Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Editorial: Clarify semantics of operating_point_idc[i] #359

Open
podborski opened this issue Oct 18, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Editorial: Clarify semantics of operating_point_idc[i] #359

podborski opened this issue Oct 18, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@podborski
Copy link

This is an editorial thing.

The current semantics of the operating_point_idc[i] bitmask in the specification is somewhat unclear, especially regarding the spatial and temporal layer mapping. I find the language a bit confusing myself but I also experienced other people struggling with it.

We could try to improve it. For example, we could rephrase the text and add a small figure that makes it more clear.

We could replace this:

operating_point_idc[ i ] contains a bitmask that indicates which spatial and temporal layers should be decoded for operating point i. Bit k is equal to 1 if temporal layer k should be decoded (for k between 0 and 7). Bit j+8 is equal to 1 if spatial layer j should be decoded (for j between 0 and 3).

with this:

operating_point_idc[i] is a bitmask that specifies the spatial and temporal layers to be decoded for operating point i. Bits 0 to 7 represent the temporal layers, while bits 8 to 11 represent the spatial layers. If bit k (where k is between 0 and 7) is set to 1, temporal layer k is decoded. Similarly, if bit j+8 (where j is between 0 and 3) is set to 1, spatial layer j is decoded.

The following figure illustrates the bitmask structure:

| spatial layers  |       temporal layers      |
 3   2   1   0     7   6   5   4   3   2   1   0  <-- Layer value (j, k)
11  10   9   8     7   6   5   4   3   2   1   0  <-- Bit index
@podborski podborski changed the title Editorial: Clarify Description and Add Labels to Bitmask Figure for operating_point_idc[i] Editorial: Clarify semantics of operating_point_idc[i] Oct 18, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant