Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #1182, comment 5
- Timestamp:
- 16 Jul 2020, 18:59:28 (4 years ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
Ticket #1182, comment 5
initial v1 1 Note that in "8.5.5.8 Derivation process for constructed affine control point motion vector prediction candidates", The third (bottom-left) control point motion vector cpMvLX[ 2 ] is derived regardless the numCpMv. So cpMvpLx[ 2 ] is defined. The output described in 8.5.5.8 is: "the constructed affine control point motion vector prediction candidiates cpMvLX[ cpIdx ] with cpIdx = 0..'''2''' and X being 0 or 1." The issue is in step 6 of 8.5.5.7, it's described as "and cpMvpLX[ cpIdx ] with cpIdx = 0..'''numCpMv − 1''' as outputs" 1 Note that in "8.5.5.8 Derivation process for constructed affine control point motion vector prediction candidates", The third (bottom-left) control point motion vector cpMvLX[ 2 ] is derived regardless the numCpMv. So cpMvpLx[ 2 ] is defined. The output described in 8.5.5.8 is: "the constructed affine control point motion vector prediction candidiates cpMvLX[ cpIdx ] with cpIdx = 0..'''2''' and X being 0 or 1." The issue is in step 6 of 8.5.5.7, it's described as "and cpMvpLX[ cpIdx ] with cpIdx = 0..'''numCpMv − 1''' as outputs" I think it should be typo here. 2 2 3 3 Huanban is correct that it doesn't make spec broken even cpMvpLX[2] is undefined value.