Minutes from the Multimedia Audio Call, 2 March 2006

Participants

Kjell Brunnstrom (Acreo)

Arthur Webster (NTIA)

Eugen Rodel (SwissQual)

Takaaki Kurita (NTT)

Keishiro Watanabe (NTT)

Jun Okamoto (NTT)

Carolyn Ford (NTIA)

Filippo Speranza (CRC)

Ron Renaud (CRC)

Greg Cermak (Verizon)

Jorgen Gustafsson (Ericsson)

Chulhee Lee (Yonsei)

Steve Wolf (NTIA)

Margaret Pinson (NTIA)

Quan Huyn-Thu (Psytechnics)

David Hands (BT)

Agenda

1\. Introductions

2\. Next VQEG meeting

3\. Annexes

Comments on outstanding Annexes (Annex I from greg, Annex III from
jorgen, Annex IV on fees, Annex VI on screening, Annex VII on
encryption). Annexes II, VIII and IX are complete. Annex V cannot be
written until we agree on the player/run test package.

4\. Fees; this is far from being agreed. We still need to decide on:

\- how many tests do we need to perform?

\- role of ILG (in terms of testing, content handling and data
analysis - see Schedule from Testplan)

\- which ILG will perform which role? (Maybe need a separate ILG
meeting)

\- propose ILG produces a cost statement (e.g. total ILG cost is X, this
will cover N subjective tests, content holding and distribution etc)

\- costs to proponents as a fn of ILG fees/proponent testing/models
submitted

1.  Introductions

Participants introduced and agenda was agreed.

2\. Next VQEG Meeting

-   next meeting confirmed (24-28 March 2006, Boston), agenda to follow

-   content needed so we can examine and agree on content quality range
    for testing

-   content received from Swissqual, SVT, FT, KBS, NTIA

-   NTT have content but require an NDA to be signed off, will send out
    NDA)

-   More SVT (HDTV) content (Kjell will send a hard drive to AW, which
    will put them on VQEG public ftp site. Directory containing
    description of the sequences is already in place.)

All content should be sent to CL, AW making storage available (12s seq
only) (on username/password protected ftp site)

10 proponents indicated they will participate in MM tests (9 will run
tests have stated they will run subjective tests), 7 ILG have announced
they will participate

2.  Annexes

Annex I - one comment on this text from FS, currently reads that 3
resolutions can be presented in one test, this is not allowed.

\*\*GC to change text to read one resolution per test.

Annex II - no comment

Annex III - presented by JG

\- JG explained the 3 types of error associated with different networks.
Question of how much information to log about the HRCs; seems to be
agreement that enough

info to re-create the experiment is basic, whether or not a complete
characterization of the packet stream can be logged. Comment from GC on
need to now what simulator was used and params entered

SW - need detail of decoder (to cover error concealment)

CL - need to know what errors look like (prepare models, not unexpected
error types)

GC - needs to know about requirements for reviewing video content in
Boston (monitor, playback, hardware, sw, os) \-- \*\*DH to send message
to reflector covering this

JG - will speak to colleagues about providing transmission errored
content

\*\*DH - to send message to reflector about deadline of 24 March for
stating HRCs they can create, should include information on whether they
can create transmission errors and how these would be produced (packet
switched, circuit switched, what emulator would be used).

Annex IV -- agreed to modifications suggested by AW in email of 15
February 2006.

-   \*\*DH to add section details to replace XXX).

Annex V -- if not agreed before Boston, will evaluate player
alternatives and agree at Boston mtg;

CRC have tested Acreo and NTIA players, some problems found and are in
discussions with player owners, will test Yonsei program

VI -- little response, will use method 2 but some discussion on
threshold value (opinion was that it is set too high and will result in
too many subjects being screened out)

-   useful if orgs could apply method 2 to an existing dataset to see %
    of subjects excluded

-   \*\*QHT to send message to reflector asking organisations to perform
    this

VII -- text reviewed and agreed

4\. Fees

FS -- supports simple fees structure tentatively agreed at previous
audio call

-   fixed and variable fee based on one model (fixed fee, e.g. 7-9k) +
    variable fee (500 dollars per each additional model submitted)

-   FS has held discussion on sliding fees proposal on the reflector,
    but only limited feedback from proponents

-   DH said it would be useful for a basic test matrix to be produced
    (will tell us scope of testing)

-   AW and FS to lead task on defining test matrix to be completed by
    end of March.

5\. AOB

Close.