Position Dependent Prediction Combination For Intra-Frame Video Coding

Amir Said; Feng Zou; Jianle Chen; Marta Karczewicz; Xin Zhao

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 14 references

Position Dependent Prediction Combination For Intra-Frame Video Coding

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The authors propose Position-Dependent Prediction Combination, a low-complexity extension to HEVC intra prediction that blends unfiltered and smoothed reference predictions with position-dependent weights, and report an average 2.0%…

desk verdict PDPC is a real and influential coding tool, but this paper's own equations don't match the tested predictor and the training details are missing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23672 v1 pith:KLXW6VNL submitted 2025-05-29 eess.IV

Amir Said , Xin Zhao , Marta Karczewicz , Jianle Chen , Feng Zou This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.IV

keywords HEVCintra-framepredictionposition-dependentcombinationreferencesamplesmoothinglinearBD-rateUHDvideocodingparallel

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes an extension to HEVC intra-frame prediction called Position-Dependent Prediction Combination (PDPC). PDPC blends the standard HEVC predictor with predictions computed from a smoothed reference line, using weights that decay exponentially with distance from the top and left block borders and depend on prediction mode and block size. The claim is that this simple, non-recursive combination matches the behavior of optimal linear predictors well enough to cut bit rate by an average of 2.0% (luma) under HEVC All Intra common test conditions, with roughly 4% gains on UHD sequences. The authors argue the scheme keeps all pixel predictions computable in parallel, unlike earlier recursive-filtering approaches, while reusing HEVC's existing prediction modes.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the PDPC prediction equation (8): $p[x,y] = \frac{c_1^{(v)} r[x,-1] - c_2^{(v)} r[-1,-1]}{2^{y/d_v}} + \frac{c_1^{(h)} r[-1,y] - c_2^{(h)} r[-1,-1]}{2^{x/d_h}} + b'[x,y] p_s^{(\mathrm{HEVC})}$ with normalization $b'[x,y] = 1 - (c_1^{(v)} - c_2^{(v)})/2^{y/d_v} - (c_1^{(h)} - c_2^{(h)})/2^{x/d_h}$ and smoothed reference $s = a r + (1-a)(h_k * r)$ from Eq. (10), where $h_k$ is a binomial filter of order $k$. The parameter vector $\alpha = \{c_1^{(v)}, c_2^{(v)}, c_1^{(h)}, c_2^{(h)}, d_v, d_h, a, k\}$ is selected per mode and block-size class by minimizing the trace objective in Eq. (11), which is the residual mean-squared error of the linear prediction matrix $\tilde{H}_m(\alpha)$ against the covariance statistics $P_m$ and $Q_m$ estimated from HEVC-encoded data. Because Eq. (8) is a linear combination with weights that depend only on pixel position, all pixels in a block can be computed independently, satisfying the parallel-computation requirement that recursive filters violate.

What would settle it

Train the PDPC parameters on one subset of the HEVC Class A-E sequences and evaluate on the held-out subset; if the held-out luma BD-rate gain drops substantially below 2%, the original result is overfit. A second check is to replace the trained $\alpha$ with random weights of the same structure and verify that the coding gain collapses, confirming the parameters themselves carry the benefit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the smoothing that recursive filters applied to intra prediction can be reproduced by a position-dependent weighted sum of unfiltered and filtered reference contributions. Concretely, the paper shows that a predictor of the form of Eq. (8) — two exponentially decaying boundary terms anchored at the top and left references plus a normalized HEVC prediction term — approximates the trained optimal linear predictor matrices well enough to deliver consistent BD-rate reductions. The measured luma reduction is -2.01% on average across HEVC Classes A-E, and -4.06% on three UHD 3840x2160 sequences, relative to the HEVC reference software in All Intra main-10 configuration. The authors also demonstrate via predictor-matrix visualizations that the compact PDPC matrices reproduce the blurred directional patterns of the optimal predictors.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed 2.0% average bit-rate reduction relies on trained PDPC parameters that were optimized on an undisclosed video dataset and then evaluated on the HEVC common test sequences; if that training set is unrepresentative, the gains could shrink or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Adopting PDPC into an HEVC-based encoder would provide roughly 2% BD-rate savings in All Intra coding with only a few extra multiply-adds per pixel and a per-coding-unit flag to select among two or four parameter sets.
The improvement grows with resolution: the three UHD sequences average -4.06% luma, suggesting the benefit is concentrated in the larger prediction blocks that dominate high-resolution content.
Because every predicted pixel is an independent weighted sum, PDPC supports full parallel pixel computation, which is difficult with the recursive filters it replaces.
PDPC does not require changes to HEVC's reference sample construction, transform, or entropy coding; it only modifies the prediction combination step.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper does not disclose the training set or the learned parameter values, so an immediate reproducibility check is to retrain on a public dataset and measure the same BD-rate differences; until then the 2% average should be treated as a single-dataset estimate.
The same position-dependent blending idea could extend to later codecs with multiple reference lines or intra sub-partition tools, where the exponential weight formulas are replaced by per-mode trained weights or a small neural network.
The visualization of predictor matrices ($H_m$) as images is a transferable diagnostic: it could be used to compare any proposed low-complexity predictor against the optimal linear one before full encoder integration.
A parameter-free variant with fixed decay rates (e.g., $d_v = d_h = 1$) might trade some gain for zero signaling, which the paper's two-parameter-set results (1.45% average) suggest is already close to the four-set version.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is the paper that introduced PDPC, and the 2% All-Intra BD-rate gain is probably real—later codec history backs it up. But the writeup has a real internal inconsistency between Eq. (4) and Eq. (8), and the experimental section omits the training details needed to fully trust the number. Worth refereeing, but it needs a corrected derivation and more complete reporting before I'd call it solid.

What's new: PDPC combines HEVC's unfiltered and filtered reference predictions with position-dependent weights, using a compact parameterization (c1/c2, d, k, a) and a closed-form training objective in Eq. (11). The visualization of learned predictor matrices in Fig. 2 is a nice piece of analysis, and the parallel-computability motivation is legitimate—recursive filters are awkward on modern hardware. The measured 2% average gain over HM 16.6 under HEVC common test conditions, with larger gains on UHD, is a meaningful, directly usable result for codec work. The paper also honestly signals that later HM-KTA includes a slightly more optimized version.

The soft spots are real. First, the Eq. (4) to Eq. (8) step. Eq. (4) has t[x,y]p_r + b[x,y]p_s with t = (N - min(x,y))/N. Eq. (8) drops the p_r term and uses b' = 1 - w, which is b + t. The difference between the two expressions is t(p_r - p_s). For the filtered reference s = a r + (1-a)(h_k * r) with a != 1, p_s and p_r are not equal, and t > 0 through the block. So Eq. (8) is not algebraically equivalent to Eq. (4). The paper never states p_r = p_s or t = 0. If Eq. (8) was what went into HM 16.6, the theoretical motivation through Eq. (11) and Fig. 3 does not apply to the tested predictor; if Eq. (4) was implemented, Eq. (8) and the claimed complexity saving are wrong. Either way, the reader cannot map the reported BD-rate numbers back to the equations in Section 3. That is a load-bearing inconsistency, not a cosmetic typo.

Second, the training details. Eq. (11) optimizes alpha on an unspecified training set, and none of the trained parameter values are reported. We don't know whether the test sequences overlap the training data, whether the gains are stable across sequences, or how much variance there is. Tables 1-3 give class averages only. Those are standard omissions for a short conference paper, but they matter because the whole claim is an empirical gain. The 2% figure is plausible—PDPC later became a VVC tool—but this manuscript alone doesn't fully substantiate it. The citation pattern is otherwise fine; the recursive-filter prior work is relevant and the HM-KTA software is acknowledged.

Who's this for: codec researchers and standards folks. It's a coding-tool paper, not a theory paper. I'd send it to review despite the issues, because the idea is important and the flaws are fixable. But it should not be accepted as-is; the authors need to correct the derivation and disclose training data and parameters. My recommendation: engage with it, but require a revision with the math fixed and the experimental reporting completed.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Position-Dependent Prediction Combination (PDPC) for HEVC intra prediction. The method computes each predicted pixel from a weighted sum of boundary reference terms and the HEVC prediction obtained from smoothed references, with weights that depend on pixel position, prediction mode, and block size. The PDPC parameters are trained by minimizing residual mean squared error on an unspecified training set. Experiments in HM 16.6 under the All Intra common test conditions report an average luma BD-rate reduction of 2.01% (Table 1), about 4% on three UHD sequences (Table 2), and 1.45% for a reduced two-parameter-set version (Table 3).

Significance. If the reported gains are reproducible, PDPC is a practically relevant, low-complexity, parallel-friendly extension to HEVC intra coding, and the paper's use of visualizations of optimal predictor matrices to motivate a parametric predictor is a useful methodological contribution. The authors integrate the method into the HM-KTA software, which is a concrete step toward reproducibility. However, the central claim is not yet fully supported: the derivation of the implemented predictor is internally inconsistent, and the training data, trained parameter values, and per-sequence results are omitted, so the reported average cannot be independently checked or separated from possible training/test overlap.

major comments (2)

[Section 3, Eq. (11) and Section 4, Tables 1-3] Eq. (8) is not algebraically equivalent to Eq. (4). Substituting b' = b + t and comparing the two expressions gives p_(8) = p_(4) + t[x,y](p_s^(HEVC) - p_r^(HEVC)), so the two formulas differ unless p_s^(HEVC) equals p_r^(HEVC). The paper does not state that the smoothed-reference prediction equals the unfiltered-reference prediction; indeed, with s defined in Eq. (10) and a general parameter a, p_s and p_r are generally different, and t[x,y] is positive throughout the block. The sentence in Section 3 claiming that 'when we employ only linear predictors... we can avoid having to compute both p_r and p_s' does not resolve the discrepancy, because linearity alone does not make the two predictor values coincide. The reader therefore cannot tell which formula was implemented in the HM-16.6 experiments: if Eq. (8) was implemented, the optimality argument around Eqs. (4) and (11) and the visualization in Fig. 3 do not apply to it; if Eq. (4) was implemented, the simplification in Eq. (8) is wrong. This issue is load-bearing because Tables 1-3 are presented as evidence for the proposed method, and the exact prediction formula needs to be unambiguous.
[Section 4, Tables 1-3] The manuscript does not disclose the training data, the trained parameter vector alpha, or per-sequence BD-rate results. The optimization in Eq. (11) is described only abstractly, with no information about the number or resolution of training sequences, the QP range, or whether the test sequences under common test conditions overlap with the training set. Since the parameters are explicitly fitted to minimize prediction error on training data, the reported 2.0% average could, for all the reader knows, partly reflect overfitting to the training distribution. Without these details, the central empirical claim cannot be reproduced or independently assessed.

minor comments (6)

[Section 3, bullet list] The word 'develped' in the second bullet should be 'developed'.
[Section 4, first paragraph] The phrase 'an shown' should be 'as shown'.
[Section 4, first paragraph] The phrase 'the the common tests conditions' contains a duplicated article and should be 'the common test conditions'.
[Section 3, Eq. (7)] The rule 'dv = dh = 1, if 16 × 16 or smaller' is slightly ambiguous because block sizes are powers of two; it would be clearer to list explicitly N = 4, 8, 16 for dv = 1 and N = 32, 64 for dv = 2.
[Section 4, Tables 1-3] The tables report only class averages and no per-sequence numbers or error bars, so the variability across sequences is unknown; reporting per-sequence results would make the two-decimal precision in the averages meaningful.
[Section 3, Eq. (10)] The parameter index k for the binomial filter is not specified; the paper should state the set of allowed k values used in training and testing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PDPC bit-rate gains are empirical results measured on standard test sequences, not predictions derived from the fitted parameters.

full rationale

The paper contains no circular step under the enumerated patterns. The PDPC parameters are obtained by least-squares fitting (Eq. 11) against statistics Pm and Qm collected by using the HEVC encoder as a classifier (Eq. 1); the claimed 2.0% BD-rate saving is then measured by full encoding of the HEVC common test conditions in HM-16.6 (Section 4, Tables 1-3). This is a standard empirical train-and-measure loop: the result is an experimental finding about a fitted predictor, not a first-principles prediction, so no fitted input is renamed as a prediction. The motivation from Fig. 2 vs Fig. 3 is a design heuristic based on inspecting trained matrices, not a formal theorem. There is no load-bearing self-citation: the cited recursive-filter papers [4]-[7] and the binomial-filter reference [8] are external prior art, and no uniqueness theorem or prior result by these authors is invoked to force the PDPC form. The undisclosed training set is a reproducibility and possible-overfitting concern, but it is not circularity. Separately, Eq. (8) is not algebraically equivalent to Eq. (4) unless t[x,y](p_s - p_r) equals zero; the paper does not state that this term vanishes, so the exact implemented predictor is ambiguous. This is an internal-consistency or correctness concern, not a reduction of the derivation to its own inputs, and therefore it does not affect the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a set of trained scalar parameters whose values are not disclosed, and on several domain assumptions about the sufficiency of HEVC-based classification and the chosen functional form. No fundamentally new physical or algorithmic entity is introduced beyond the parameterized combination rule itself.

free parameters (5)

c1_v, c2_v, c1_h, c2_h = not specified in paper
Trained weights in eq. (4)/(8) that control the contribution of reference samples. Values are never listed.
a = not specified in paper
Blend factor in eq. (10) between original reference and filtered reference; trained from data.
k = not specified in paper
Order of the binomial filter in eq. (10), selected during training.
dh, dv = hand set: 1 for blocks <=16, 2 for blocks >=32
Exponential decay rates in eq. (7), chosen by a hand-crafted rule rather than trained.
t[x,y] = N - min(x,y) / N
Heuristic weighting function in eq. (6), chosen ad hoc and mixed into the combination.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The HEVC encoder's choice of predictor index m is a good proxy for the true optimal predictor.
The paper conditions all statistics on m being selected by the HEVC encoder (eq. 1), assuming this classification captures geometric and statistical structure.
domain assumption The prediction problem is well-modeled as linear least squares from reference samples.
The optimal predictor matrices Hm in eq. (2) are derived under a linear model, and PDPC is restricted to linear combinations.
domain assumption The training data is representative of the test sequences.
The paper assumes the trained parameters will generalize beyond the unspecified training set to the HEVC common test conditions, a premise not validated by any cross-set analysis.
ad hoc to paper The chosen exponential-decay weight form is sufficient to approximate the optimal matrices Hm.
The specific formula in eq. (4)/(8) is a hand-designed approximation; no proof is given that this functional form captures all relevant structure in Hm.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Position Dependent Prediction Combination For Intra-Frame Video Coding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KLXW6VNL

@misc{pith2026250523672,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Position Dependent Prediction Combination For Intra-Frame Video Coding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KLXW6VNL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23672}
}

read the original abstract

Intra-frame prediction in the High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) standard can be empirically improved by applying sets of recursive two-dimensional filters to the predicted values. However, this approach does not allow (or complicates significantly) the parallel computation of pixel predictions. In this work we analyze why the recursive filters are effective, and use the results to derive sets of non-recursive predictors that have superior performance. We present an extension to HEVC intra prediction that combines values predicted using non-filtered and filtered (smoothed) reference samples, depending on the prediction mode, and block size. Simulations using the HEVC common test conditions show that a 2.0% bit rate average reduction can be achieved compared to HEVC, for All Intra (AI) configurations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

INTRODUCTION Intra-frame coding in the HEVC video coding standard em- ploys the conventional combination of predictive and trans - form coding, where prediction is based on single reference pixel lines, from previously reconstructed blocks [1, 2]. To at- tain improved compression efﬁciency while maintaining low decoder complexity, only very simple linear ...

work page
[2]

Position Dependent Prediction Combination For Intra-Frame Video Coding

EXPLOITING GEOMETRIC AND STA TISTICAL FEA TURES Fig. 1 shows the HEVC conﬁguration for intra-frame pre- diction, for 4 × 4 blocks, and the notation we use. In an N × N block, we have the pixels values represented by v[x, y], and their set of predicted values by pm[x, y] with x, y ∈ { 0, 1, . . . , N − 1}, and m ∈ { 0, 1, . . . ,34} is the index identifyin...

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[3]

POSITION-DEPENDENT PREDICTION COMBINA TION (PDPC) There are many ways to approximate the features of the pre- dictors in matrices Hm. In our approach we considered only the solutions that • Combine statistical analysis with the geometry-based predictors in HEVC to approximate the features of op- timal predictors in matrices Hm; • Avoid radical changes in ...

work page
[4]

This can be observed by applying the same visualization technique of Fig

EXPERIMENTAL RESUL TS Using the training procedure described above, we obtained sets of PDPC parameters that approximate the optimal pre- diction matrices Hm. This can be observed by applying the same visualization technique of Fig. 2 to the PDPC predictio n matrices ˜Hm(α), an shown in the example of Fig. 3. The proposed prediction method has been integr...

work page
[5]

Overview of the High Efﬁciency Video Coding (HEVC) Standard,

G. J. Sullivan, J.-R. Ohm, W .-J. Han, and T. Wie- gand, “Overview of the High Efﬁciency Video Coding (HEVC) Standard,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video T echnol., vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 1649–1668, Dec. 2012

work page 2012
[6]

Intra coding of the HEVC standard,

J. Lainema, F. Bossen, W .-J. Han, J. Min, and K. Ugur, “Intra coding of the HEVC standard,” IEEE Trans. Cir- cuits Syst. Video T echnol. , vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 1792– 1801, Dec. 2012

work page 2012
[7]

Wien, High Efﬁciency Video Coding: Coding T ools and Speciﬁcation, Springer-V erlag, Berlin, 2015

M. Wien, High Efﬁciency Video Coding: Coding T ools and Speciﬁcation, Springer-V erlag, Berlin, 2015. 2https://hevc.hhi.fraunhofer.de/svn/svn HEVCSoftware /tags/HM-16.6/

work page 2015
[8]

Video coding technology proposal by Samsung (and BBC),

K. McCann, W .-J. Han, I.-K. Kim, J. Min, E. Alshina, A. Alshin, T. Lee, J. Chen, V . Seregin, S. Lee, Y . M. Hong, M.-S. Cheon, and N. Shlyakhov, “Video coding technology proposal by Samsung (and BBC),” Tech. Rep. JCTVC-A124, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, Dresden, Germany, Apr. 2010

work page 2010

Show all 14 references

[9]

Improved video compression efﬁciency through ﬂexible unit representation and corresponding extension of coding tools,

W .-J. Han, J. Min, I.-K. Kim, E. Alshina, A. Alshin, T. Lee, J. Chen, V . Seregin, S. Lee, Y . M. Hong, M.-S. Cheon, N. Shlyakhov, K. McCann, T. Davies, and J.-H. Park, “Improved video compression efﬁciency through ﬂexible unit representation and corresponding extension of co...

2010
[10]

A recursive extrapola- tion approach to intra prediction in video coding,

Y . Chen, J. Han, and K. Rose, “A recursive extrapola- tion approach to intra prediction in video coding,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustics Speech Signal Process. , V ancouver, BC, Canada, May 2013, pp. 1734–1738

2013
[11]

Rate-distortion optimization and adaptation of intra prediction ﬁlter parameters,

S. Li, Y . Chen, J. Han, T. Nanjundaswamy, and K. Rose, “Rate-distortion optimization and adaptation of intra prediction ﬁlter parameters,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Image Process. , Paris, France, Oct. 2014, pp. 3146– 3150

2014
[12]

Binomial ﬁlters,

M. Aubury and W . Luk, “Binomial ﬁlters,” J. VLSI Signal Process., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 1995

1995
[13]

Common test conditions and software refer- ence conﬁgurations,

F. Bossen, “Common test conditions and software refer- ence conﬁgurations,” Tech. Rep. JCTVC-H1100, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU- T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, San Jose, CA, Feb. 2011

2011
[14]

Calculation of average PSNR differ- ences between RD-curves,

G. Bjøntegaard, “Calculation of average PSNR differ- ences between RD-curves,” Tech. Rep. VCEG-M33, ITU-T SG16 Q.6, Austin, TX, Apr. 2001

2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

INTRODUCTION Intra-frame coding in the HEVC video coding standard em- ploys the conventional combination of predictive and trans - form coding, where prediction is based on single reference pixel lines, from previously reconstructed blocks [1, 2]. To at- tain improved compression efﬁciency while maintaining low decoder complexity, only very simple linear ...

work page

[2] [2]

Position Dependent Prediction Combination For Intra-Frame Video Coding

EXPLOITING GEOMETRIC AND STA TISTICAL FEA TURES Fig. 1 shows the HEVC conﬁguration for intra-frame pre- diction, for 4 × 4 blocks, and the notation we use. In an N × N block, we have the pixels values represented by v[x, y], and their set of predicted values by pm[x, y] with x, y ∈ { 0, 1, . . . , N − 1}, and m ∈ { 0, 1, . . . ,34} is the index identifyin...

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[3] [3]

POSITION-DEPENDENT PREDICTION COMBINA TION (PDPC) There are many ways to approximate the features of the pre- dictors in matrices Hm. In our approach we considered only the solutions that • Combine statistical analysis with the geometry-based predictors in HEVC to approximate the features of op- timal predictors in matrices Hm; • Avoid radical changes in ...

work page

[4] [4]

This can be observed by applying the same visualization technique of Fig

EXPERIMENTAL RESUL TS Using the training procedure described above, we obtained sets of PDPC parameters that approximate the optimal pre- diction matrices Hm. This can be observed by applying the same visualization technique of Fig. 2 to the PDPC predictio n matrices ˜Hm(α), an shown in the example of Fig. 3. The proposed prediction method has been integr...

work page

[5] [5]

Overview of the High Efﬁciency Video Coding (HEVC) Standard,

G. J. Sullivan, J.-R. Ohm, W .-J. Han, and T. Wie- gand, “Overview of the High Efﬁciency Video Coding (HEVC) Standard,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video T echnol., vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 1649–1668, Dec. 2012

work page 2012

[6] [6]

Intra coding of the HEVC standard,

J. Lainema, F. Bossen, W .-J. Han, J. Min, and K. Ugur, “Intra coding of the HEVC standard,” IEEE Trans. Cir- cuits Syst. Video T echnol. , vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 1792– 1801, Dec. 2012

work page 2012

[7] [7]

Wien, High Efﬁciency Video Coding: Coding T ools and Speciﬁcation, Springer-V erlag, Berlin, 2015

M. Wien, High Efﬁciency Video Coding: Coding T ools and Speciﬁcation, Springer-V erlag, Berlin, 2015. 2https://hevc.hhi.fraunhofer.de/svn/svn HEVCSoftware /tags/HM-16.6/

work page 2015

[8] [8]

Video coding technology proposal by Samsung (and BBC),

K. McCann, W .-J. Han, I.-K. Kim, J. Min, E. Alshina, A. Alshin, T. Lee, J. Chen, V . Seregin, S. Lee, Y . M. Hong, M.-S. Cheon, and N. Shlyakhov, “Video coding technology proposal by Samsung (and BBC),” Tech. Rep. JCTVC-A124, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, Dresden, Germany, Apr. 2010

work page 2010