Network Working Group                                       A. Filippov
Internet Draft                                      Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational                         October 19, 2015
Expires: April 19, 2016



           <Video Codec Requirements and Evaluation Methodology>
                 draft-filippov-netvc-requirements-02.txt


Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
   at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 19, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document. Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
   respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
   document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in




<Filippov>              Expires April 19, 2016                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft    Video Codec Requirements and Evaluation  October 2015


   Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
   warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Abstract

   This document provides requirements for a video codec designed
   mainly for use over the Internet. In addition, an evaluation
   methodology needed for measuring the parameters (compression
   efficiency, computational complexity, etc.) to ensure whether the
   stated requirements are fulfilled or not.

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction...................................................3
   2. Applications...................................................3
      2.1. Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) / IP-based over-the-top
      (OTT) video transmission.......................................4
      2.2. Video conferencing........................................5
      2.3. Video sharing.............................................6
      2.4. Screencasting.............................................7
      2.5. Game streaming............................................8
      2.6. Video monitoring / surveillance...........................8
   3. Requirements...................................................9
      3.1. Basic requirements.......................................10
         3.1.1. Input source formats:...............................10
         3.1.2. Coding delay:.......................................11
         3.1.3. Complexity:.........................................11
         3.1.4. Scalability:........................................11
         3.1.5. Error resilience:...................................11
      3.2. Optional requirements....................................11
         3.2.1. Input source formats................................11
         3.2.2. Scalability:........................................11
         3.2.3. Complexity:.........................................12
   4. Evaluation methodology........................................12
      4.1. Compression performance evaluation.......................12
   5. Security Considerations.......................................14
   6. Conclusions...................................................14
   7. References....................................................14
      7.1. Normative References.....................................14
      7.2. Informative References...................................14
   8. Acknowledgments...............................................15
   Appendix A. Abbreviations used in the text of this document......16
   Appendix B. Used terms...........................................17





<Filippov>              Expires April 19, 2016                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft    Video Codec Requirements and Evaluation  October 2015


1. Introduction

   In this document, the requirements for a video codec designed mainly
   for use over the Internet are presented. The requirements encompass
   a wide range of applications that use data transmission over the
   Internet including IPTV (broadcasting over IP-based networks), peer-
   to-peer video conferencing, video sharing, screencasting, and video
   monitoring/ surveillance. For each application, typical resolutions,
   frame-rates and picture access modes are presented. Specific
   requirements related to data transmission over packet-loss networks
   are considered as well. In this document, when we discuss data
   protection techniques we only refer to methods designed and
   implemented to protect data inside the video codec since there are
   many existing techniques that protect generic data transmitted over
   packet-loss networks. From the theoretical point of view, both
   packet-loss and bit-error robustness can be beneficial for video
   codecs. In practice, packet losses are a more significant problem
   than bit corruption in IP networks. It is worth noting that there is
   an evident interdependence between possible amount of delay and the
   necessity of error robust video streams:

   o  If an amount of delay is not crucial for an application, then
      reliable transport protocols such as TCP that resends undelivered
      packets can be used to guarantee correct decoding of transmitted
      data.

   o  If the amount of delay must be kept low, then either data
      transmission should be error free (e.g., by using managed
      networks) or compressed video stream should be error resilient.

   Thus, error resilience can be useful for delay-critical applications
   to provide low delay in packet-loss environment.

2. Applications

   In this chapter, an overview of video codec applications that are
   currently available on the Internet market is presented. It is worth
   noting that there are different use cases for each application that
   define a target platform, and hence there are different types of
   communication channels involved (e.g., wired or wireless channels)
   that are characterized by different quality of service as well as
   bandwidth; for instance, wired channels are considerably more error-
   free than wireless channels and therefore require different QoS
   approaches. The target platform, the channel bandwidth and the
   channel quality determine resolutions, frame-rates and quality or
   bit-rates for video streams to be encoded or decoded. By default,



<Filippov>              Expires April 19, 2016                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft    Video Codec Requirements and Evaluation  October 2015


   color format YUV 4:2:0 is assumed for the application scenarios
   listed below.

2.1. Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) / IP-based over-the-top (OTT)
   video transmission

   This is a service for delivering television content over IP-based
   networks. IPTV may be classified into two main groups based on the
   type of delivery, as follows:

   o  unicast (e.g., for video on demand), where delay is not crucial
      and, hence, error resilience is not needed;

   o  multicast/broadcast (e.g., for transmitting news) where zapping,
      i.e. stream changing, delay is important and, therefore, error
      resilience is required in the case of unmanaged networks like the
      Internet.

   The main difference between IPTV and IP-based OTT video transmission
   is that traffic is transmitted over managed (QoS-based) and
   unmanaged networks in the above cases, respectively. Typical content
   used in this application is news, movies, cartoons, series, TV
   shows, etc. One important requirement for both groups is Random
   access to pictures, i.e. random access period (RAP) should be kept
   small enough (approximately, 1-15 seconds). For the second group,
   two further requirements should be met:

   o  Temporal (frame-rate) scalability;

   o  Error robustness (only for IP-based OTT video transmission).

   For the first use case, the two above-mentioned requirements are
   optional. Support of resolution and quality (SNR) scalability is
   highly desirable for the both groups. For this application, typical
   values of resolutions, frame-rates, and RAPs are presented in Table
   1.





   +----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
   |      Resolution  *   |     Frame-rate, fps     |       PAM       |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
   +----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
   | 2160p (4K),3840x2160 |            60           |       RA        |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+


<Filippov>              Expires April 19, 2016                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft    Video Codec Requirements and Evaluation  October 2015


   |   1080p, 1920x1080   |        24, 50, 60       |       RA        |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
   |   1080i, 1920x1080 * |30 (60 fields per second)|       RA        |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
   |    720p, 1280x720    |          50, 60         |       RA        |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
   | 576p (EDTV), 720x576 |          25, 50         |       RA        |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
   | 576i (SDTV), 720x576 |          25, 30         |       RA        |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
   | 480p (EDTV), 720x480 |          50, 60         |       RA        |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
   | 480i (SDTV), 720x480 |          25, 30         |       RA        |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   Table 1. IPTV: typical values of resolutions, frame-rates, and RAPs

   NB *: interlaced content can be handled at the higher system level
   and not necessarily by using specialized video coding tools. It is
   included in this table only for the sake of completeness as most
   video content today is in progressive format.

2.2. Video conferencing

   This is a form of video connection over the Internet. This form
   allows users to establish connections to two or more people by two-
   way video and audio transmission for communication in real-time. For
   this application, both stationary and mobile devices can be used.
   The main requirements are as follows:

   o  Delay should be kept as low as possible (the preferable and
      maximum end-to-end delay values should be less than 100 ms [6]
      and 320 ms [1], respectively);

   o  Temporal (frame-rate) scalability;

   o  Error robustness.

   Support of resolution and quality (SNR) scalability is highly
   desirable. For this application, typical values of resolutions,
   frame-rates, and RAPs are presented in Table 2.



   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   |      Resolution      |     Frame-rate, fps     |      PAM       |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+


<Filippov>              Expires April 19, 2016                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft    Video Codec Requirements and Evaluation  October 2015


   |  1080p,  1920x1080   |          15, 30         |     JFPIC      |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   |  720p,  1280x720     |          30, 60         |     JFPIC      |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   |  4CIF,  704x576      |          30, 60         |     JFPIC      |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   |  4SIF,  704x480      |          30, 60         |     JFPIC      |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   |  VGA,  640x480       |          30, 60         |     JFPIC      |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   |  360p,  640x360      |          30, 60         |     JFPIC      |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+

   Table 2. Video conferencing: typical values of resolutions, frame-
   rates, and RAPs

2.3. Video sharing

   This is a service that allows people to upload and share video data
   (using live streaming or not) and to watch them. It is also known as
   video hosting. A typical User-generated Content (UGC) scenario for
   this application is to capture video using mobile cameras such as
   GoPro or cameras integrated into smartphones (amateur video). The
   main requirements are as follows:

   o  Random access to pictures for downloaded video data;

   o  Temporal (frame-rate) scalability;

   o  Error robustness.

   Support of resolution and quality (SNR) scalability is highly
   desirable. For this application, typical values of resolutions,
   frame-rates, and RAPs are presented in Table 3.

   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   |      Resolution      |     Frame-rate, fps     |       PAM      |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   | 2160p (4K),3840x2160 |  24, 25, 30, 48, 50, 60 |       RA       |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   | 1440p (2K),2560x1440 |  24, 25, 30, 48, 50, 60 |       RA       |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   | 1080p, 1920x1080     |  24, 25, 30, 48, 50, 60 |       RA       |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   | 720p, 1280x720       |  24, 25, 30, 48, 50, 60 |       RA       |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+


<Filippov>              Expires April 19, 2016                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft    Video Codec Requirements and Evaluation  October 2015


   | 480p, 854x480        |  24, 25, 30, 48, 50, 60 |       RA       |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   | 360p, 640x360        |  24, 25, 30, 48, 50, 60 |       RA       |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   Table 3. Video sharing: typical values of resolutions, frame-rates
   [7], and RAPs


2.4. Screencasting

   This is a service that allows users to record and distribute
   computer desktop screen output. This service requires efficient
   compression of computer-generated content with high visual quality
   (up to visually and mathematically lossless) [8]. Currently, this
   application includes business presentations (powerpoint, word
   documents, email messages, etc.), animation (cartoons), gaming
   content, data visualization, i.e. such type of content that is
   characterized by fast motion, rotation, smooth shade, 3D effect,
   highly saturated colors with full resolution, clear textures and
   sharp edges with distinct colors [8]), virtual desktop
   infrastructure (VDI), screen/desktop sharing and collaboration,
   supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) display,
   automotive/navigation display, cloud gaming, factory automation
   display, wireless display, display wall, digital operating room
   (DiOR), etc. For this application, an important requirement is the
   support of a wide range of video formats (e.g., RGB) in addition to
   YUV 4:2:0 and YUV 4:4:4 [8]. For this application, typical values of
   resolutions, frame-rates, and RAPs are presented in Table 4.

   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   |      Resolution      |     Frame-rate, fps     |       PAM      |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   |                     Input color format: RGB                     |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   | WQXGA, 2560x1600     |       15, 30, 60        | AI, RA, JFPIC  |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   | WUXGA, 1920x1200     |       15, 30, 60        | AI, RA, JFPIC  |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   | WSXGA+, 1680x1050    |       15, 30, 60        | AI, RA, JFPIC  |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   | WXGA, 1280x800       |       15, 30, 60        | AI, RA, JFPIC  |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   | XGA, 1024x768        |       15, 30, 60        | AI, RA, JFPIC  |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   | SVGA, 800x600        |       15, 30, 60        | AI, RA, JFPIC  |



<Filippov>              Expires April 19, 2016                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft    Video Codec Requirements and Evaluation  October 2015


   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   | VGA, 640x480         |       15, 30, 60        | AI, RA, JFPIC  |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   |                    Input color format: YUV 4:4:4                |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   | 1440p (2K), 2560x1440|       15, 30, 60        | AI, RA, JFPIC  |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   | 1080p, 1920x1080     |       15, 30, 60        | AI, RA, JFPIC  |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   | 720p, 1280x720       |       15, 30, 60        | AI, RA, JFPIC  |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+----------------+
   Table 4. Screencasting for RGB and YUV 4:4:4 format: typical values
   of resolutions, frame-rates, and RAPs

2.5. Game streaming

   This is a service that provides game content over the Internet to
   different local devices such as notebooks, gaming tablets, etc. In
   this category of applications, server renders 3D games in cloud
   server, and streams the game to any device with a wired or wireless
   broadband connection [9]. There are low latency requirements for
   transmitting user interactions and receiving game data in less than
   a turn-around delay of 100 ms. This allows anyone to play (or
   resume) full featured games from anywhere in the Internet [9]. An
   example of this application is Nvidia Grid [9]. Another category
   application is broadcast of video games played by people over the
   Internet in real time or for later viewing [9]. There are many
   companies such as Twitch, YY in China enable game broadcasting [9].
   Games typically contain a lot of sharp edges and large motion [9].
   The main requirements are as follows:

   o  Random access to pictures for game broadcasting;

   o  Temporal (frame-rate) scalability;

   o  Error robustness.

   Support of resolution and quality (SNR) scalability is highly
   desirable. For this application, typical values of resolutions,
   frame-rates, and RAPs are similar to ones presented in Table 4.

2.6. Video monitoring / surveillance

   This is a type of live broadcasting over IP-based networks. Video
   streams are sent to many receivers at the same time. A new receiver
   may connect to the stream at an arbitrary moment, so random access
   period should be kept small enough (approximately, ~1-5 seconds).


<Filippov>              Expires April 19, 2016                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft    Video Codec Requirements and Evaluation  October 2015


   Data are transmitted publicly in the case of video monitoring and
   privately in the case of video surveillance, respectively. For IP-
   cameras that have to capture, process and encode video data,
   complexity including computational and hardware complexity as well
   as memory bandwidth should be kept low to allow real-time
   processing. In addition, support of high dynamic range as well as
   resolution and quality (SNR) scalability is an essential requirement
   for video surveillance. For this application, typical values of
   resolutions, frame-rates, and RAPs are presented in Table 5.





   +----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
   |      Resolution      |     Frame-rate, fps     |       PAM       |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
   +----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
   | 2160p (4K),3840x2160 |           12            |    RA, JFPIC    |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
   | 5Mpixels, 2560x1920  |           12            |    RA, JFPIC    |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
   | 1080p, 1920x1080     |           25            |    RA, JFPIC    |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
   | 1.3Mpixels, 1280x960 |         25, 30          |    RA, JFPIC    |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
   | 720p, 1280x720       |         25, 30          |    RA, JFPIC    |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
   | SVGA, 800x600        |         25, 30          |    RA, JFPIC    |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
   Table 5. Video monitoring / surveillance: typical values of
   resolutions, frame-rates, and RAPs

3. Requirements

   Taking the requirements discussed above for specific video
   applications, this chapter proposes requirements for an internet
   video codec. The most basic requirement is coding efficiency, i.e.
   compression performance. It should be better than for state-of-the-
   art video codecs such as HEVC/H.265 and VP9. Levels to be supported
   by the new codec are presented in Table 6.

   +------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |    Level    |  Example picture resolution at highest frame rate  |
   +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+
   |      1      |                128x96@30.0                         |
   |             |                176x144@15.0                        |


<Filippov>              Expires April 19, 2016                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft    Video Codec Requirements and Evaluation  October 2015


   +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+
   |      2      |                176x144@100.0                       |
   |             |                352x288@30.0                        |
   +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+
   |      3      |                352x288@60.0                        |
   |             |                640x360@30.0                        |
   +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+
   |             |                640x360@60.0                        |
   |      4      |                960x540@30.0                        |
   +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+
   |             |                720x576@75.0                        |
   |      5      |                960x540@60.0                        |
   |             |                1280x720@30.0                       |
   +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+
   |             |                1,280x720@68.0                      |
   |      6      |                2,048x1,080@30.0                    |
   +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+
   |             |                1,280x720@120.0                     |
   |      7      |                2,048x1,080@60.0                    |
   +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+
   |             |                1,920x1,080@120.0                   |
   |      8      |                3,840x2,160@30.0                    |
   |             |                4,096x2,160@30.0                    |
   +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+
   |             |                1,920x1,080@250.0                   |
   |      9      |                4,096x2,160@60.0                    |
   +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+
   |             |                1,920x1,080@300.0                   |
   |     10      |                4,096x2,160@120.0                   |
   +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+
   |             |                3,840x2,160@120.0                   |
   |     11      |                8,192x4,320@30.0                    |
   +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+
   |             |                3,840x2,160@250.0                   |
   |     12      |                8,192x4,320@60.0                    |
   +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+
   |             |                3,840x2,160@300.0                   |
   |     13      |                8,192x4,320@120.0                   |
   +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+

   Table 6. Codec levels

3.1. Basic requirements

   3.1.1. Input source formats:

   o  Bit depth: 8- and 10-bits per color component;


<Filippov>              Expires April 19, 2016                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft    Video Codec Requirements and Evaluation  October 2015


   o  Color sampling formats: YUV 4:2:0, YUV 4:4:4

   o  Support of arbitrary resolution

   3.1.2. Coding delay:

   o  Support of "low-delay" configurations (end-to-end delay should be
      up to 320 ms [1] but it's preferable value should be less than
      100 ms [6])

   3.1.3. Complexity:

   o  Feasible real-time implementation of both an encoder and a
      decoder for hardware and software implementation based on a wide
      range of state-of-the-art platforms

   3.1.4. Scalability:

   o  Temporal (frame-rate) scalability

   3.1.5. Error resilience:

   o  Error resilience tools that are complementary to the error
      protection mechanisms implemented on transport level.

3.2. Optional requirements

   3.2.1. Input source formats

   o  Bit depth: up to 16-bits per color component;

   o  Color sampling formats: RGB and YUV 4:2:2;

   o  Auxiliary channel (e.g., alpha channel) support;

   o  Support of high dynamic range

   3.2.2. Scalability:

   o  Resolution and quality (SNR) scalability;

   o  Computational complexity scalability, i.e. computational
      complexity is decreasing along with degrading picture quality






<Filippov>              Expires April 19, 2016                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft    Video Codec Requirements and Evaluation  October 2015


   3.2.3. Complexity:

   Tools that enable parallel processing (e.g., slices, tiles, wave
   front propagation processing) at both encoder and decoder sides are
   highly desirable for many applications.

   o  High-level multi-core parallelism: encoder and decoder operation,
      especially entropy encoding and decoding, should allow multiple
      frames or sub-frame regions (e.g. 1D slices, 2D tiles, or
      partitions) to be processed concurrently, either independently or
      with deterministic dependencies that can be efficiently pipelined

   o  Low-level instruction set parallelism: favor algorithms that are
      SIMD/GPU friendly over inherently serial algorithms

4. Evaluation methodology

4.1. Compression performance evaluation

   As shown in Fig.1, compression performance testing is performed in 3
   ranges that encompass 12 different bit-rate values:

   o  Low bit-rate range (LBR) is the range that contains the 4 lowest
      bit-rates of the 12 specified bit-rates;

   o  Medium bit-rate range (MBR) is the range that contains the 4
      medium bit-rates of the 12 specified bit-rates;

   o  High bit-rate range (HBR) is the range that contains the 4
      highest bit-rates of the 12 specified bit-rates.

   To avoid any rate control mechanisms that can significantly impact
   evaluation results, just nominal values of bit-rates should be
   specified in a separate document on Internet video codec testing.
   The deviation between nominal and actual values of bit-rates
   obtained for both reference and tested codecs should be less than
   the threshold value defined in the above-mention document on
   Internet video codec testing. This deviation is calculated as
   follows:

                   D = abs((BRa - BRn)/ BRn)*100%,

   where BRn is a nominal value of bit-rate, BRa is an actual value of
   bit-rate obtained for either reference or tested codecs.





<Filippov>              Expires April 19, 2016                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft    Video Codec Requirements and Evaluation  October 2015


                                                         Bit-rate
      ------------------------------------------------------------>
       BR0  BR1   BR2  BR3  BR4  BR5   BR6  BR7  BR8  BR9  BR10  BR11
        ^              ^     ^               ^    ^               ^
        |------LBR------|    |------MBR------|    |------HBR------|

                 Figure 1 Bit-rate ranges for the CBR mode

   To assess the quality of output (decoded) sequences, two indexes,
   PSNR [2] and MS-SSIM [2,10], should be separately calculated for
   each color plane. For obtaining an integral estimation, BD-rate [11]
   should be computed for each range and each quality index. Finally,
   18 values should be obtained for a color format, which contains 3
   color planes (e.g., for YUV or RGB). A list of video sequences that
   should be used for testing as well as the 6 values of bit-rates are
   defined in a separate document. Testing processes should use the
   information on the codec applications presented in this document. As
   the reference for evaluation, the HEVC/H.265 codec [3,4] must be
   used. The reference source code of the HEVC/H.265 codec can be found
   at [5]. The HEVC/H.265 codec must be configured according to [12]
   and Table 9.

   +----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
   | Intra-period, second | HEVC/H.265 encoding mode according to [12]|
   +----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
   |          AI          |        Intra Main or Intra Main10         |
   +----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
   |          RA          |           Random access Main or           |
   |                      |           Random access Main10            |
   +----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
   |        JFPIC         |             Low delay Main or             |
   |                      |             Low delay Main10              |
   +----------------------+-------------------------------------------+

   Table 9. Intra-periods for different HEVC/H.265 encoding modes
   according to [12]

   In addition to the objective quality measures defined above,
   subjective evaluation must also be performed before adopting any new
   tool and a final codec standard. For subjective tests, the MOS-based
   evaluation procedure must be used as described in section 2.1 of
   [2]. For perception-oriented tools that primarily impact subjective
   quality, additional tests may also be individually assigned even for
   intermediate evaluation, subject to a decision of the NETVC WG.





<Filippov>              Expires April 19, 2016                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft    Video Codec Requirements and Evaluation  October 2015


5. Security Considerations

   This document itself does not address any security considerations.
   However, it is worth noting that a codec implementation (for both an
   encoder and a decoder) should cover the worst case of computational
   complexity, memory bandwidth, and physical memory size (e.g., for
   decoded pictures used as references). Otherwise, it can be
   considered as a security vulnerability and lead to denial-of-service
   (DoS) in the case of attacks.

6. Conclusions

   In this document, an overview of Internet video codec applications
   and typical use cases as well as a prioritized list of requirements
   for an Internet video codec are presented. An evaluation methodology
   for this codec is also proposed.

7. References

7.1. Normative References

   [1]   Recommendation ITU-T G.1091: Quality of Experience
         requirements for telepresence services, 2014.

   [2]   ISO/IEC PDTR 29170-1: Information technology -- Advanced image
         coding and evaluation methodologies -- Part 1: Guidelines for
         codec evaluation.

   [3]   ISO/IEC 23008-2:2015. Information technology -- High
         efficiency coding and media delivery in heterogeneous
         environments -- Part 2: High efficiency video coding

   [4]   Recommendation ITU-T H.265: High efficiency video coding,
         2013.

   [5]   https://hevc.hhi.fraunhofer.de/svn/svn_HEVCSoftware/

7.2. Informative References

   [6]   S. Wenger, "The case for scalability support in version 1 of
         Future Video Coding," contribution COM 16-C 988 R1-E to ITU-T
         SG16/Q6, September 2015."Recommended upload encoding settings
         (Advanced)"

   [7]   "Recommended upload encoding settings (Advanced)"
         https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171?hl=en



<Filippov>              Expires April 19, 2016                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft    Video Codec Requirements and Evaluation  October 2015


   [8]   H. Yu, K. McCann, R. Cohen, and P. Amon, "Requirements for
         future extensions of HEVC in coding screen content", ISO/IEC
         JTC1/SC29/WG11 MPEG2013/N14174, San Jose, USA, Jan. 2014

   [9]   Manindra Parhy, "Game streaming requirement for Future Video
         Coding," MPEG Contribution m36771, June 2015, Warsaw, Poland.

   [10]  Z. Wang, E. P. Simoncelli, and A. C. Bovik, "Multi-scale
         structural similarity for image quality assessment," Invited
         Paper, IEEE Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and
         Computers, Nov. 2003, Vol. 2, pp. 1398-1402.

   [11]  G. Bjontegaard, "Calculation of average PSNR differences
         between RD-curves (VCEG-M33)," in VCEG Meeting (ITU-T SG16
         Q.6), Austin, Texas, USA, Apr. 2-4 2001.

   [12]  F. Bossen, "Common test conditions and software reference
         configurations," JCTVC-L1100, Geneva, Switzerland, Jan. 2013.

   [13]  http://www.digitizationguidelines.gov/term.php?term=compressio
         nvisuallylossless)

8. Acknowledgments

   The author would like to thank Mr. Jiantong Zhou, Mr. Paul
   Coverdale, Mr. Jose Alvarez, Mr. Vasily Rufitskiy, Dr. Haitao Yang,
   Mr. Viktor Stepin, Mr. Maxim Sychev, and Mr. Sergey Ikonin for many
   useful discussions on this document and their help while preparing
   it as well as Mr. Mo Zanaty, Dr. Ali Begen, Mr. Thomas Daede, Dr.
   Jean-Marc Valin, Mr. Jack Moffitt and Mr. Greg Coppa for their
   valuable comments on the initial or/and first revisions of this
   document.

   This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.















<Filippov>              Expires April 19, 2016                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft    Video Codec Requirements and Evaluation  October 2015


Appendix A.                 Abbreviations used in the text of this document

   +--------------+---------------------------------------------------+
   | Abbreviation |                      Meaning                      |
   +--------------+---------------------------------------------------+
   |      AI      | All-Intra (each picture is intra-coded)           |
   |   BD-Rate    | Bjontegaard Delta Rate                            |
   |     GOP      | Group of Picture                                  |
   |     HBR      | High Bit-rate Range                               |
   |     PAM      | Picture Access Mode                               |
   |      RA      | Random Access                                     |
   |     RAP      | Random Access Period                              |
   |     IPTV     | Internet Protocol Television                      |
   |    JFPIC     | Just the First Picture is Intra-Coded             |
   |     LBR      | Low Bit-rate Range                                |
   |     MBR      | Medium Bit-rate Range                             |
   |     MOS      | Mean Opinion Score                                |
   |   MS-SSIM    | Multi-Scale Structural Similarity quality index   |
   |     OTT      | Over-The-Top                                      |
   |     PSNR     | Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio                        |
   |     QoS      | Quality of Service                                |
   |     UGC      | User-Generated Content                            |
   |     VDI      | Virtual Desktop Infrastructure                    |
   +--------------+---------------------------------------------------+

























<Filippov>              Expires April 19, 2016                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft    Video Codec Requirements and Evaluation  October 2015


Appendix B.                 Used terms

   +------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
   |      Term        |                   Meaning                     |
   +------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
   |  Random access   | is the period of time between two closest     |
   |  period          | independently decodable frames (pictures).    |
   |                  |                                               |
   | Visually         | is a form or manner of lossy compression      |
   | lossless         | where the data that are lost after the file   |
   | compression      | is compressed and decompressed is not         |
   |                  | detectable to the eye; the compressed data    |
   |                  | appearing identical to the uncompressed       |
   |                  | data [13].                                    |
   +------------------+-----------------------------------------------+


































<Filippov>              Expires April 19, 2016                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft    Video Codec Requirements and Evaluation  October 2015


Authors' Addresses

   Alexey Filippov
   Huawei Technologies

   Email: alexey.filippov@huawei.com











































<Filippov>              Expires April 19, 2016                [Page 18]