`Chairs
`
`Tel:
`Email:
`
`+1 425 703 5308
`garysull@microsoft.com
`
`Tel:
`Email:
`
`+49 241 80 27671
`ohm@ient.rwth-aachen.de
`
`_____________________________
`
`Summary
`The Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T WP3/16 and ISO/IEC
`JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 held its fourth meeting during 20-28 January, 2011 at the Hotel Inter-Burgo EXCO
`in Daegu, Republic of Korea. The JCT-VC meeting was held under the chairmanship of Dr. Gary
`Sullivan (Microsoft/USA) and Dr. Jens-Rainer Ohm (RWTH Aachen/Germany).
`The JCT-VC meeting sessions began at approximately 9:10 a.m. on Thursday 20 January. Meeting
`sessions were held on all days (including weekend days) until the meeting was closed at approximately
`1:55 p.m. on Friday 28 JanuaryOctober. Approximately 248 people attended the JCT-VC meeting, and
`more than 400 input documents were discussed. The meeting took place in a co-located fashion with a
`meeting of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 (MPEG) – one of the two parent bodies of the JCT-VC. The
`subject matter of the JCT-VC meeting activities consisted of work on the new next-generation video
`coding standardization project now referred to as High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC).
`The primary goals of the meeting were to review the work that was performed in the interim period since
`the third JCT-VC meeting in implementing the HEVC Test Model (HM), review results from Core
`Experiments (CE), review technical input documents, further develop Working Draft and HEVC Test
`Model (HM), and plan a new set of Core Experiments (CEs) for further investigation of proposed
`technology.
`The JCT-VC produced three particularly important output documents from the meeting: the HEVC Test
`Model 2 (HM2), the HEVC specification Working Draft 2 (WD2), and a document specifying common
`conditions and software reference configurations for HEVC coding experiments. Moreover, 14
`documents describing the planning of CEs were drafted.
`For the organization and planning of its future work, the JCT-VC established eighteen "Ad Hoc Groups"
`(AHGs) to progress the work on particular subject areas. The next JCT-VC meeting will be held during
`during 16-23 March 2011 in Geneva, Switzerland under the auspices of ITU-T Q6/16. Subsequent
`meetings are planned to be held during 14-22 July 2011 under WG 11 auspices in Torino, IT, 22-30
`November 2011 under ITU-T auspices in Geneva, CH, and 1-10 February 2012 under WG 11 auspices in
`San José, USA.
`
`Page: 1
`
`Date Saved: 2011-03-142011-03-07
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1027
`
`Page 1 of 173
`
`

`

`The document distribution site http://phenix.it-sudparis.eu/jct/ was used for distribution of all documents.
`The reflector to be used for discussions by the JCT-VC and all of its AHGs is the JCT-VC reflector:
`jct-vc@lists.rwth-aachen.de. For subscription to this list, see
`http://mailman.rwth-aachen.de/mailman/listinfo/jct-vc.
`1 Administrative topics
`
`1.1 Organization
`The ITU-T/ISO/IEC Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) is a group of video coding
`experts from the ITU-T Study Group 16 Visual Coding Experts Group (VCEG) and the ISO/IEC JTC 1/
`SC 29/ WG 11 Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG). The parent bodies of the JCT-VC are ITU-T
`WP3/16 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11.
`The Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T WP3/16 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC
`29/WG 11 held its fourth meeting during 20-28 January, 2011 at the Hotel Inter-Burgo EXCO, in Daegu,
`Republic of Korea. The JCT-VC meeting was held under the chairmanship of Dr. Gary Sullivan
`(Microsoft/USA) and Dr. Jens-Rainer Ohm (RWTH Aachen/Germany).
`1.2 Meeting logistics
`The JCT-VC meeting sessions began at approximately 9:10 a.m. on Thursday 20 January, 2011. Meeting
`sessions were held on all days (including weekend days) until the meeting was closed at approximately
`1:55 p.m. on Friday 28 January. Approximately 248 people attended the JCT-VC meeting, and more than
`400 input documents were discussed. The meeting took place in a co-located fashion with a meeting of
`ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 (MPEG) – one of the two parent bodies of the JCT-VC. The subject matter
`of the JCT-VC meeting activities consisted of work on the new next-generation video coding
`standardization project now referred to as High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC).
`Information regarding logistics arrangements for the meeting had been provided at http://mpeg95.org.
`1.3 Primary goals
`The primary goals of the meeting were to review the work that was performed in the interim period since
`the third JCT-VC meeting in producing the HEVC Test Model (HM) software and first Working Draft,
`review results from Core Experiments (CEs), review technical input documents, and establish second
`versions of the Working Draft and HEVC Test Model (HM).
`1.4 Documents and document handling considerations
`
`1.4.1 General
`The documents of the JCT-VC meeting are listed in Annex A of this report. The documents can be found
`at http://phenix.it-sudparis.eu/jct/.
`Registration timestamps, initial upload timestamps, and final upload timestamps are listed in Annex A of
`this report.
`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
`(rather than as contribution registration and upload times) follow the local time at the meeting facility.
`There were some difficulties with the web site's handling of the document registration for contribution
`JCTVC-D061. The web site initially placed it in the Guangzhou meeting directory rather than the Daegu
`directory, which may have caused some confusion over how to find it. This also occurred for JCTVC-
`
`
`
`Page: 2
`
`Date Saved: 2011-03-142011-03-07
`
`Page 2 of 173
`
`

`

`
`
`D317, but in that case the situation was rapidly corrected by re-registering the contribution as JCTVC-
`D327 and withdrawing the prior registration.
`1.4.2 Late and incomplete document considerations
`The formal deadline for registering and uploading non-administrative contributions had been announced
`as Saturday, January 15, 2011.
`Non-administrative documents uploaded after 9:00 a.m. in Paris/Geneva time Monday January 17 were
`considered late.
`Most documents in this category were CE reports or cross-verification reports, which are less problematic
`than late proposals for new action (and especially for new normative standardization action).
`Late technical proposals that requested action included the following documents:
`
`JCTVC-D071 (a technical proposal)
`
`JCTVC-D241 (a technical proposal)
`
`JCTVC-D246 (a technical proposal)
`
`JCTVC-D253 (a technical proposal)
`
`JCTVC-D254 (a technical proposal)
`
`JCTVC-D342 (a technical proposal)
`
`JCTVC-D416 (a non-normative technical proposal, considered acceptable for action due to its
`non-normative nature)
`JCTVC-D421 (a technical proposal, adopted as an exceptional instance of agreement to accept
`taking action such a late proposal)
`JCTVC-D432 (a technical proposal, adopted as the appropriate action upon consideration of
`several contributions of a similar nature)
`
`JCTVC-D438 (a technical proposal)
`
`JCTVC-D448 (a joint technical proposal submitted in response to CE discussions)
`Except as noted above, no action was taken in response to these late technical proposals (other than
`designation for further study in some cases).
`Late CE results, cross-verification reports, and similar documents included the following:
`
`JCTVC-D068 (a cross-verification report)
`
`JCTVC-D098 (a CE results report)
`
`JCTVC-D144 (a CE results report)
`
`JCTVC-D145 (a CE results report)
`
`JCTVC-D146 (a CE results report)
`
`JCTVC-D147 (a cross-verification report)
`
`JCTVC-D148 (a cross-verification report)
`
`JCTVC-D149 (a CE summary report)
`
`JCTVC-D161 (a CE results report)
`
`JCTVC-D194 (a CE results report)
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 3
`
`Date Saved: 2011-03-142011-03-07
`
`Page 3 of 173
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JCTVC-D247 (a cross-verification report)
`JCTVC-D406 (a cross-verification report)
`JCTVC-D407 (a cross-verification report)
`JCTVC-D408 (a cross-verification report)
`JCTVC-D413 (a CE results report)
`JCTVC-D414 (a CE results report)
`JCTVC-D415 (a CE results report)
`JCTVC-D417 (a cross-verification report)
`JCTVC-D418 (a CE results report)
`JCTVC-D419 (a CE results report)
`JCTVC-D420 (a CE results report)
`JCTVC-D422 (a CE results report)
`JCTVC-D423 (a CE results report)
`JCTVC-D424 (a CE results report)
`JCTVC-D425 (a cross-verification report)
`JCTVC-D426 (a cross-verification report)
`JCTVC-D427 (a CE results report)
`JCTVC-D428 (a cross-verification report)
`JCTVC-D429 (a cross-verification report)
`JCTVC-D430 (an information document similar to a cross-verification report)
`JCTVC-D431 (a cross-verification report)
`JCTVC-D433 (a cross-verification report)
`JCTVC-D434 (a cross-verification report)
`JCTVC-D435 (a cross-verification report)
`JCTVC-D436 (a cross-verification report)
`JCTVC-D437 (a cross-verification report)
`JCTVC-D439 (a cross-verification report)
`JCTVC-D442 (a cross-verification report)
`JCTVC-D444 (a cross-verification report)
`JCTVC-D446 (a CE results report)
`JCTVC-D449 (a cross-verification report)
`JCTVC-D450 (a cross-verification report)
`JCTVC-D451 (a bug fix report)
`JCTVC-D452 (a cross-verification report)
`JCTVC-D453 (a cross-verification report)
`Page: 4
`
`Date Saved: 2011-03-142011-03-07
`
`Page 4 of 173
`
`

`

`
`JCTVC-D454 (a cross-verification report)
`
`JCTVC-D455 (a cross-verification report)
`
`JCTVC-D456 (a cross-verification report)
`Ad hoc group activity and results reports, break-out activity reports, and information documents
`containing results of experiments requested during the meeting are not included in this list, as these are
`considered administrative report documents.
`Documents with numbers JCTVC-D413 through JCTVC-D458 were classified as late registrations
`(except for administrative report documents as discussed above).
`As a general policy, missing documents were not to be presented, and late documents (and substantial
`revisions) could only be presented when sufficient time for studying was given after the upload. An
`exception is given for AHG reports and CE summaries which can only be produced after availability of
`other input docs. There were no objections raised by the group regarding presentation of late
`contributions. The situation about missing input documents must be significantly improved in upcoming
`meetings.
`"Placeholder" contribution documents that were basically empty of content, with perhaps only a brief
`abstract and some indication of an intent to provide a more complete submission as a revision, were
`considered unacceptable and rejected in the document management system, as agreed at the third meeting.
`The initial uploads of the following contribution documents were rejected as placeholders and not
`corrected until after the upload deadline:
`
`JCTVC-D129 (replaced by a more acceptable version on Wednesday 19th, before meeting)
`
`JCTVC-D307 (replaced by a more acceptable version on Monday 17th, before meeting)
`The initial uploads of the following contributions appeared as if they might be borderline in terms of
`"placeholder" acceptability of the initial uploaded version, but were not rejected as placeholders:
`
`JCTVC-D297 (initially uploaded on 15th, revised on 22nd and 27th)
`
`JCTVC-D311 (initially uploaded on 15th, revised on 19th and 20th)
`
`JCTVC-D379 (initially uploaded on 16th, revised on 20th and 25th)
`
`JCTVC-D386 (initially uploaded on 16th, revised on 22nd)
`
`JCTVC-D397 (initially uploaded on 16th, revised on 20th)
`
`JCTVC-D413 (initially uploaded on 18th, revised on 20th and 22nd)
`A few contributions had some problems relating to IPR declarations in the initial uploaded versions
`(missing declarations, declarations saying they were from the wrong companies, etc.). These issues were
`corrected by later uploaded versions in all cases (to the extent of the awareness of the chairs).
`1.4.3 Measures to facilitate the consideration of contributions
`It was agreed that, due to the increasingly high workload for this meeting, the group would try to rely
`more extensively on summary CE reports. For other contributions, it was agreed that generally
`presentations should not exceed 2 slides and 5 minutes to achieve a basic understanding of a proposal –
`with further review only if requested by the group. For cross-verification contributions, it was agreed that
`the group would ordinarily only review cross-checks for proposals that appear promising.
`When considering cross-check contributions, it was agreed that, to the extent feasible, the following data
`should be collected:
` Subject (including document number).
` Whether common conditions were followed.
`Page: 5
`
`Date Saved: 2011-03-142011-03-07
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 173
`
`

`

` Whether the results are complete.
` Whether the results match those reported by the contributor (within reasonable limits, such as
`minor compiler/platform differences).
` Whether the contributor studied the algorithm and software closely and has demonstrated
`adequate knowledge of the technology.
` Whether the contributor independently implemented the proposed technology feature, or at least
`compiled the software themselves.
` Any special comments and observations made by the cross-check contributor.
`1.4.4 Outputs of the preceding meeting
`The report documents of the previous meeting, particularly the meeting report JCTVC-C400, the HEVC
`Test Model (HM) JCTVC-C402, and the Working Draft (WD) JCTVC-C403 were approved. The HM
`reference software produced by the AHG on software development and HM software technical evaluation
`was also approved.
`1.5 Attendance
`The list of participants in the JCT-VC meeting can be found in Annex B of this report.
`The meeting was open to those qualified to participate either in ITU-T WP3/16 or ISO/IEC
`JCT1/SC29/WG11 (including experts who had been personally invited by the Chairs as permitted by
`ITU-T or ISO/IEC policies).
`Participants had been reminded of the need to be properly qualified to attend. Those seeking further
`information regarding qualifications to attend future meetings may contact the Chairs.
`1.6 Agenda
`The agenda for the meeting was as follows:
`
`IPR policy reminder and declarations
` Contribution document allocation
` Reports of Ad Hoc group activities
` Reports of Core Experiment activities
` Review of results of previous meeting
` Consideration of contributions and communications on HEVC project guidance
` Consideration of HEVC technology proposal contributions
` Consideration of information contributions
` Coordination activities
` Future planning: Determination of next steps, discussion of working methods, communication
`practices, establishment of coordinated experiments, establishment of AHGs, meeting planning,
`refinement of expected standardization timeline, other planning issues
` Other business as appropriate for consideration
`
`
`
`Page: 6
`
`Date Saved: 2011-03-142011-03-07
`
`Page 6 of 173
`
`

`

`1.7 IPR policy reminder
`Participants were reminded of the IPR policy established by the parent organizations of the JCT-VC and
`were referred to the parent body web sites for further information. The IPR policy was summarized for
`the participants.
`The ITU-T/ITU-R/ISO/IEC common patent policy shall apply. Participants were particularly reminded
`that contributions proposing normative technical content shall contain a non-binding informal notice of
`whether the submitter may have patent rights that would be necessary for implementation of the resulting
`standard. The notice shall indicate the category of anticipated licensing terms according to the ITU-
`T/ITU-R/ISO/IEC patent statement and licensing declaration form. Contributions of software source code
`for incorporation into the Reference Software for the standard shall be provided with a suitable copyright
`disclaimer header text in a form acceptable to the parent bodies to enable publication of the source code
`and to enable users of the software to copy the software and use it for research and standardization
`purposes and as a basis for the development of products.(while the submitter separately retains any
`associated patent rights for licensing to be conducted outside of ITU-T/ITU-R/ISO/IEC).
`This obligation is supplemental to, and does not replace, any existing obligations of parties to submit
`formal IPR declarations to ITU-T/ITU-R/ISO/IEC.
`Participants were also reminded of the need to formally report patent rights to the top-level parent bodies
`(using the common reporting form found on the database listed below) and to make verbal and/or
`document IPR reports within the JCT-VC as necessary in the event that they are aware of unreported
`patents that are essential to implementation of a standard or of a draft standard under development.
`Some relevant links for organizational and IPR policy information are provided below:
` http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/ipr/index.html (common patent policy for ITU-T, ITU-R, ISO, and IEC,
`and guidelines and forms for formal reporting to the parent bodies)
` http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/jctvc-site (JCT-VC contribution templates)
` http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com16/jct-vc/index.html (JCT-VC founding charter)
` http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/dbase/patent/index.html (ITU-T IPR database)
` http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/29w7proc.htm (SC29 Procedures)
`The chairs invited participants to make any necessary verbal reports of previously-unreported IPR in draft
`standards under preparation, and opened the floor for such reports: No such verbal reports were made.
`It was mentioned that further discussions about an appropriate software disclaimer header text are
`currently being conducted between JCT-VC and parent body management, as discussed in JCTVC-B001,
`JCTVC-C001 and JCTVC-D001. To proceed on this, JCT-VC had issued the following resolution to the
`WG11 parent body at its previous meeting: "The JCT-VC has requested review of the reference software
`copyright handling status reported from the JCT-VC chairs as found in N11645 [a document produced for
`WG11 corresponding to the content of JCTVC-C001]. NBs are requested to comment on the suitability of
`the proposed approaches."
`1.8 Communication practices
`The documents for the meeting can be found at http://phenix.it-sudparis.eu/jct/. This is a relatively new
`site that the group transitioned to using just prior to the preceding meeting. Previously, JCT-VC
`documents had been made available at http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/jctvc-site, and documents for the first two
`JCT-VC meetings can be found there. That site was also used for distribution of the contribution
`document template and circulation of drafts of this meeting report.
`JCT-VC email lists are managed through the site http://mailman.rwth-aachen.de/mailman/options/jct-vc,
`and to send email to the reflector, the email address is jct-vc@lists.rwth-aachen.de. Only members of the
`reflector can send email to the list.
`
`
`
`Page: 7
`
`Date Saved: 2011-03-142011-03-07
`
`Page 7 of 173
`
`

`

`It was emphasized that reflector subscriptions and email sent to the reflector must use their real names
`when subscribing and sending messages and must respond to inquiries regarding their type of interest in
`the work.
`For the case of TE/CE documents and AHGs, email addresses of participants and contributors may be
`obscured or absent (and will be on request), although these will be available (in human readable format –
`possibly with some "obscurification") for primary TE/CE coordinators and AHG chairs.
`1.9 Terminology
`Some terminology used in this report is explained below:
` AHG: Ad hoc group.
` AI: All-intra.
` AIF: Adaptive interpolation filtering.
` AIS: Adaptive intra smoothing.
` ALF: Adaptive loop filter.
` AMP: Asymmetric motion partitioning.
` AMVR: Adaptive motion vector resolution.
` AVC: Advanced video coding – the video coding standard formally published as ITU-T
`Recommendation H.264 and ISO/IEC 14496-10.
` BD: Bjøntegaard-delta – a method for measuring percentage bit rate savings at equal PSNR or
`decibels of PSNR benefit at equal bit rate (e.g., as described in document VCEG-M33 of April
`2001).
` BoG: Break-out group.
` BR: Bit rate.
` CABAC: Context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding.
` CBF: Coded block flag(s).
` CE: Core experiment – a coordinated experiment conducted after the 3rd or 4th meeting.
` DCT: Discrete cosine transform (sometimes used loosely to refer to other transforms with
`conceptually similar characteristics).
` DCTIF: DCT-derived interpolation filter.
` DIF: Directional interpolation filter.
` DF: Deblocking filter.
` DT: Decoding time.
` ET: Encoding time.
` GPB: Generalized P/B – a not-particularly-well-chosen name for B pictures in which the two
`reference picture lists are identical.
` HE: High efficiency – a set of coding capabilities designed for enhanced compression
`performance (contrast with LC). Often loosely associated with RA.
` HEVC: High Efficiency Video Coding – the video coding standardization initiative under way in
`the JCT-VC.
`
`
`
`Page: 8
`
`Date Saved: 2011-03-142011-03-07
`
`Page 8 of 173
`
`

`

`
`
` HM: HEVC Test Model – a video coding design containing selected coding tools that constitutes
`our draft standard design – now also used especially in reference to the (non-normative) encoder
`algorithms (see WD and TM).
`IBDI: Internal bit-depth increase – a technique by which lower bit depth (8 bits per sample)
`source video is encoded using higher bit depth signal processing, ordinarily including higher bit
`depth reference picture storage (ordinarily 12 bits per sample).
` JM: Joint model – the primary software codebase developed for the AVC standard.
` LC: Low complexity – a set of coding capabilities designed for reduced implementation
`complexity (contrast with HE). Often loosely associated with LD.
` LCEC: Low-complexity entropy coding.
` LD: Low delay – a set of coding conditions designed to enable interactive real-time
`communication, with less emphasis on ease of random access (contrast with RA). Often loosely
`associated with LC.
` LUT: Look-up table.
` MC: Motion compensation.
` MDDT: Mode-dependent directional transform.
` MPEG: Moving picture experts group (WG 11, the parent body working group in ISO/IEC
`JCT 1/SC 29, one of the two parent bodies of the JCT-VC).
` MRG: block merging mode for CUs.
` MV: Motion vector.
` NAL: Network abstraction layer (as in AVC).
` NB: National body (usually used in reference to NBs of the WG11 parent body)
` OBMC: Overlapped block motion compensation.
` PCP: Parallelization of context processing.
` PIPE: Probability interval partitioning entropy coding (roughly synonymous with V2V for most
`discussion purposes, although the term PIPE tends to be more closely associated with proposals
`from Fraunhofer HHI while the term V2V tends to be more closely associated with proposals
`from RIM).
` QP: Quantization parameter.
` QT: Quadtree
` RA: Random access – a set of coding conditions designed to enable relatively-frequent random
`access points in the coded video data, with less emphasis on minimization of delay (contrast with
`LD). Often loosely associated with HE.
` R-D: Rate-distortion.
` RDO: Rate-distortion optimization.
` RDOQ: Rate-distortion optimized quantization.
` ROT: Rotation operation for low-frequency transform coefficients.
` RQT: Residual quadtree.
` SEI: Supplemental enhancement information (as in AVC).
` TE: Tool Experiment – a coordinated experiment conducted after the 1st or 2nd JCT-VC
`meeting.
`
`
`
`Page: 9
`
`Date Saved: 2011-03-142011-03-07
`
`Page 9 of 173
`
`

`

` TM: Test Model – a video coding design containing selected coding tools; as contrasted with the
`TMuC, see HM.
` TMuC: Test Model under Consideration – a video coding design containing selected proposed
`coding tools that are under study by the JCT-VC for potential inclusion in the HEVC standard.
` TPE: Transform precision extension.
` UDI: Unified directional intra.
` Unit types:
`o CU: coding unit.
`o LCU: (formerly LCTU) largest coding unit (synonymous with TB).
`o PU: prediction unit, with four shape possibilities.
` 2Nx2N: having the full width and height of the CU.
` 2NxN: having two areas that each have the full width and half the height of the
`CU.
` Nx2N: having two areas that each have half the width and the full height of the
`CU.
` NxN: having four areas that each have half the width and half the height of the
`CU.
`o TB: tree block (synonymous with LCU – LCU seems preferred).
`o TU: transform unit.
` V2V: variable-length to variable-length prefix coding (roughly synonymous with PIPE for most
`discussion purposes, although the term PIPE tends to be more closely associated with proposals
`from Fraunhofer HHI while the term V2V tends to be more closely associated with proposals
`from RIM).
` VCEG: Visual coding experts group (ITU-T Q.6/16, the relevant rapporteur group in ITU-T
`WP3/16, which is one of the two parent bodies of the JCT-VC).
` WD: Working draft – the draft HEVC standard corresponding to the HM.
` WG: Working group (usually used in reference to WG 11, a.k.a. MPEG).
`1.10 Liaison activity
`The JCT-VC did not send or receive formal liaison communications at this meeting.
`1.11 Contribution topic overview
`The approximate subject categories and quantity of contributions per category for the meeting were
`summarized and categorized into "tracks" (A, B, or P) for parallel or plenary review, as follows.
` AHG reports (13) Track P (P = "plenary", 1st Thurs.)
` Project guidance (3) Track P (Monday)
` CE summary reports (13) – Reviewed with individual CE-related contributions
` CE1: Decoder-side motion vector derivation (12) Track A (Chair: G. J. Sullivan)
` CE2: Flexible motion partitioning (9) Track A
` CE3: Interpolation filtering for MC (luma) (25) Track A
`
`
`
`Page: 10
`
`Date Saved: 2011-03-142011-03-07
`
`Page 10 of 173
`
`

`

` CE4: Interpolation filtering for MC (chroma) (15) Track A
` CE5: Low complexity entropy coding improvements (11) Track B (Chair: J.-R. Ohm)
` CE6: Intra prediction improvement (20) Track B
` CE7: Alternative transforms (24) Track B
`BoG on spatial transforms "Baeto" room (at end of first meeting day, and also at some other
`times)
` CE8: In-loop filtering (22) Track A
`informal subjective viewing for CE8 subtest 1 deblocking and debanding subjective viewing
`(initial viewing without scoring) "Arte" room 3pm on first day, and also at some later times
` CE9: Motion vector coding (23) Track A
` CE10: Number of intra prediction directions (8) Track B
` CE11: Coefficient scanning and coding (16) Track B
` CE12: Adaptive motion vector resolution (6) Track A
` CE13: Intra smoothing (8) Track B
` Project planning & NB comments (3) Track P (Mon 5pm)
` HM settings and common test conditions (8) Track A
`(after IBDI – including screen coding/guidance)
` Test material (3) Track A
` Application-specific topics (7) Track B
` Loop filtering (15) Track A
`(with CE8, after common conditions & test material)
` Block structures and partitioning (12) Track B
` Motion compensation and interpolation filters (9) Track A
` Motion vector coding (17) Track A
`
`Inter mode coding (10) Track A
` High-level syntax (11) Track A
` Quantization (7) Track B
` Entropy coding (17) Track B
`
`Intra prediction and mode coding (22) Track B
` Transforms and residual coding (31) Track B
`
`IBDI and memory compression (11) Track A
` Complexity analysis (0)
` Category not clear (1)
`2 AHG reports
`The activities of ad hoc groups that had been established at the prior meeting are discussed in this section.
`
`
`
`Page: 11
`
`Date Saved: 2011-03-142011-03-07
`
`Page 11 of 173
`
`

`

`JCTVC-D001 JCT-VC AHG report: Project management [J.-R. Ohm, G. J. Sullivan (AHG
`Chairs)] (missing prior, uploaded 20th, first day)
`
`(Reviewed verbally prior to upload.)
`The work of the JCT-VC overall had proceeded well in the interim period. A large amount of discussion
`was carried out on the group email reflector. All report documents from the preceding meeting had been
`made available, particularly including the following:
` The meeting report (JCTVC-C400)
` Summary of HEVC working draft 1 and HEVC test model (HM) JCTVC-C405 [finalized 15
`Oct.]
` The HEVC Working Draft (JCTVC-C403) [delivered later than originally planned – 15 Jan.]
` The HM encoder description (JCTVC-C402) [delivered later than originally planned – 6 Jan.]
` Finalized core experiment descriptions (JCTVC-C501 through JCTVC-C513)
`The various ad hoc groups and tool experiments have made progress and various reports from those
`activities had been submitted.
`The status of work on the software copyright issue remained essentially unchanged since the last meeting.
`As some time has passed since the alternative wording above was initially circulated for review at the
`previous meeting, participants were encouraged to use the current meeting as an opportunity to review the
`status as reported previously. A final decision should be made in coordination with the parent bodies
`during the 5th meeting in March 2011.
`
`JCTVC-D002 JCT-VC AHG report: HEVC Draft and Test Model editing [K. McCann, T.
`Wiegand (co-chairs), B. Bross, W.-J. Han, J.-R. Ohm, J. Ridge, S. Sekiguchi, G. J.
`Sullivan (vice chairs)] (missing prior, uploaded 19th, before meeting)
`
`This document reported on the work of the JCT-VC ad hoc group on HEVC Draft and Test Model editing
`between the 3rd JCT-VC meeting in Guangzhou, China (7-15 October 2010) and the 4th JCT-VC
`meeting in Daegu, Korea (20-28 January 2011).
`Both the JCTVC-C402 and JCTVC-C403 documents were produced, each in a single draft.
`In the case of JCTVC-C402, the document was a rough skeleton that still required significant
`improvement. There was very little text from the corresponding TMuC document, JCTVC-B204, that was
`deemed to be appropriate to be incorporated. A structure was adopted where the main body of the
`document was split into two parts.
` Section 5 as the test model description, giving a general tutorial overview of the architecture
` Section 6 as the encoder description, giving details of the encoder
`In the case of JCTVC-C403, the document was a more complete draft, that:
`
`Incorporated text from JCTVC-B205 revision 7
`
`Incorporated the decisions on high-level syntax according to JCTVC-B121
`
`Incorporated text from JCTVC-C319 (as found to be stable)
` Revised coding tree, coding unit and prediction unit syntaxes
`
`Included initial drafting of decoding process of coding units in intra prediction mode (luma part,
`JCTVC-B100 and JCTVC-C042)
`Included initial drafting of decoding process of coding units in inter prediction mode
`Included initial drafting of scaling and transformation process
`Page: 12
`Date Saved: 2011-03-142011-03-07
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 173
`
`

`

` Added text, transform 16T and 32T
`
`Included initial drafting of deblocking process
`
`Improved text on derivation process for motion vector components and reference indices
` Added text on boundary filtering strength
`Open issues for JCTVC-C403 remained:
` Substantial portions of JCTVC-B205 have not been imported so far, as they require significant
`editorial work
` The question over whether support for monochrome, 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 (with and without separate
`color planes) be included from the start? Currently, it has been left in the text as it doesn't seem to
`affect much text.
` Handling of the term "frame". One suggestion would be to change all occurrence of "frame" to
`"picture" (all occurrences of "field" will be removed)
` Large size table (zig-zag and de-scaling matrices) is not inserted yet.
` Slice-header syntaxes and their semantics are not included yet. Also possible modifications that
`may be necessary because of larger treeblocks (64x64) compared to macroblocks (16x16) are not
`yet considered.