<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Adaptive Post/Loop Filters in JM/KTA &#8211; Part 2</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.h265.net/2009/08/adaptive-post-loop-filters-in-jmkta-part-2.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.h265.net/2009/08/adaptive-post-loop-filters-in-jmkta-part-2.html</link>
	<description>Witness the development of H.265</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 04:00:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sandip Ray</title>
		<link>http://www.h265.net/2009/08/adaptive-post-loop-filters-in-jmkta-part-2.html/comment-page-1#comment-2406</link>
		<dc:creator>Sandip Ray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:02:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.h265.net/2009/08/adaptive-postloop-filters-in-jmkta-part-2.html#comment-2406</guid>
		<description>Adaptive loop filter is an additional block apart from traditional in-loop deblocking filter. Wiener filter is a MSE-optimal stationary linear filter which estimates the original signal from the signal corrupted by additive noise. Here additive noise is the coding noise(mostly due to lossy quantization). Is it fair enough to assume that coding noise of every pixels in a frame have the same statistics ? Or should we group pixels with identical coding noise and apply Wiener filter on pixels within the same group ? I am thinking of some kind of segementation as proposed by Zhang.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Adaptive loop filter is an additional block apart from traditional in-loop deblocking filter. Wiener filter is a MSE-optimal stationary linear filter which estimates the original signal from the signal corrupted by additive noise. Here additive noise is the coding noise(mostly due to lossy quantization). Is it fair enough to assume that coding noise of every pixels in a frame have the same statistics ? Or should we group pixels with identical coding noise and apply Wiener filter on pixels within the same group ? I am thinking of some kind of segementation as proposed by Zhang.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wenhao Zhang</title>
		<link>http://www.h265.net/2009/08/adaptive-post-loop-filters-in-jmkta-part-2.html/comment-page-1#comment-2398</link>
		<dc:creator>Wenhao Zhang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 07:34:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.h265.net/2009/08/adaptive-postloop-filters-in-jmkta-part-2.html#comment-2398</guid>
		<description>In-loop filter is definitely better than the post filter. Qualcomm has proposed a similar Wiener adaptive filter scheme which used as post filter, but their gain is much smaller compared to BALF.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In-loop filter is definitely better than the post filter. Qualcomm has proposed a similar Wiener adaptive filter scheme which used as post filter, but their gain is much smaller compared to BALF.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jie Dong</title>
		<link>http://www.h265.net/2009/08/adaptive-post-loop-filters-in-jmkta-part-2.html/comment-page-1#comment-2394</link>
		<dc:creator>Jie Dong</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Sep 2009 03:42:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.h265.net/2009/08/adaptive-postloop-filters-in-jmkta-part-2.html#comment-2394</guid>
		<description>Using the filter in loop can improve the capability of predicting other pictures.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Using the filter in loop can improve the capability of predicting other pictures.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hurumi</title>
		<link>http://www.h265.net/2009/08/adaptive-post-loop-filters-in-jmkta-part-2.html/comment-page-1#comment-2392</link>
		<dc:creator>hurumi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:48:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.h265.net/2009/08/adaptive-postloop-filters-in-jmkta-part-2.html#comment-2392</guid>
		<description>Do you think that BALF or QALF can provide much better efficiency compared to post-filter only design? I&#039;m not sure that in-loop type is required for this kind of filtering.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do you think that BALF or QALF can provide much better efficiency compared to post-filter only design? I&#8217;m not sure that in-loop type is required for this kind of filtering.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yu Liu</title>
		<link>http://www.h265.net/2009/08/adaptive-post-loop-filters-in-jmkta-part-2.html/comment-page-1#comment-2383</link>
		<dc:creator>Yu Liu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 07:42:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.h265.net/2009/08/adaptive-postloop-filters-in-jmkta-part-2.html#comment-2383</guid>
		<description>The proposals of BALF/QALF didn&#039;t describe how to get the array filter_luma_base/filter_chroma_base. I guess that it is obtained by a training set.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The proposals of BALF/QALF didn&#8217;t describe how to get the array filter_luma_base/filter_chroma_base. I guess that it is obtained by a training set.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yuping Wei</title>
		<link>http://www.h265.net/2009/08/adaptive-post-loop-filters-in-jmkta-part-2.html/comment-page-1#comment-2342</link>
		<dc:creator>Yuping Wei</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 02:54:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.h265.net/2009/08/adaptive-postloop-filters-in-jmkta-part-2.html#comment-2342</guid>
		<description>Who can tell me how the array filter_luma_base and filter_chroma_base come?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Who can tell me how the array filter_luma_base and filter_chroma_base come?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wenhao Zhang</title>
		<link>http://www.h265.net/2009/08/adaptive-post-loop-filters-in-jmkta-part-2.html/comment-page-1#comment-2338</link>
		<dc:creator>Wenhao Zhang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:15:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.h265.net/2009/08/adaptive-postloop-filters-in-jmkta-part-2.html#comment-2338</guid>
		<description>I think the key point to further improve the performance of loop Wiener filter is video content segmentation. After all, Wiener filter works well only on stationary signal. It is unavoidable that current loop Wiener filter reduces error of many pixels, meanwhile, enlarges error of some other pixels. Some adaptive segmentation scheme is necessary. Brain racking...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the key point to further improve the performance of loop Wiener filter is video content segmentation. After all, Wiener filter works well only on stationary signal. It is unavoidable that current loop Wiener filter reduces error of many pixels, meanwhile, enlarges error of some other pixels. Some adaptive segmentation scheme is necessary. Brain racking&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
