To make a long story short, the RF standard discussion in MPEG is not dead. As
a person from MPEG, I am really glad to see all these discussions happening in
IETF.
One way or another, we need to grow this voice and to make it heard
continuously.
Euee
From: video-codec [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rob Glidden
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 11:46 PM
To: Monty Montgomery
Cc: [email protected]; Mohammed Raad
Subject: Re: [video-codec] LS from ITU-T SG 16
I agree with Mohammed.
What is needed is work product, not debate. Specifically, IPR documentation
and reproducible tests, and the inputs to get to these.
To facilitate that, a quick search of the public ISO SC29 document register at
http://kikaku.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/ shows latest MPEG status in the February
public meeting resolutions at
https://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/open/29view/29n14764c.htm
The register also seems to point to the latest relevant January vote by the
governing national bodies of SC29, locked I assume by standard ISO procedure.
Relevant selections copied below for convenience, but easy enough to use the
above links directly.
Rob
3.12 Part 31 – Video coding for browsers
3.12.1 The Video subgroup recommends approval of the following documents
No.
Title
TBP
Available
ISO/IEC 14496-31 – Video coding for browsers
15125
Draft Disposition of Comments on ISO/IEC DIS 14496-31
N
15/02/20
15126
Draft Text in Preparation for ISO/IEC 2nd DIS 14496-31 Video Coding for Browsers
Y
15/02/20
3.13 During its 111th meeting, WG11 was informed, through the 14496-31 DIS
ballot results, that some national bodies have requested actions regarding a
Type-3 declaration made against the DIS text and, through contribution M35857
sourced by a Nokia expert, of a list of relevant patents. As the list
apparently relates to both encoder and decoder, Nokia is kindly requested to
provide information that specifically applies to ISO/IEC 14496-31, so that
appropriate action can be taken for potential modification of a re-issued DIS.
——
15.6 Internet Video Coding
15.6.1 The Video subgroup recommends approval of the following documents
No.
Title
TBP
Available
Explorations – Internet Video Coding
15159
Working Draft 5 of Internet Video Coding (IVC)
Y
15/03/06
15160
Internet Video Coding Test Model (ITM) v 12.0
Y
15/03/13
15161
Description of IVC Exploration Experiments
N
15/02/20
15162
Collection of information related to IVC technologies
N
15/02/27
15.6.2 The Video subgroup notes that significant progress was made in the
performance of ITM, and in terms of rate/PSNR performance, ITM11 is reported to
be closer to AVC High profile, when compared to previous investigations that
were documented in N14240 and N14989. Since new tools adopted to ITM12 are
expected to give even more improvement, it is planned to perform another
comparison of the visual quality of ITM and AVC HP at the 112th meeting. If it
is shown that IVC reaches visual quality that is not distinguishable from AVC
HP, it is anticipated that a progression into a formal standardization project
could be started.
——
Access
Level
Doc.No.
(Replaces)
Date Posted
Title
Source
Status
Doc Type
File
Issue No.
Due Date
ACT ID
Project No.
Name
Size(KB)
<https://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/def/29view/29n14714c.htm> 14714
<https://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/def/29view/29n14714.zip> 115.2
2015-01-15
Summary of Voting on ISO/IEC DIS 14496-31: Information technology -- Coding of
audio-visual objects -- Part 31: Video coding for browsers
ISO/IEC ITTF
Ballot result to be reviewed by WG 11 [Requested action: WG 11 is requested to
prepare a disposition of comments report, a revised text and a recommendation
on further processing of this work item.]
Summary of Voting
29n14714c.htm <https://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/def/29view/29n14714c.htm>
29n147141.doc <https://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/def/29view/29n147141.doc>
29n14714att.zip <https://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/def/29view/29n14714att.zip>
--
72.2
104.2
1600
On May 11, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Monty Montgomery <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
I would suggest that people who have invested their time and resources into
getting this working group started, focus on getting the technical work done
instead of going back to debates about where to do the work.
+1. I don't think there's any actual debate as to where to do the
work. That said, it was good to be reminded that however officially
opposed/distraught/confused ISO/MPEG or ITU may be over video codec
work happening in the IETF, we nonetheless likely have a substantial
number of individual allies in those groups.
Monty
_______________________________________________
video-codec mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
_______________________________________________
video-codec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
