INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION
`
`ORGAN ISATION INTERNATIONALE DE NORMALISATION
`
`ISO/IEC JTCI /SC2/WG8
`
`CODED REPRESENTATiON OF PICTURE AND AUDIO INFORMATION
`
`Source
`
`Title
`
`Status
`
`Sharad Singhal
`Interim Chairman MPEG/Audio
`Separate Meeting of the MPEGAudio Group
`Draft
`
`ISO-IECJJTCIJSC2/WG8
`MPEG 89/1 19
`May1989
`
`SEPARATE MEETING OF THE MPEG-AUDIO GROUP
`
`Deflnition
`
`During the afternoons of 17/05 and 18/05 the MPEG audio group discussed the agendatems in
`of Proposal Package in separate sessions chaired by
`Singhal of Beilcore The list of
`for these sessions is given in Annex
`
`participants
`
`During the meetings the committee attempted to define items in the proposal package The first
`towards the DP stage Annex
`day was spent affirming and clarifying
`the time schedule
`and
`defining the test procedures The second day was taken up in defining the performances required
`starting from the results of the Applications/Implications
`number of places it was felt
`ballot
`In
`information available and members of
`that
`there was insufficient
`the committee undertook to
`provide written questions and proposals at
`
`the July meeting
`
`document MPEG 89/121
`The recommendations of the committee are contained inaseparate
`Note that the committee has at times made hard choices when the options available were either
`in terms of the time available for testing We recommend that this
`undefined or were not practical
`document
`form the basis of further discussion at
`the Stockholm meeting in July and members
`wishing to make changes do so by providing concrete alternatives preferably as written contribu
`tions
`
`In the definition
`
`of time schedule the committee decided
`that
`detailed proposal with level of
`for others to reproduce the results will be required in October 1989 Enhancements
`detail sufficient
`and merging similar algorithms will still be possible until March 1990 Proposers who do not provide
`hardware implementations
`in March will have to provide estimates of hardware complexity
`to the
`satisfaction of the committee at that time
`
`The test material will be selected to include
`defined in the recommendation
`Committee members are encouraged to preview the material so the sequences may be finalized in
`July
`
`characteristics
`
`The test methodology was further defined as well as the bit rates to be tested in the initial phases
`During the plenary meeting on 19/05 questions arose about the algorithm selection based on these
`rates and it was suggested
`the selected rates would not show quality differences among the
`that
`
`1
`
`HP 1023
`
`

`

`coders This item should be taken up again at the next meeting It was decided
`the coders will
`be tested with random errors If two coders are ranked the same the performance under byte errors
`will be used to rank them
`
`that
`
`MPEG Doe 89177 and 89/95 were used to define the performances required of the coders In
`number of cases members felt strongly that
`the implications in the ballot were system issues and
`could not be resolved without
`further information about these issues Members of the committee
`undertook the task of providing these issues as contributions for the next meeting
`
`Whenever possible the committee provided specific
`recommendations for testing While these
`recommendations are subject
`to review and revision at the next meeting the goal
`is to encourage
`changes rather than open ended discussion so the definition
`of proposal package may be
`specific
`number of items marked inthe recommendations require further attention and
`finalized in July
`proposals dealing with them are requested for the next meeting
`
`Annex
`
`Attendance List
`
`NEF
`NFF
`OROS
`Fujitsu Labs
`GCF
`JVC
`Matsushita
`
`British Telecom
`Dolby Labs
`Dolby Labs
`IRT
`1RT
`Philips Research Labs
`
`Philips
`CCETF
`Deutsche Thomson Brandt
`ATT Bell Laboratories
`IBM
`
`Beilcore
`
`Universitaet Hanover
`DLR
`
`UK
`USA
`USA
`
`NL
`NL
`
`USA
`
`USA
`
`J.P.Petit
`
`Mahieux
`
`Lefevre
`
`Unagami
`Uwabu
`Once
`Takahashi
`
`Challener
`
`Forshay
`Davidson
`
`Theile
`
`Stoll
`
`Veidhuis
`Lokhoff
`
`Deheiy
`
`Spifie
`Johnston
`Lancon
`
`Singhal
`IL Fuchs
`
`Kohiert
`
`2
`
`

`

`Annex
`
`Definition of Time Schedule towards DP Stage
`
`PreregistratiolE
`2-3 page intent to submit document
`
`This is
`
`1989
`June
`consisting of brief description of the algorithm
`
`Detailed description of algorithm
`October 1989
`Detailed description means that enough detail
`is to be provided
`in the description to enable
`other parties to reproduce the results Questions may be directed to the proposers until Decem
`ber 31 1989 Proposals may be enhanced and similar proposals may be merged during October
`89- March 90
`
`March 1990
`Package verifiable by 3rd party provided
`Package would consist of tapes coded bitstream decoded output hardware implementa
`codes
`demonstration
`of integratibifity will also be required at this time
`tions/executable
`
`April 1990
`Prepare tapes for testing
`Exarnpl tapes will be distributed to test subjects and the double blind tape for tests will be
`prepared
`
`Subjective Tests
`
`Final Selection
`
`May 1990
`
`June 1990
`
`Hardware demonstration collaborative improvement
`writing of proposal
`
`final verification
`
`and
`
`June-Sept.1990
`
`3
`
`