Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC)
`of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11
`7th Meeting: Geneva, CH, 21–30 Nov 2011
`
`Document: JCTVC-G1100
`
`Title:
`
`Status:
`Purpose:
`Author(s) or
`Contact(s):
`
`Source:
`
`Meeting report of the seventh meeting of the Joint Collaborative Team on Video
`Coding (JCT-VC), Geneva, CH, 21–30 Nov. 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 seventh meeting during 21–30 Nov. 2011 at the ITU-T premises in Geneva,
`CH. During the first two days of the meeting, a room at the nearby WMO headquarters was also used.
`The JCT-VC meeting was held under the chairmanship of Dr. Gary Sullivan (Microsoft/USA) and Dr.
`Jens-Rainer Ohm (RWTH Aachen/Germany). For rapid access to particular topics in this report, a subject
`categorization is found in section 1.13 of this document.
`The JCT-VC meeting sessions began at approximately 1100 hours on Monday 21 Nov 2011. Meeting
`sessions were held on all days (including weekend days) until the meeting was closed at approximately
`1335 hours on Wednesday 30 Nov. Approximately 284 people attended the JCT-VC meeting, and
`approximately 1000 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).
`The primary goals of the meeting were to review the work that was performed in the interim period since
`the sixth JCT-VC meeting in implementing the 4th HEVC Test Model (HM4) and editing the 4th HEVC
`specification Working Draft (WD4), review the results from interim 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 5 (HM5), the HEVC specification Working Draft 5 (WD5), and a document specifying common
`conditions and software reference configurations for HEVC coding experiments. Moreover, 11
`documents describing the planning of future CEs were drafted.
`For the organization and planning of its future work, the JCT-VC established 22 "Ad Hoc Groups"
`(AHGs) to progress the work on particular subject areas. The next four JCT-VC meetings are planned for
`1–10 February 2012 under WG 11 auspices in San José, USA, 30 April – 8 May 2012 under ITU-T
`auspices in Geneva, CH, 11–20 July 2012 under WG 11 auspices in Stockholm, SE, 10–19 Oct 2012
`under WG 11 auspices in Shanghai, CN, and 16–23 January 2013 under ITU-T auspices in Geneva, CH.
`Page: 1
`Date Saved: 2012-01-31
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1033
`
`Page 1 of 305
`
`

`

`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 seventh meeting during 21–30 Nov 2011 at the ITU-T premises (and, for two days, also at
`the nearby WMO headquarters) 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).
`1.2 Meeting logistics
`The JCT-VC meeting sessions began at approximately 1100 hours on Monday 21 Nov 2011. Meeting
`sessions were held on all days (including weekend days) until the meeting was closed at approximately
`1335 hours on Wednesday 30 Nov. 2011. Approximately 284 people attended the JCT-VC meeting, and
`approximately 1000 input documents were discussed. The meeting took place in a co-located fashion with
`a meeting of ITU-T SG16 at the ITU headquarters facility – one of the two parent bodies of the JCT-VC.
`During the first two days of the meeting, a meeting room at the nearby WMO headquarters was also used.
`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).
`Some statistics for historical reference purposes:
` 1st meeting (Dresden):
`
`188 people, 40 input documents
` 2nd meeting (Geneva):
`
`221 people, 120 input documents
` 3rd meeting (Guangzhou):
`
`244 people, 300 input documents
` 4th meeting (Daegu):
`
`248 people, 400 input documents
` 5th meeting (Geneva):
`
`226 people, 500 input documents
` 6th meeting (Torino):
`
`254 people, 700 input documents
` 7th meeting (Geneva)
`
`284 people, 1000 input documents
`
`
`Information regarding logistics arrangements for the meeting had been provided at
`http://wftp3.itu.int/av-arch/jctvc-site/2011_11_G_Geneva/JCTVC-G_Logistics.doc.
`
`1.3 Primary goals
`The primary goals of the meeting were to review the work that was performed in the interim period since
`the sixth JCT-VC meeting in producing the 4th HEVC Test Model (HM) software and editing the 4th
`HEVC specification Working Draft (WD4), review the results from interim Core Experiments (CEs),
`review technical input documents, and establish fifth versions of the Working Draft (WD5) and HEVC
`Test Model (HM5).
`
`
`
`Page: 2
`
`Date Saved: 2012-01-31
`
`Page 2 of 305
`
`

`

`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
`(which, for this meeting, was in the same timezone).
`Decisions made by the group that affected the normative content of the draft standard are identified in this
`report by prefixing the description of the decision with the string "Decision:". Decisions that affected the
`reference software but had no normative effect on the text are marked by the string "Decision (SW):".
`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 Tuesday, 8 Nov 2011.
`Non-administrative documents uploaded after 2359 hours in Paris/Geneva time Wednesday Nov 9 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 again had a substantial amount of late document activity, but in general the early
`document deadline gave us a significantly better chance for thorough study of documents that were
`delivered in a timely fashion. 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.
`All contribution documents with registration numbers JCTVC-G867 to JCTVC-G1045 were registered
`after the "officially late" deadline (and therefore were also uploaded late). Some documents in this range
`included 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 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.
`The following other technical proposal contributions were registered in time but were uploaded late:
`
`JCTVC-G279 [uploaded 11-19]
`
`
`
`Page: 3
`
`Date Saved: 2012-01-31
`
`Page 3 of 305
`
`

`

`
`JCTVC-G358 [uploaded 11-10]
`
`JCTVC-G387 [uploaded 11-10]
`
`JCTVC-G516 [uploaded 11-18]
`
`JCTVC-G685 [uploaded 11-10]
`
`JCTVC-G692 [uploaded 11-11]
`
`JCTVC-G705 [uploaded 11-10]
`
`JCTVC-G710 [uploaded 11-10]
`
`JCTVC-G712 [uploaded 11-10]
`
`JCTVC-G715 [uploaded 11-12]
`
`JCTVC-G716 [uploaded 11-12]
`
`JCTVC-G717 [uploaded 11-10]
`
`JCTVC-G722 [uploaded 11-12]
`
`JCTVC-G807 [uploaded 11-11]
`
`JCTVC-G865 [uploaded 11-12]
`A substantial number of cross-verification reports and other documents other than normative technical
`proposals were uploaded late. Please see Annex A for full details.
`Ad hoc group interim activity reports, CE summary results reports, break-out activity reports, and
`information documents containing the results of experiments requested during the meeting are not
`included in the above list, as these are considered administrative report documents to which the uploading
`deadline is not applied.
`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. Again, an
`exception is applied for AHG reports, CE summaries, and other such reports which can only be produced
`after the availability of other input documents. 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 expression of an intent to provide a more complete submission as a revision, were
`considered unacceptable and were 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-G512 (a cross-verification report, corrected 11-11)
`
`JCTVC-G625 (a cross-verification report, corrected 11-15)
`
`JCTVC-G626 (a cross-verification report, corrected 11-16)
`
`JCTVC-G627 (a cross-verification report, corrected 11-21)
`
`JCTVC-G694 (a cross-verification report, corrected 11-10)
`
`JCTVC-G795 (a cross-verification report, corrected 11-17)
`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).
`
`
`
`Page: 4
`
`Date Saved: 2012-01-31
`
`Page 4 of 305
`
`

`

`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 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-F800, the HEVC
`Test Model (HM) JCTVC-F802, and the Working Draft (WD) JCTVC-F803, were approved. The HM
`reference software produced by the AHG on software development and HM software technical evaluation
`was also approved.
`Versions of the WD, the HM document, the HM software and the CE descriptions had been made
`available in a reasonably timely fashion.
`The chair asked if there were any issues regarding potential mismatches between perceived technical
`content prior to adoption and later integration efforts. It was also asked whether there was adequate clarity
`of precise description of the technology in the associated proposal contributions.
`Some such issues had been brought up on the reflector for group clarification on how to proceed.
`It was remarked that in some cases (none specifically mentioned) the software implementation of adopted
`proposals revealed that the description that had been the basis of the adoption apparently was not precise
`enough, so that the software unveiled details that were not known before (except possibly for CE
`participants who had studied the software). Also, there should be time to study combinations of different
`adopted tools with more detail prior to adoption.
`CE descriptions need to be fully precise – this is intended as a method of enabling full study and testing
`of a specific technology.
`Greater discipline in terms of what can be established as a CE may be an approach to helping with such
`issues. CEs should be more focused on testing just a few specific things, and the description should
`precisely define what is intended to be tested (available by the end of the meeting when the CE plan is
`approved).
`Software study can be a useful and important element of adequate study; however, software availability is
`not a proper substitute for document clarity.
`
`
`
`Page: 5
`
`Date Saved: 2012-01-31
`
`Page 5 of 305
`
`

`

`The activities in some CEs may have diverged from the original plans by bringing in somewhat different
`technology that may not have been fully understood even by the cross-checking participants.
`Software shared for CE purposes needs to be available with adequate time for study. Software of CEs
`should be available early, to enable close study by cross-checkers (not just provided shortly before the
`document upload deadline).
`CE9 was suggested as a CE where there has been a need for greater discipline and where the situation
`became confusing.
`Issues of combinations between different features (e.g., different adopted features) also tend to sometimes
`arise in the work.
`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 JTC 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
` 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 websites 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.
`
`
`
`Page: 6
`
`Date Saved: 2012-01-31
`
`Page 6 of 305
`
`

`

`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)
`It is noted that the ITU TSB director's AHG on IPR had issued a clarification of the IPR reporting process
`for ITU-T standards, as follows, per SG 16 TD 327 (GEN/16):
`“TSB has reported to the TSB Director’s IPR Ad Hoc Group that they are receiving Patent Statement
`and Licensing Declaration forms regarding technology submitted in Contributions that may not yet be
`incorporated in a draft new or revised Recommendation. The IPR Ad Hoc Group observes that, while
`disclosure of patent information is strongly encouraged as early as possible, the premature submission
`of Patent Statement and Licensing Declaration forms is not an appropriate tool for such purpose.
`In cases where a contributor wishes to disclose patents related to technology in Contributions, this can
`be done in the Contributions themselves, or informed verbally or otherwise in written form to the
`technical group (e.g. a Rapporteur’s group), disclosure which should then be duly noted in the
`meeting report for future reference and record keeping.
`It should be noted that the TSB may not be able to meaningfully classify Patent Statement and
`Licensing Declaration forms for technology in Contributions, since sometimes there are no means to
`identify the exact work item to which the disclosure applies, or there is no way to ascertain whether
`the proposal in a Contribution would be adopted into a draft Recommendation.
`Therefore, patent holders should submit the Patent Statement and Licensing Declaration form at the
`time the patent holder believes that the patent is essential to the implementation of a draft or approved
`Recommendation.”
`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 Software copyright disclaimer header reminder
`It was noted that, as had been agreed at the 5th meeting of the JCT-VC and approved by both parent
`bodies at their collocated meetings at that time, the HEVC reference software copyright license header
`language is the BSD license with preceding sentence declaring that contributor or third party rights are
`not granted, as recorded in N10791 of the 89th meeting of ISO/IEC JTC 1/ SC 29/ WG 11. Both ITU and
`ISO/IEC will be identified in the <OWNER> and <ORGANIZATION> tags in the header. This software
`is used in the process of designing the new HEVC standard and for evaluating proposals for technology to
`be included in this design. Additionally, after development of the coding technology, the software will be
`published by ITU-T and ISO/IEC as an example implementation of the HEVC standard and for use as the
`basis of products to promote adoption of the technology.
`
`
`
`Page: 7
`
`Date Saved: 2012-01-31
`
`Page 7 of 305
`
`

`

`Different copyright statements shall not be committed to the committee software repository (in the
`absence of subsequent review and approval of any such actions). As noted previously, it must be further
`understood that any initially-adopted such copyright header statement language could further change in
`response to new information and guidance on the subject in the future.
`
`1.9 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.
`S. Wenger volunteered to help with document archive coordination toward improved harmonization of
`the document archives on these sites.
`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. However, membership of the reflector is not limited to qualified JCT-
`VC participants.
`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.
`It was emphasized that usually discussions concerning CEs and AHGs should be performed using the
`reflector. CE internal discussions should primarily be concerned with organizational issues. Substantial
`technical issues that are not reflected by the original CE plan should be openly discussed on the reflector.
`Any new developments that are the result of private communication only cannot be considered as the
`result of the CE.
`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.
`1.10 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.
` APS: Adapation parameter set.
` 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.
` BA: Block adaptive.
`
`
`
`Page: 8
`
`Date Saved: 2012-01-31
`
`Page 8 of 305
`
`

`

` 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.
` BUDI: Bidirectional UDI.
` CABAC: Context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding.
` CBF: Coded block flag(s).
` CE: Core experiment – a coordinated experiment conducted after the 3rd or 4th meeting.
` CRA: Clean random access – the ability to begin the decoding process of a bitstream at a point
`other than the start of the bitstream, while avoiding visual artifacts resulting from references to
`unavailable reference pictures.
` 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.
` EPB: Emulation prevention byte (as in the emulation_prevention_byte syntax element).
` 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.
` LB or LDB: Low-delay B – the variant of the LD conditions that uses B frames.
` 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 – one of two sets 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. Typically refers to LB, although also applies to LP.
` LM: Linear model.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 9
`
`Date Saved: 2012-01-31
`
`Page 9 of 305
`
`

`

` LP or LDP: Low-delay P – the variant of the LD conditions that uses P frames.
` 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
`JTC 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).
` NSQT: Non-square quadtree.
` NUT: NAL unit type (as in AVC).
` 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).
` POC: Picture order count.
` PPS: Picture parameter set (as in AVC).
` 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.
` RPLM: Reference picture list modification.
` ROT: Rotation operation for low-frequency transform coefficients.
` RQT: Residual quadtree.
` RVM: Rate variation measure.
` SAO: Sample-adaptive offset.
` SDIP: Short-distance intra prediction.
` SEI: Supplemental enhancement information (as in AVC).
` SPS: Sequence parameter set (as in AVC).
` TE: Tool Experiment – a coordinated experiment conducted after the 1st or 2nd JCT-VC
`meeting.
`
`
`
`Page: 10
`
`Date Saved: 2012-01-31
`
`Page 10 of 305
`
`

`

` 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 – and 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).
`1.11 Liaison activity
`The JCT-VC did not send or receive formal liaison communications at this meeting.
`1.12 Opening remarks
`No particular non-routine opening remarks were recorded.
`1.13 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.
`Note: The listed contribution counts may not be 100% precise.
` AHG reports (22) Track P (section 2)
`
`
`
`Page: 11
`
`Date Saved: 2012-01-31
`
`Page 11 of 305
`
`

`

` Project development, status, and guidance (0) Track P (section 3)
` CE summary reports (13) – Reviewed in plenary or tracks
` CE1: Entropy coding investigation (26) Track A (section 4.1)
` CE2: Motion partitioning and OBMC (6) T