Opened 11 years ago Closed 7 years ago #1110 closed defect (fixed)Clarification needed in SPS ordering information semantics
Description
The definitions of sps_max_dec_pic_buffering_minus1, sps_max_num_reorder_pics and sps_max_latency_increase_plus1, which define ranges based on the corresponding parameters in the VPS, don't state what should be done in the case where vps_max_sub_layers_minus1!=sps_max_sub_layers_minus1. This is particularly a problem if vps_max_sub_layers_minus1<sps_max_sub_layers_minus1, as some elements of these parameters won't have corresponding elements in the VPS. Unless I've missed something in the spec? Change History (4)comment:1 Changed 11 years ago by DefaultCC Plugin
comment:2 Changed 11 years ago by ykcomment:3 Changed 11 years ago by jackh
Thanks for the reply - yes, that would be fine. comment:4 Changed 7 years ago by bbross
Fixed in the 2016/12 release of the HEVC specification. Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets. | This list contains all users that will be notified about changes made to this ticket. These roles will be notified: Reporter, Owner, Subscriber, Participant
|
The semantics of vps_max_sub_layers_minus1 and sps_max_sub_layers_minus1 imply that vps_max_sub_layers_minus1 is always equal to or greater than sps_max_sub_layers_minus1. However, I agree that it would have been clearer if we add in the semantics of sps_max_sub_layers_minus1 that "The value of sps_max_sub_layers_minus1 shall be less than or equal to vps_max_sub_layers_minus1". Would explicitly saying the implicit restriction sufficiently address this issue?