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

Update 10.additional.tables.md #251

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

luctrudeau
Copy link
Contributor

If my understanding is correct, the only valid splits for BLOCK_8X8 are PARTITION_NONE, PARTITION_SPLIT, PARTITION_HORZ, PARTITION_VERT see Default_Partition_W8_Cdf

I understand this will also requires a change in the code https://aomedia.googlesource.com/aom/+/master/av1/common/common_data.h#71

If my understanding is correct, the only valid splits for  BLOCK_8X8 are PARTITION_NONE, PARTITION_SPLIT, PARTITION_HORZ, PARTITION_VERT see Default_Partition_W8_Cdf

I understand this will also requires a change in the code https://aomedia.googlesource.com/aom/+/master/av1/common/common_data.h#71
@peterderivaz
Copy link
Collaborator

I think you are quite right that these cases are not covered (in Argon Streams coverage we explicitly mark these 4 8x8 cases as impossible to reach), however I think this is just an editorial matter because I believe making this change has no normative effect on the decoding process (do you agree?).

So I agree that this would be a nice-to-have modification to avoid confusion (especially when people are testing coverage), but I believe it would not be a normative change to either code or spec.

@luctrudeau
Copy link
Contributor Author

I agree that this is not a normative change, it makes the table more consistent with the video format. The reason I point out the code change is that this table is shared between the aom code base and the spec. I'm assuming the intent is that they match.

@luctrudeau
Copy link
Contributor Author

Any news on this?

@peterderivaz
Copy link
Collaborator

I haven't heard anything myself, but in general there is a strong reluctance to change either the code or the specification because people have taped out hardware for AV1 now and get very stressed whenever they see changes being made. If people do feel strongly (either way), then please feel free to comment.

@PDX-Runner
Copy link
Collaborator

issue #313 was also filed to track this particular change

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants