Opened 5 years ago
Closed 5 years ago
#598 closed defect (fixed)
Typos in subpictures related text
Reported by: | vdrugeon | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Milestone: | |
Component: | spec | Version: | |
Keywords: | Cc: | ksuehring, bbross, XiangLi, fbossen, jvet@… |
Description
- Typo in the semantics of subpics_present_flag: "subpics_present_flag equal to 1 indicates that subpicture parameters are present in the present in the SPS RBSP syntax. subpics_present_flag equal to 0 indicates that subpicture parameters are not present in the present in the SPS RBSP syntax.": "in the present" seems unecessary in both sentences.
- In the SPS syntax, after signalling subpics_present_flag, sps_num_subpics_minus1 is directly signalled without a "if( subpics_present_flag )" condition. Is that intended? If it is intended, the number of closing '}' as well as the indentation of the syntax should be checked.
- The syntax of the subpicture level information SEI message uses a syntax element num_subpics_minus1 that does not exist. Should it be sps_num_subpics_minus1 instead? In the semantics of the subpicture level information SEI message, there is another syntax element that is used twice max_subpics_minus1 that does not exist and num_subpics_minus1 is also used once. Should these three instances also be replaced by sps_num_subpics_minus1 ? The variable NumSubPics is also used, but never derived. Should it be replaced by sps_num_subpics_minus1+1?
Change history (2)
comment:1 Changed 5 years ago by yk
comment:2 Changed 5 years ago by yk
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from new to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.
All good catches, and your guesses are all correct. Fixed in JVET-P2001-v10.