Opened 12 years ago Closed 12 years ago #712 closed defect (fixed)wrong initValue for split_transform_flag ctxIdx
Description
according to DRAFT8, Table 9-22, there is 9 CABAC init context elements for split_transform_flag like below,
But in HM, for every initType(0,1,2), init value written like below
static const UChar
};
Because of SLICE_TYPE_ORDER in previous HM, I think that we need to reorder this array.. Change History (5)comment:1 Changed 12 years ago by DefaultCC Plugin
comment:2 Changed 12 years ago by Wenhao.Zhangcomment:3 Changed 12 years ago by bbross
I can confirm that the values proposed in JCTVC-J0133 differ from the ones in current D8.
But I think that this was introduced when the init values in D8 got updated and it was assumed that, like for the other syntax elements, the first row represents init type 0, the second type 1 and the third type 2.
To avoid the unnecessary confusion which may, as we have seen, lead to bugs, I think this should hold true for the subdivision flag too so:
static const UChar
{224, 167, 122, 124, 138, 94, 153, 138, 138} comment:4 Changed 12 years ago by Wenhao.Zhang
It seems that the initValue of sao_type also has the same problem.
In general, two matching rules are observed in current HM8.0 and D8.
I think the former one is correct because the slicetype defined in HM8.0 is
}; comment:5 Changed 12 years ago by fbossen
Fixed in r3171 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
|
According to the adoption of J0133 on Stockholm meeting, the initvalue of split_transform_flag in HM8.0 is in correct order.
So this mismatch should be fixed by revising the table 9-22 as proposed by J0133. The order is {224, 167, 122, 124, 138, 94, 153, 138, 138}.