Opened 12 years ago Closed 12 years ago #766 closed defect (fixed)clarification of NumPCMBlock
Description
"NumPCMBlock=0" in coding_tree_unit() is not necessary Change History (5)comment:1 Changed 12 years ago by DefaultCC Plugin
comment:2 Changed 12 years ago by bbrosscomment:3 Changed 12 years ago by sasai
Yes, NumPCMBlock has to be set to 0 for first time. comment:4 Changed 12 years ago by kchono
As Benjamin said, NumPCMBlock=0 is needed in coding_tree_unit() syntax. Although Sasai-san's comment ( NumPCMBlock=0 is needed once per a slice ) is true, I think that keeping "NumPCMBlock=0" in coding_tree_unit() syntax is reasolable.
Regarding the variable name, I think that "NumPcmUnit" sounds better.
Thank you very much. comment:5 Changed 12 years ago by bbross
OK, I see but I agree with Chono-san that conditioning "NumPCMBlock=0" on the first CTU of a slice would not really simplify syntax.
Anyway, NumPCMBlock will be renamed to NumPcmUnits in JCTVC-K0030_v4. 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
|
NumPCMBlock=0 is needed in coding_tree_unit() syntax in order to invoke CU syntax for the first time:
where NumPCMBlock may get set to
Then, when NumPCMBlock is greater than zero, the remaining NumPCMBlock-1 CUs are decoded using pcm_sample() syntax instead of coding_unit() syntax, where NumPCMBlock is decremented, until NumPCMBlock is equal to 0:
But I would propose to rename NumPCMBlock to NumPcmUnits since it specifies the number of PCM units including one luma and two chroma blocks.