Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC)
`of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11
`5th Meeting: Geneva, CH, 16-23 March 2011
`
`Document: JCTVC-E600 (v32)
`
`Title:
`
`Status:
`Purpose:
`Author(s) or
`Contact(s):
`
`Source:
`
`Meeting report of the fifth meeting of the Joint Collaborative Team on Video
`Coding (JCT-VC), Geneva, CH, 16-23 March 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 fifth meeting during 16-23 March 2011 at the ITU-T premises in Geneva,
`CH. 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 10:30 on Wednesday 16 March 2011. Meeting
`sessions were held on all days (including weekend days) until the meeting was closed at approximately
`13:50 on Wednesday 23 March. Approximately 225 people attended the JCT-VC meeting, and
`approximately 500 input documents were discussed. The meeting took place in a co-located fashion with
`a meeting of of ITU-T SG16 – 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 fourth JCT-VC meeting in implementing the 2nd HEVC Test Model (HM2) and editing the 2nd
`HEVC specification Working Draft (WD2), 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 3 (HM3), the HEVC specification Working Draft 3 (WD3), and a document specifying common
`conditions and software reference configurations for HEVC coding experiments. Moreover, 12
`documents describing the planning of CEs were drafted.
`For the organization and planning of its future work, the JCT-VC established 20 "Ad Hoc Groups"
`(AHGs) to progress the work on particular subject areas. The next JCT-VC meeting will be held during
`14-22 July 2011 under WG 11 auspices in Torino (Turin), IT. Subsequent meetings are planned to be held
`during 22-30 November 2011 under ITU-T auspices in Geneva, CH, and 1-10 February 2012 under
`WG 11 auspices in San José, USA.
`The document distribution site http://phenix.it-sudparis.eu/jct/ was used for distribution of all documents.
`
`Page: 1
`
`Date Saved: 2011-07-182011-07-14
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1031
`
`Page 1 of 211
`
`

`

`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 fifth meeting during 16-23 March 2011 at ITU-T premises in Genva, CH. 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 10:30 on Wednesday 16 March 2011. Meeting
`sessions were held on all days (including weekend days) until the meeting was closed at approximately
`13:50 on Wednesday 23 March. Approximately 225 people attended the JCT-VC meeting, and
`approximately 500 input documents were discussed. The meeting took place in a co-located fashion with
`a meeting of ITU-T SG16 – 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://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com16/ and http://www.itu.int/events/.
`1.3 Primary goals
`The primary goals of the meeting were to review the work that was performed in the interim period since
`the fourth JCT-VC meeting in producing the 2nd HEVC Test Model (HM) software and editing the 2nd
`HEVC specification Working Draft (WD2), review results from Core Experiments (CEs), review
`technical input documents, and establish third versions of the Working Draft (WD3) and HEVC Test
`Model (HM3).
`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.
`Decisions made by the group that affect the normative content of the draft standard are identified in this
`report by prefixing the description of the decision with the string "Decision:".
`
`
`
`Page: 2
`
`Date Saved: 2011-07-182011-07-14
`
`Page 2 of 211
`
`

`

`This meeting report is based primarily on notes taken by the chairs and projected for real-time review by
`the participants during the meeting discussions. The preliminary notes were also circulated publicly by ftp
`during the meeting on a daily basis. Considering the high workload of this meeting and the large number
`of contributions, 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 discussion of 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.
`
`1.4.2 Late and incomplete document considerations
`The formal deadline for registering and uploading non-administrative contributions had been announced
`as Friday, 11 March 2011.
`Non-administrative documents uploaded after 23:59 in Paris/Geneva time Saturday March 12 were
`considered "officially late".
`Most documents in this category were CE reports or cross-verification reports, which are somewhat less
`problematic than late proposals for new action (and especially for new normative standardization action).
`At this meeting, we had a substantial amount of late document activity. This may have been partly due to
`the relatively short time available between the prior meeting and this meeting. The group strived to be
`conservative when discussing and considering the content of late documents, although no objections were
`raised regarding allowing some discussion in such cases. Corrective action was planned to try to improve
`the timely availability of contributions for better consideration at future meetings. This included planning
`for a earlier cutoff time for late document classification for the next meeting, so that documents that arrive
`on time can be more carefully studied and more easily distinguished from further late arrivals.
`All contribution documents with registration numbers JCTVC-E438 to JCTVC-E505 were registered after
`the "officially late" (and therefore also uploaded late). Some documents in this range include break-out
`activity reports that were generated during the meeting and are therefore considered report documents
`rather than late contributions.
`In many cases, contributions were also revised after the initial version was uploaded. The contribution
`document archive website retains 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.
`The following other technical proposal contributions were also uploaded late:
`
`JCTVC-E220 (a technical proposal) [Sony]
`
`JCTVC-E316 (a technical proposal reporting core experiment results) [Qualcomm]
`
`JCTVC-E358 (a technical proposal reporting core experiment results) [Motorola Mobility]
`
`JCTVC-E359 (a technical proposal) [Motorola Mobility]
`
`JCTVC-E361 (a technical proposal) [Motorola Mobility]
`
`JCTVC-E362 (a technical proposal) [Motorola Mobility]
`
`JCTVC-E363 (a technical proposal) [Motorola Mobility]
`
`JCTVC-E364 (a technical proposal) [Motorola Mobility]
`
`JCTVC-E365 (an information document containing experiment analysis) [Motorola Mobility,
`NEC, I2R, TI]
`JCTVC-E373 (a technical proposal reporting core experiment results) [Huawei & HiSilicon,
`Qualcomm, Samsung, Technicolor]
`Page: 3
`
`Date Saved: 2011-07-182011-07-14
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 211
`
`

`

`
`JCTVC-E417 (a technical proposal reporting core experiment results) [SKKU, SK Telecom]
`
`JCTVC-E436 (a technical proposal) [HKUST]
`
`JCTVC-E437 (a technical proposal) [Sharp]
`The following other documents not proposing normative technical content were uploaded late:
`
`JCTVC-E139 (offering test material for screen content coding)
`
`JCTVC-E425 (a non-normative fast encoding technique description)
`
`JCTVC-E426 (an experiment report)
`The following intended cross-verification document was reported verbally, but was never actually
`uploaded:
`
`JCTVC-E182
`The following other cross-verification reports were submitted late:
`
`JCTVC-E065
`
`JCTVC-E067
`
`JCTVC-E093
`
`JCTVC-E149
`
`JCTVC-E150
`
`JCTVC-E151
`
`JCTVC-E152
`
`JCTVC-E153
`
`JCTVC-E178
`
`JCTVC-E180
`
`JCTVC-E205
`
`JCTVC-E248
`
`JCTVC-E259
`
`JCTVC-E261
`
`JCTVC-E282
`
`JCTVC-E310
`
`JCTVC-E311
`
`JCTVC-E352
`
`JCTVC-E355
`
`JCTVC-E357
`
`JCTVC-E389
`
`JCTVC-E405
`
`JCTVC-E410
`
`JCTVC-E414
`
`
`
`Page: 4
`
`Date Saved: 2011-07-182011-07-14
`
`Page 4 of 211
`
`

`

`
`JCTVC-E415
`
`JCTVC-E416
`
`JCTVC-E423
`
`JCTVC-E427
`
`JCTVC-E434
`The following document registrations were later cancelled or otherwise never discussed or provided:
`
`JCTVC-E094
`
`JCTVC-E135
`
`JCTVC-E167
`
`JCTVC-E254
`
`JCTVC-E293
`
`JCTVC-E306
`
`JCTVC-E457
`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 the above list, as these
`are considered administrative report documents.
`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 applied 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.
`"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 has been agreed since the
`third meeting.
`The initial uploads of the following contribution documents were rejected as "placeholders" and were not
`corrected until after the upload deadline:
`
`JCTVC-E124 (corrected 2011-03-13 03:20:03) [Samsung]
`
`JCTVC-E159 (corrected 2011-03-14 03:10:53) [LGE]
`
`JCTVC-E189 (corrected 2011-03-13 13:13:04) [NEC]
`
`JCTVC-E191 (corrected 2011-03-15 07:05:35) [NEC]
`
`JCTVC-E238 (corrected 2011-03-13 23:39:06) [TI]
`
`JCTVC-E295 (corrected 2011-03-15 20:07:26) [Huawei]
`
`JCTVC-E349 (never corrected) [Qualcomm]
`
`JCTVC-E360 (corrected 2011-03-14 04:07:05) [Qualcomm]
`
`JCTVC-E382 (corrected 2011-03-13 21:09:00) [Sony]
`
`JCTVC-E385 (corrected 2011-03-14 07:06:35) [Sony]
`
`
`
`Page: 5
`
`Date Saved: 2011-07-182011-07-14
`
`Page 5 of 211
`
`

`

`The initial upload of the following contribution appeared as if it might be borderline in terms of
`"placeholder" acceptability of the initial uploaded version, which was not improved until after the upload
`deadline, but the document was not rejected as a placeholder:
`
`JCTVC-E199 (corrected 2011-03-13 13:05:47) [Sony]
`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.
` 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-D500, the HEVC
`Test Model (HM) JCTVC-D502, and the Working Draft (WD) JCTVC-D503, 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 JCT 1/ SC 29/
`WG 11 (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
`
`
`
`Page: 6
`
`Date Saved: 2011-07-182011-07-14
`
`Page 6 of 211
`
`

`

` 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
`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). New
`developments regarding the software copyright disclaimer header text are further discussed elsewhere in
`this report.
`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 general information and
`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 (JTC 1/ SC 29 Procedures)
`
`
`
`Page: 7
`
`Date Saved: 2011-07-182011-07-14
`
`Page 7 of 211
`
`

`

`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.
`
`1.8 Communication practices
`The documents for the meeting can be found at http://phenix.it-sudparis.eu/jct/. For the first two JCT-VC
`meetings, the 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 remain archived 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.
`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 CE documents and AHG reports, 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 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.
`
`
`
`Page: 8
`
`Date Saved: 2011-07-182011-07-14
`
`Page 8 of 211
`
`

`

`
`
` 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.
` 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 WG 11 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.
`Page: 9
`
`Date Saved: 2011-07-182011-07-14
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 211
`
`

`

` 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.
` 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.
`
`
`
`Page: 10
`
`Date Saved: 2011-07-182011-07-14
`
`Page 10 of 211
`
`

`

`1.11 Opening remarks
`It was noted that the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami in Japan, a tragic event of historic proportions, had
`struck on 11 March – the Friday preceding the meeting, and this had affected the ability of some members
`to attend or to arrive on time, including some leading members who had been involved in coordination
`work and submitted multiple contributions. Accomodations were made so that T. Yamakage of Toshiba
`(AHG chair for post-processing filter and coordinator of CE8) could attend remotely by teleconference
`for part of the meeting. S.-I. Sekiguchi of Mitsubishi Electric, was delayed but able to attend.
`It was noted that a new ITU-T Recommendation for objective perceptual multimedia video quality
`measurement of HDTV for digital cable television in the presence of a full reference had recently been
`approved as Rec. ITU-T J.341 (approval 2011-01-13). Moreover, a new ITU-T Recommendation for
`objective multimedia video quality measurement of HDTV for digital cable television in the presence of a
`reduced reference was consented during the meeting as Rec. ITU-T J.342 (approval 2011-04-29). These
`new Recommendations, as well as the prior Rec. ITU-T J.247 (approval 2008-08-13) on objective
`perceptual multimedia video quality measurement in the presence of a full reference, could potentially be
`useful in the work of the JCT-VC.
`1.12 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 session A", "parallel session B", or
`"Plenary" review, as follows. Discussions on topics categorized as "Track A" were primarily chaired by
`Jens-Rainer Ohm, and discussions on topic categorized as "Track B" were primarily chaired by Gary
`Sullivan.
` AHG reports (18) Track P (1st P session Wednesday, also Sunday p.m. and others)
` Project development, status, and guidance (2) Track P
` CE summary reports (14) – Reviewed with individual CE-related contributions
` CE1: Decoder-side motion vector derivation (9) Track A
` CE2: Flexible motion partitioning (6) Track A
` CE3: Interpolation filtering for MC (luma/chroma) (18) Track A
` CE4: Slice boundary processing and slice granularity (11) Track A
` CE5: Low complexity entropy coding improvement (16) Track B
` CE6: Intra prediction improvement (37) Track B
` CE7: Alternative transforms (17) Track B
` CE8: Non-deblocking loop filtering (25) Track A
` CE9: MV coding and skip/merge operation (19) Track A
` CE10: Core transfoms (11) Track B
` CE11: Coefficient scanning and coding (15) Track B
` CE12: Deblocking filter (19) Track A
` CE13: Sample adaptive offset (4) Track A
` CE14: Intra mode coding (7) Track B
` Project planning & NB comments (0) Track P
` Clarifications and bug fix issues (4) Track A
`
`
`
`Page: 11
`
`Date Saved: 2011-07-182011-07-14
`
`Page 11 of 211
`
`

`

` HM settings and common test conditions (0) Track P
` Test material (3) Track A
` Application-specific topics (4) Track A
` Loop filtering (12) Track A
` Block structures and partitioning (15) Track B
` Motion compensation and interpolation filters (13) Track A
` Motion vector coding (36) Track A
`
`Inter mode coding (9) Track A
` High-level syntax and slice structure (26) Track B
` Quantization (15) Track B
` PCM mode (5) Track B
` Entropy coding and transform coefficient coding (22) Track A
`
`Intra prediction and mode coding (16) Track B
` Transforms (5) Track B
`
`IBDI and memory compression (4) Track A
` Parsing robustness and error resilience (12) Track A
` Complexity analysis (2) Track A
`2 AHG reports
`The activities of ad hoc groups that had been established at the prior meeting are discussed in this section.
`
`JCTVC-E001 JCT-VC AHG report: Project management [G. J. Sullivan, J.-R. Ohm (AHG
`chairs)] [uploaded on 16th]
`Reviewed in Track P.
`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 (JCTC-D500_r1)
` Request for Video Test Material for "Screen Content" Coding Experiments (JCTVC-D501)
` The HM 2 encoder description (JCTVC-D502_r1)
` The HEVC Working Draft (JCTVC-D503_r1) [delivered later than originally planned – 10
`March]
` The HM encoder description (JCTVC-D502) [delivered later than originally planned – 8 March]
` Finalized core experiment descriptions (JCTVC-D601 through JCTVC-D614)
`Additional important current JCT-VC documents were noted as follows:
` HEVC software guidelines (JCTVC-C404)
` HEVC Reference Software Manual (JCTVC-D404)
`
`
`
`Page: 12
`
`Date Saved: 2011-07-182011-07-14
`
`Page 12 of 211
`
`

`

` Common HM test conditions and software reference configurations (JCTVC-D600)
`The various ad hoc groups and tool experiments had made progress and various reports from those
`activities had been submitted.
`One key topic to be resolved was the need to establish an appropriate copyright status for the test model
`and reference software being developed by the JCT-VC, as noted in the JCT-VC Terms of Reference. The
`intent is for the software to be developed as part of the work to develop the HEVC standard and also for it
`to be published as reference software by ITU-T and ISO/IEC.
`The status of work on the software copyright issue had remained essentially unchanged since the third
`JCT-VC meeting (Guangzhou, Oct. 2010). At the fourth JCT-VC meeting (Daegu, Jan. 2011), the USNB
`of the WG 11 parent body expressed its support for the spirit of the previously-expressed conclusions and
`recommendations, and it was planned that a decision on the subject should be made in coordination with
`the parent bodies during the current JCT-VC meeting (Geneva, March 2011). At that time, there was no
`disagreement regarding the suggestion that the JCT-VC may move forward at the March meeting with
`using one of the two suggested wordings and removing other copyright wordings from the software.
`The JCT-VC work in general was reported to be moving forward at a