[Mp4-tech] [Mp-4][H.264]te(v) decoding problem in JM software

[Gary Sullivan]

Sounds like a bug, but it's hard to believe a bug that severe could
exist in our software at this stage.  I suspect that it is simply
printing something different than it is seeing, while its interpretation
is actually correct.
I confirm what I previously said, and I point to subclause 9.1, which
provides the following pseudo-code for this case: b = read_bits( 1 );
codeNum = !b.  So the decoded value is the opposite of the value of the
bit that represents it in the bitstream.
-Gary 
+> -----Original Message-----
+> From: mp4-tech-bounces lists.mpegif.org 
+> [mailto:mp4-tech-bounces lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of Xu Ke
+> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2024 7:11 AM
+> To: mp4-tech
+> Subject: [Mp4-tech] [Mp-4][H.264]te(v) decoding problem in 
+> JM software
+> 
+> Dear experts,
+> When I am reading the trace file dumpped by the JM94 
+> software,I am quite confused by the following decoding process:
+> 
+> @25654  mb_type                 011  (  2)	
+> @25657  ref_idx_l0              1  (  1) 	
+> @25658  ref_idx_l0              0  (  0)  
+> @25659  mvd_l0                  1  (  0)
+> @25660  mvd_l0                  1  (  0)
+> @25661  mvd_l0                  011  ( -1)
+> @25664  mvd_l0                  1  (  0)
+> @25665  coded_block_pattern     1  (  0) 
+> For ref_idx_l0,which is coded as te(v),if bitstream 
+> is"1",the output syntax value is also "1". However,as in the 
+> standard,that's should be "0" instead.(We can refer to Gary 
+> Sullivan's previous email "In other words, the value 0 is 
+> coded as 1 and the value 1 is coded as 0").Is this a bug in 
+> JM software94? Would anybody be kind to make it clear to me?
+> 
+> Many thanks!!
+> 
+> Best regards,
+> XU Ke
+> 
+> _______________________________________________
+> NOTE: Please use clear subject lines for your posts. Include 
+> [audio, [video], [systems], [general] or another 
+> apppropriate identifier to indicate the type of question you have.
+> 
+> Note: Conduct on the mailing list is subject to the 
+> Antitrust guidelines found at 
+> http://www.mpegif.org/public/documents/vault/mp-out-30042-Ant
+> itrust.php
+>