Home

Results 51 - 60 of 145,466 for complexities. Search took 2.26 seconds.  
Sort by date/Sort by relevance
This result in noticeably increased complexity. For the decoder the number of block sizes is no problem and we tend to argue that this is what really counts. (...) To be specific, my opinion is that we should seek to reduce the number of block sizes in such a way that coding performance is maintained as high as possible and encoding complexity is kept at a reasonable level. In order to do this we need guidelines from implementers concerning complexity. (...) 4 Deblocking filter The deblocking filter in the present TML performs well regarding subjective quality - and also give some objective improvement. However, it is complex. There are ways of reducing the present filter complexity - or a new design could be included.
Language:English
Score: 534376.76 - https://www.itu.int/wftp3/av-a...deo-site/0101_Eib/VCEG-L18.doc
Data Source: un
It was suggested that the Decoder complexity for the High-Performance Profile should be 2xBaseline (not 3xBaseline), in order to match the Decoder complexity for the Broadcast/Streaming/Storage Profile. 6. (...) In order to acquire information that can be used to help selection of a final set of JVT codec Profiles, Table 1 (below) was generated, which categorizes expected applications into four quadrants of a Latency/Complexity matrix. Table 1 – Quadrant Characteristics & Relevant Applications Quadrant Name Encoder complexity (goal only) Decoder complexity Latency Applications Error limits Lo complexity Lo latency Baseline Baseline Minimal H.320 conversational, 3GPP conv. (rtp & H.324), SIP conversational 10-2, 3% Lo complexity Hi latency No limit Baseline No limit 3GPP streaming 10-2, 3% Hi complexity Lo latency 3xBaseline 3(2?)
Language:English
Score: 534322.07 - https://www.itu.int/wftp3/av-a...e/2001_12_Pattaya/VCEG-O07.doc
Data Source: un
It was suggested that the Decoder complexity for the High-Performance Profile should be 2xBaseline (not 3xBaseline), in order to match the Decoder complexity for the Broadcast/Streaming/Storage Profile. 6. (...) In order to acquire information that can be used to help selection of a final set of JVT codec Profiles, Table 1 (below) was generated, which categorizes expected applications into four quadrants of a Latency/Complexity matrix. Table 1 – Quadrant Characteristics & Relevant Applications Quadrant Name Encoder complexity (goal only) Decoder complexity Latency Applications Error limits Lo complexity Lo latency Baseline Baseline Minimal H.320 conversational, 3GPP conv. (rtp & H.324), SIP conversational 10-2, 3% Lo complexity Hi latency No limit Baseline No limit 3GPP streaming 10-2, 3% Hi complexity Lo latency 3xBaseline 3(2?)
Language:English
Score: 534322.07 - https://www.itu.int/wftp3/av-a...deo-site/0112_Pat/VCEG-O07.doc
Data Source: un
More than half of coder complexity goes into MC. Two times complexity of decoder as limit. (...) Is the decoding complexity a problem? Shannon-Fano codes, Shannon-Fano Huffman codes? (...) Not much increase in comp complexity. Multiple block sizes: integer and sub-pel search equally share computational complexity. 1/3 pel would reduce complexity by 25 % and removal of 4x4, 4x8, 8x4 provides 37 % reduction in complexity.
Language:English
Score: 533800.54 - https://www.itu.int/wftp3/av-a...o-site/0104_Aus/VCEG-MT1r7.doc
Data Source: un
Compared to used in TML-5 subsequent interpolation direct interpolation reduces complexity of the decoder but increases either complexity or memory requirements of the encoder. (...) Since 6-tap operations are much more complex than bilinear operations complexity of the two methods is similar. (...) Table 2 summarizes complexities of the interpolation methods. Complexity is measured in terms of number of 8-tap filter and bilinear filter operations.
Language:English
Score: 533740.43 - https://www.itu.int/wftp3/av-a...o-site/0109_San/VCEG-N31r1.doc
Data Source: un
However, a straightforward implementation of this method has a high complexity. At the previous JVT meeting in Geneva, the arithmetic coding complexity was slightly reduced by adopting the “CACM+” method. (...) Furthermore, the savings in hardware complexity are considerably larger than the savings in software complexity (since the CPU already has complex multiplication and division circuits onboard that can be completely omitted in a hardware design). (...) Since it also does not contain complex operations, its complexity can be ignored.
Language:English
Score: 533262 - https://www.itu.int/wftp3/av-a...e/2002_05_Fairfax/JVT-C029.doc
Data Source: un
Depending on the configuration (low delay/random access/intra and low complexity/high efficiency), average BD-Rate figures between 12.3% and 18.0% are observed. Introduction Document JCTVC-B300[1] specifies two entropy coders; PIPE and a low complexity entropy coder (LCEC) to be used in high efficiency and low complexity default configurations respectively. (...) Low complexity and high efficiency results are provide for intra, random access and low delay configurations.
Language:English
Score: 532920.26 - https://www.itu.int/wftp3/av-a..._10_C_Guangzhou/JCTVC-C184.doc
Data Source: un
WTO | Services - CBT - Misconceptions about the GATS - Complexity as a Challenge - Page 1 WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION Home   |  About WTO   |  News & events   |  Trade topics   |  WTO membership   |  Documents & resources   |  External relations Contact us   |  Site map   |  A-Z   |  Search español   français home trade topics services gats training module complexity as a challenge GATS TRAINING MODULE: CHAPTER 8 Misconceptions about the GATS Click the + to open an item. 8.3 Complexity as a Challenge A tree for site navigation will open here if you enable JavaScript in your browser. (...) Complexity can thus be viewed, in part, as a precondition for effectiveness and flexibility. (...) From their perspective, the complexity of the Agreement implies a formidable negotiating challenge.
Language:English
Score: 532598.8 - https://www.wto.org/english/tr...rv_e/cbt_course_e/c8s3p1_e.htm
Data Source: un
1 (extra encoder complexity - more computations) CD2=(A-5B+20C+20D-5E+F+16)/32 CD4=(A-5B+52C+20D-5E+F+32)/64 CD4=(A-5B+52C+20D-5E+F+32)/64 TML ?2 (reduced complexity. (1-2)% loss in performance) CD2=(A-5B+20C+20D-5E+F)/32 CD4=(A-5B+52C+20D-5E+F)/64 CD4=(C+CD2)/2 Conclusion At the last meeting it was adopted to reduce the decoder complexity . (...) 2 above which means a reduction in complexity File:VCEG-M35.doc Page: 2 Date Printed: 27.03.2001
Language:English
Score: 532598.8 - https://www.itu.int/wftp3/av-a...deo-site/0104_Aus/VCEG-M35.doc
Data Source: un
However, this comes at a cost of higher computational complexity. It has been estimated that the H.264 baseline decoder is 2.5 times more complex than a H.263 baseline decoder [1]. (...) I foresee the following preliminary design goals: · Subjective (and objective) performance similar to H.264 when operating on reasonable real time conditions. · 30 – 50 % reduced computing complexity for the decoder · Considerable reduction of encoder complexity · Finalize a fast profile within a short time frame of approximately 1 year. (...) M Horowitz et. al: H.264/AVC Baseline Profile Decoder Complexity. File:VCEG-X05.doc Page: 1 Date Printed: 13.10.2004
Language:English
Score: 532598.8 - https://www.itu.int/wftp3/av-a...deo-site/0410_Pal/VCEG-X05.doc
Data Source: un