From dmassagu uci.edu Thu Nov 13 08:54:39 2003 From: dmassagu uci.edu (Daniel Massaguer) Date: Thu Nov 13 12:02:42 2003 Subject: [MPEGIF Discuss] starting with mpeg-4 Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031113084936.00b43908@pop.uci.edu> Hello, I am a graduate student working on a project for dynamically adapting mpeg-4 for users with upper body motor impairments. After reading for awhile we agreed using MPEG-J. However, I am having the hardest time for finding some documentation about it and some examples. any help on that? actually I would be more than happy if anyone could send me a simple example ( biff file included) and how to run it. Thanks, Daniel Massaguer ______________________________________________ Daniel Massaguer ______________________________________________ From jean-claude.dufourd enst.fr Sun Nov 16 15:40:04 2003 From: jean-claude.dufourd enst.fr (Jean-Claude Dufourd) Date: Sun Nov 16 12:05:34 2003 Subject: [MPEGIF Discuss] Re: [Mp4-tech] MPEG 4 player for pocketpc References: <2F122FD4-1835-11D8-99FD-000393D57A84@telemak.com> Message-ID: <3FB78C44.9090002@enst.fr> Christophe Lenaerts wrote: > I'm looking for an MPEG 4 or 3gpp player for ipaq or pocketPC. can > anyone hellp? We are working on a port of Osmo4 to IPAQ/PocketPC. You may be able to get a beta by sending email to the Osmo4 developer, jean.lefeuvre@enst.fr It works quite well, but there are still instabilities to work on. Best regards JC _______________________________________________ Mp4-tech mailing list Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech From rendeg ieee.org Sun Nov 16 15:52:46 2003 From: rendeg ieee.org (Ing. Rennie Deguara) Date: Sun Nov 16 12:10:07 2003 Subject: [MPEGIF Discuss] Re: [Mp4-tech] MPEG 4 player for pocketpc In-Reply-To: <2F122FD4-1835-11D8-99FD-000393D57A84@telemak.com> References: <2F122FD4-1835-11D8-99FD-000393D57A84@telemak.com> Message-ID: <3FB78F3E.6010105@ieee.org> Christophe Lenaerts wrote: > Hi, > > I'm looking for an MPEG 4 or 3gpp player for ipaq or pocketPC. can > anyone hellp? > > I tried the Philipps, but there is a dll problem in the installer. > The Real one does not work wth my files. > > You can try on if you have one and let me > know. This content does work with Nokia and Sony ericsson phones on > GPRS networks. > > thank you very much, > > > Christophe > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ----------------------------- > Christophe Lenaerts - > CEO Telemak > Tel: +32 (0)2 346 11 14 Streaming > Media Technologies > Mobile: +32 (0) 475 47 18 15 > http://www.telemak.com > > Check out our brand new website > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ----------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Mp4-tech mailing list > Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org > http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech > > Hi, Try The PacketVideo player, its really good. thanks, Rennie From rob.koenen mpegif.org Tue Nov 18 10:09:27 2003 From: rob.koenen mpegif.org (Rob Koenen (MPEGIF)) Date: Tue Nov 18 04:22:54 2003 Subject: [MPEGIF Discuss] MPEG LA Announces Terms of Joint H.264/MPEG-4 AVC Patent License Message-ID: Discuss list, The release below was issued yesterday. As I have stated before, it is positive that apparently the need for rapid availability of these terms is being understood, and that the licensors seem to have recognized a number of concerns that have been raised in the context of the MPEG-4 part 2 license. As in the past, we need to understand the exact consequences. MPEGIF welcomes discussions on this list on the terms as the have been released by the two licensing agents working on a joint AVC license. A summary of relevant news links can be found here: http://www.m4if.org/patents/ We are also seeking to host a phone Q&A session with the licensing agents in the near future, for MPEGIF members. Kind Regards, Rob Koenen President, MPEGIF ______________________________________ NEWS RELEASE For Immediate Release CONTACT: Lawrence Horn MPEG LA, LLC 301.986.6660 301.986.8575 Fax lhorn@mpegla.com MPEG LA Announces Terms of Joint H.264/MPEG-4 AVC Patent License (Denver, Colorado, USA - 17 November 2023) MPEG LA today announced that essential H.264/MPEG-4 AVC patent and patent application holders have reached agreement on the terms of a joint patent license for implementation and use of ITU-T H.264 and MPEG-4 Part 10 AVC (?AVC Standard?). ?For essential intellectual property holders of such wide diversity to agree on the terms of a joint license in just a matter of months is a remarkable achievement, giving testimony to their support for the AVC standard and their desire to make this promising new technology widely available to the market in the fastest time possible,? said MPEG LA CEO Baryn S. Futa. ?MPEG LA congratulates each of them for their extraordinary diligence and cooperation, despite differences, in coming together for the benefit of the marketplace. We also thank potential users across all market sectors for their forthrightness in sharing with us their concern for licensing terms that are simple, reasonable and easy to administer. This helped immensely in the group?s efforts to make the license terms responsive to marketplace needs.? Following is a brief summary of the licensing terms, which are yet to be incorporated into definitive license agreements and therefore, provided for information purposes only. These terms cover the entire AVC Standard regardless of which Profile(s) are used: Decoder-Encoder Royalties * Royalties to be paid by end product manufacturers for an encoder, a decoder or both (?unit?) begin at US $0.20 per unit after the first 100,000 units each year. There are no royalties on the first 100,000 units each year. Above 5 million units per year, the royalty is US $0.10 per unit. * The maximum royalty for these rights payable by an Enterprise (company and greater than 50% owned subsidiaries) is $3.5 million per year in 2005-2006, $4.25 million per year in 2007-08 and $5 million per year in 2009-10. * In addition, in recognition of existing distribution channels, under certain circumstances an Enterprise selling decoders or encoders both (i) as end products under its own brand name to end users for use in personal computers and (ii) for incorporation under its brand name into personal computers sold to end users by other licensees, also may pay royalties on behalf of the other licensees for the decoder and encoder products incorporated in (ii) limited to $10.5 million per year in 2005-2006, $11 million per year in 2007-2008 and $11.5 million per year in 2009-2010. * The initial term of the license is through December 31, 2010. To encourage early market adoption and start-up, the License will provide a grace period in which no royalties will be payable on decoders and encoders sold before January 1, 2005. Participation Fees * Title-by-Title ? For AVC video (either on physical media or ordered and paid for on title-by-title basis, e.g., PPV, VOD, or digital download, where viewer determines titles to be viewed or number of viewable titles are otherwise limited), there are no royalties up to 12 minutes in length. For AVC video greater than 12 minutes in length, royalties are the lower of (a) 2% of the price paid to the licensee from licensee?s first arms length sale or (b) $0.02 per title. Categories of licensees include (i) replicators of physical media, and (ii) service/content providers (e.g., cable, satellite, video DSL, internet and mobile) of VOD, PPV and electronic downloads to end users. * Subscription ? For AVC video provided on a subscription basis (not ordered title-by-title), no royalties are payable by a system (satellite, internet, local mobile or local cable franchise) consisting of 100,000 or fewer subscribers in a year. For systems with greater than 100,000 AVC video subscribers, the annual participation fee is $25,000 per year up to 250,000 subscribers, $50,000 per year for greater than 250,000 AVC video subscribers up to 500,000 subscribers, $75,000 per year for greater than 500,000 AVC video subscribers up to 1,000,000 subscribers, and $100,000 per year for greater than 1,000,000 AVC video subscribers. * Over-the-air free broadcast ? There are no royalties for over-the-air free broadcast AVC video to markets of 100,000 or fewer households. For over-the-air free broadcast AVC video to markets of greater than 100,000 households, royalties are $10,000 per year per local market service (by a transmitter or transmitter simultaneously with repeaters, e.g., multiple transmitters serving one station). * Internet broadcast (non-subscription, not title-by-title) ? Since this market is still developing, no royalties will be payable for internet broadcast services (non-subscription, not title-by-title) during the initial term of the license (which runs through December 31, 2023) and then shall not exceed the over-the-air free broadcast TV encoding fee during the renewal term. * The maximum royalty for Participation rights payable by an Enterprise (company and greater than 50% owned subsidiaries) is $3.5 million per year in 2006-2007, $4.25 million in 2008-09 and $5 million in 2010. * As noted above, the initial term of the license is through December 31, 2010. To encourage early marketplace adoption and start-up, the License will provide for a grace period in which no Participation Fees will be payable for products or services sold before January 1, 2006. Owners of patents or patent applications determined by MPEG LA?s patent experts to be essential to the AVC Standard and who have cooperated in the above terms include Columbia University, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute of Korea (ETRI), France T?l?com, Fujitsu, LG Electronics, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, Philips, Robert Bosch GmbH, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, Toshiba, and Victor Company of Japan (JVC). MPEG LA continues to welcome the submission of patents and patent applications for an evaluation of their essentiality to the AVC Standard in order to include as much essential intellectual property as possible under one license for the benefit of the marketplace (only issued patents will be included in the License). For each patent or patent application submitted, an evaluation fee of US $8,500.00 to cover the outside cost of the patent expert?s evaluation is paid to MPEG LA. Additional fees may be required to cover additional outside costs in the event of reevaluation by patent experts. Submitting parties must confirm their agreement with the terms and procedures governing the patent submission process which may be obtained from Jane Tannenbaum, Director, Contract Administration (jtannenbaum@mpegla.com). # # # MPEG LA, LLC MPEG LA successfully pioneered one-stop technology standards licensing with a portfolio of essential patents for the international digital video compression standard known as MPEG-2. One-stop technology standards licensing enables widespread technological implementation, interoperability and use of fundamental broad-based technologies covered by many patents owned by many patent holders. MPEG LA provides users with fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory access to these essential patents on a worldwide basis under a single license. MPEG LA is an independent licensing administrator; it is not a patent holder and is not related to any standards agency. In addition to MPEG-2, MPEG LA licenses portfolios of essential patents for the IEEE 1394 Standard, the DVB-T Standard, the MPEG-4 Visual Standard and the MPEG-4 Systems Standard. MPEG LA also has initiated a license for digital rights management (DRM) technologies as described in DRM Reference Model v1.0. For more information, please refer to http://www.mpegla.com , http://www.1394la.com and http://www.dvbla.com . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20031118/6038162c/attachment.html From i.g.richardson rgu.ac.uk Tue Nov 18 09:44:34 2003 From: i.g.richardson rgu.ac.uk (i.g.richardson@rgu.ac.uk) Date: Tue Nov 18 04:53:18 2003 Subject: [MPEGIF Discuss] MPEG LA Announces Terms of Joint H.264/MPEG-4 AVCPatent License Message-ID: <9B4C0CE0F5BE4E4F83226707BFA0D1B401F7C31A@EXVS001.rgu.ac.uk> Hello Rob Two questions related to this announcement: (1) Does this mean that the goal of a royalty-free Baseline Profile is not going to happen ? (2) What happens if the other agent proposes different terms ? (I appreciate you may not be in a position to answer this !) Regards Iain Richardson HYPERLINK "http://www.vcodex.com"www.vcodex.com -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces@lists.mpegif.org [mailto:discuss-bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of Rob Koenen (MPEGIF) Sent: 18 November 2023 09:09 To: discuss@lists.mpegif.org Subject: [MPEGIF Discuss] MPEG LA Announces Terms of Joint H.264/MPEG-4 AVCPatent License Importance: High Discuss list, The release below was issued yesterday. As I have stated before, it is positive that apparently the need for rapid availability of these terms is being understood, and that the licensors seem to have recognized a number of concerns that have been raised in the context of the MPEG-4 part 2 license. As in the past, we need to understand the exact consequences. MPEGIF welcomes discussions on this list on the terms as the have been released by the two licensing agents working on a joint AVC license. A summary of relevant news links can be found here: HYPERLINK "http://www.m4if.org/patents/"http://www.m4if.org/patents/ We are also seeking to host a phone Q&A session with the licensing agents in the near future, for MPEGIF members. Kind Regards, Rob Koenen President, MPEGIF ______________________________________ NEWS RELEASE For Immediate Release CONTACT: Lawrence Horn MPEG LA, LLC 301.986.6660 301.986.8575 Fax HYPERLINK "mailto:lhorn@mpegla.com"lhorn@mpegla.com MPEG LA Announces Terms of Joint H.264/MPEG-4 AVC Patent License (Denver, Colorado, USA - 17 November 2023) MPEG LA today announced that essential H.264/MPEG-4 AVC patent and patent application holders have reached agreement on the terms of a joint patent license for implementation and use of ITU-T H.264 and MPEG-4 Part 10 AVC (“AVC Standard”). “For essential intellectual property holders of such wide diversity to agree on the terms of a joint license in just a matter of months is a remarkable achievement, giving testimony to their support for the AVC standard and their desire to make this promising new technology widely available to the market in the fastest time possible,” said MPEG LA CEO Baryn S. Futa. “MPEG LA congratulates each of them for their extraordinary diligence and cooperation, despite differences, in coming together for the benefit of the marketplace. We also thank potential users across all market sectors for their forthrightness in sharing with us their concern for licensing terms that are simple, reasonable and easy to administer. This helped immensely in the group’s efforts to make the license terms responsive to marketplace needs.” ..... --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 - Release Date: 06/11/2023 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20031118/37cbb985/attachment-0001.html From craig pcube.com Tue Nov 18 08:18:50 2003 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Tue Nov 18 09:14:33 2003 Subject: [MPEGIF Discuss] MPEG LA Announces Terms of Joint H.264/MPEG-4 AVC Patent License In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 10:09 AM +0100 11/18/03, Rob Koenen \(MPEGIF\) wrote: >Discuss list, > >The release below was issued yesterday. > >As I have stated before, it is positive that apparently the need for >rapid availability of these terms is being understood, and that the >licensors seem to have recognized a number of concerns that have >been raised in the context of the MPEG-4 part 2 license. > >As in the past, we need to understand the exact consequences. MPEGIF >welcomes discussions on this list on the terms as the have been >released by the two licensing agents working on a joint AVC license. >A summary of relevant news links can be found here: >http://www.m4if.org/patents/ > >We are also seeking to host a phone Q&A session with the licensing >agents in the near future, for MPEGIF members. I guess this was to be expected., Let's hope the "other" guys can produce something without all of the extra baggage. My guess is that the DBS service providers are going to have a very difficult time dealing with the subscriber use fees... Perhaps someone can answer the following question. It appears that this license only covers the new AVC codec. So the question is, will any other MPEG-4 license be needed in order to implement this standard? I assume that it would be possible to transport AVC bitstreams using MPEG-2 systems. This would require an MPEG-2 systems license, but (I assume) no other MPEG-4 license (other than for audio if the AAC codec is being used). Is this a correct interpretation? Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From rob.koenen mpegif.org Wed Nov 19 17:52:29 2003 From: rob.koenen mpegif.org (Rob Koenen (MPEGIF)) Date: Wed Nov 19 18:00:42 2003 Subject: [MPEGIF Discuss] MPEG LA Announces Terms of Joint H.264/MPEG-4 AVC Patent License In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000d01c3aeef$d29a9a30$af0a010a@corp.intertrust.com> Craig, > My guess is that > the DBS service providers are going to have a very difficult time > dealing with the subscriber use fees... Could you provide a bit more detail on why this is the case? I'd like to see facts and figures in this discussion. > Perhaps someone can answer the following question. It appears that > this license only covers the new AVC codec. So the question is, will > any other MPEG-4 license be needed in order to implement this > standard? > > I assume that it would be possible to transport AVC bitstreams using > MPEG-2 systems. This would require an MPEG-2 systems license, but (I > assume) no other MPEG-4 license (other than for audio if the AAC > codec is being used). > > Is this a correct interpretation? I can't think of any reason why this interpretation would not be correct. There is nothing in AVC that prescribes use of MPEG-4 Systems or MPEG-4 Visual or MPEG-4 Audio. Rob From rob.koenen mpegif.org Thu Nov 20 07:47:47 2003 From: rob.koenen mpegif.org (Rob Koenen (MPEGIF)) Date: Thu Nov 20 07:58:13 2003 Subject: [MPEGIF Discuss] MPEG LA Announces Terms of Joint H.264/MPEG-4 AVCPatent License In-Reply-To: <9B4C0CE0F5BE4E4F83226707BFA0D1B401F7C31A@EXVS001.rgu.ac.uk> Message-ID: <000001c3af64$89495220$af0a010a@corp.intertrust.com> Iain, I'll answer for what I know and understand today. 1) Via Licensing's website states that their proposed terms cover "use of Baseline, Main, and Extended Profiles". MPEG LA's announcement states "These terms cover the entire AVC Standard regardless of which Profile(s) are used". I think that gives you the answer. 2) Good question, and one that gets asked a lot. The way I understand it now is that there are two pools with only partly overlapping participants. Assuming that all patents in either of these pools are essential, you could conclude you'd need a license from both. (although if I understand this correctly, you may then be paying twice for at least some patents) Competition is good. True competition would exist if there were multiple agents, with each of them covering all required patents, competing on terms. But that is not the situation we have today. Best, Rob -----Original Message----- From: i.g.richardson@rgu.ac.uk [mailto:i.g.richardson@rgu.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2023 10:45 To: rob.koenen@mpegif.org; discuss@lists.mpegif.org Subject: RE: [MPEGIF Discuss] MPEG LA Announces Terms of Joint H.264/MPEG-4 AVCPatent License Hello Rob Two questions related to this announcement: (1) Does this mean that the goal of a royalty-free Baseline Profile is not going to happen ? (2) What happens if the other agent proposes different terms ? (I appreciate you may not be in a position to answer this !) Regards Iain Richardson www.vcodex.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20031120/dd320220/attachment.html From craig pcube.com Thu Nov 20 11:29:20 2003 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Thu Nov 20 11:48:00 2003 Subject: [MPEGIF Discuss] MPEG LA Announces Terms of Joint H.264/MPEG-4 AVC Patent License In-Reply-To: <000d01c3aeef$d29a9a30$af0a010a@corp.intertrust.com> References: <000d01c3aeef$d29a9a30$af0a010a@corp.intertrust.com> Message-ID: At 5:52 PM -0500 11/19/03, Rob Koenen \(MPEGIF\) wrote: >Craig, > >> My guess is that >> the DBS service providers are going to have a very difficult time >> dealing with the subscriber use fees... > >Could you provide a bit more detail on why this is the case? I'd like to see >facts and figures in this discussion. As I understand it, both U.S. DBS providers and newsCorp have stated that they will not use any compression technology that charges use fees. Nothing official here, just comments made at conferences, etc. I suspect that there will not be any official comments on this until Via announces their license terms. Regards Craig From ron.m vialicensing.com Thu Nov 20 12:03:13 2003 From: ron.m vialicensing.com (Moore, Rondal J.) Date: Thu Nov 20 16:18:42 2003 Subject: [MPEGIF Discuss] MPEG LA Announces Terms of JointH.264/MPEG-4 AVC Patent License Message-ID: <2692A548B75777458914AC89297DD7DA0375C85F@bronze.dolby.net> Craig Via announced terms long ago. You can find them on Via's website at www.vialicensing.com Via's group's terms do not include use fees on DBS broadcasters or terrestrial digital broadcasters for that matter. It is counterproductive for adoption of the technology and therefore for the overall program to have terms like these that discourage content production and distribution. I too agree that any subscription based service provider as well as any over the air (or through the atmosphere) broadcaster will have difficulty including this in their business models. The content production, and content distribution industries are fundamentally different in their business models from consumer electronics manufacturers. CE manufacturers include technologies that are supported by the availability of relevant content in order to convince a customer to buy their product instead of the product of a competitor. In the content production and content delivery industries, the specific technology being used is not as directly related to obtaining and retaining a customer. Instead their model is based on the content that is being delivered and how it is presented/organized (programming). In these cases, they have plenty of other costs that they incur including speculative investment in new production or compilation of lots of content that provides a greater scope of content availablity much of which provides little return on investment. It would be no more acceptable (and no more outrageous) for the content production and distribution industry to require technology providers to pay for the use of a specific technology in the production and distribution process. After all, the content industry could make the argument (and in fact in some forums they have) that CE companies make money selling devices that have no purpose other than to consume their content (DVD players, MP3 players) and therefore CE companies make money off their content without "reimbursing" the content companies. Each of these arguments are in many ways equally fallacious. The original MPEG 2 visual license struck a good balance between the two industries. Where the technology increased the distribution base and customers for content (DVD) there was a sharing of that with the creators of the enabling technologies (not just the encoding format, but also several other areas of DVD production and operation). AVC/H.264 has similar application to HD DVD and making download formats and VOD/PPV much more IP network friendly and therefore much more possible at higher quality with lower bandwidth. It is those areas that it is appropriate to share costs across the industries because it is across industries that the customer acquisition and customer retention benefits apply. In the case of over the air broadcast or subscription services that case is not so clear. Especially where there are alternatives that do not have these kinds of burdens. The market will be the judge of these terms, but it would seem they have all the potential of the MPEG 4 Part 2 license to discourage the availability of professionally produced content and therefore limit the application of the technology to consumer based capture devices (cell phones, camcorders). If that happens it will be a waste of a great technology that has the real potential to unify compression technologies across many different platforms. Ron Moore -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces@lists.mpegif.org [mailto:discuss-bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of Craig Birkmaier Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2023 8:29 AM To: rob.koenen@mpegif.org; discuss@lists.mpegif.org Subject: RE: [MPEGIF Discuss] MPEG LA Announces Terms of JointH.264/MPEG-4 AVC Patent License At 5:52 PM -0500 11/19/03, Rob Koenen \(MPEGIF\) wrote: >Craig, > >> My guess is that >> the DBS service providers are going to have a very difficult time >> dealing with the subscriber use fees... > >Could you provide a bit more detail on why this is the case? I'd like >to see facts and figures in this discussion. As I understand it, both U.S. DBS providers and newsCorp have stated that they will not use any compression technology that charges use fees. Nothing official here, just comments made at conferences, etc. I suspect that there will not be any official comments on this until Via announces their license terms. Regards Craig _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.mpegif.org http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ----------------------------------------- This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not the intended recipient, delete this message. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosing, copying, distributing, or taking any action based on this message is strictly prohibited. From Sreeja.Kumari lntinfotech.com Wed Nov 26 11:59:40 2003 From: Sreeja.Kumari lntinfotech.com (Sreeja Kumari) Date: Wed Nov 26 01:35:10 2003 Subject: [MPEGIF Discuss] Regarding AC/DC prediction Message-ID: Hi, In MPEG4 video i am having a doubt in the AC/DC prediction.In the momusys ref.code, for finding the prediction direction few tables are used which tells about the x &y positions.These tables are not available in the standard.can anybody tell the significance of the table or how the direction is calculated? Regards Sreeja From prash sasken.com Wed Nov 26 13:01:01 2003 From: prash sasken.com (prash@sasken.com) Date: Wed Nov 26 02:44:16 2003 Subject: [MPEGIF Discuss] Regarding AC/DC prediction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <19006.192.91.75.32.1069831861.squirrel@webmail.sasken.com> Hi, The direction for prediction is decided upon which one of the following two difference values is less. 1) horizontal diff = Difference between dc coeff of top left neighbouring block and dc coeff of top neighbouring block 2) vertical diff = Difference between dc coeff of left neighbouring block and dc coeff of top left neighbouring block if horizontal diff <= vertical diff direction wud be horizontal else its vertical. (DC coeff are inv quantised coeff) I am not sure about the purpose of tables u r refering to. Perhaps few others in this group could throw more light over this. Regards, Prashant > > Hi, > > In MPEG4 video i am having a doubt in the AC/DC prediction.In the > momusys ref.code, for finding the prediction direction few tables are > used which tells about the x &y positions.These tables are not > available in the standard.can anybody tell the significance of the table > or how the direction is calculated? > > > Regards > Sreeja > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.mpegif.org > http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- ************************************************************************ SASKEN BUSINESS DISCLAIMER This message may contain confidential, proprietary or legally Privileged information. In case you are not the original intended Recipient of the message, you must not, directly or indirectly, use, Disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message and you are requested to delete it and inform the sender. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender unless otherwise stated. Nothing contained in this message shall be construed as an offer or acceptance of any offer by Sasken Communication Technologies Limited ("Sasken") unless sent with that express intent and with due authority of Sasken. Sasken has taken enough precautions to prevent the spread of viruses. However the company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. *********************************************************************** From rob.koenen mpegif.org Wed Nov 26 09:45:27 2003 From: rob.koenen mpegif.org (Rob Koenen (MPEGIF)) Date: Wed Nov 26 03:47:52 2003 Subject: [MPEGIF Discuss] Regarding AC/DC prediction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Sreeja, please ask those questions on the MP4-tech list. See http://www.m4if.org/public/publiclistreg.php for an explanation of what to discuss where. Kind Regards, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Sreeja Kumari [mailto:Sreeja.Kumari@lntinfotech.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2023 07:30 > To: discuss@lists.mpegif.org > Subject: [MPEGIF Discuss] Regarding AC/DC prediction > > > > Hi, > > In MPEG4 video i am having a doubt in the AC/DC prediction.In > the momusys > ref.code, for finding the prediction direction few tables are > used which > tells about the x &y positions.These tables are not > available in the > standard.can anybody tell the significance of the table or how the > direction is calculated? > > > Regards > Sreeja > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.mpegif.org > http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >