Content for TR 26.865 Word version: 18.0.0
8 Performance Requirements
8.1 General
8.2 Performance requirements applicable for IVAS split rendering scenarios
$ Change history
8 Performance Requirements p. 28
8.1 General p. 28
Performance requirements enforce that an ISAR solution employing post-rendering with pose correction meets the general objective of split rendering in terms of QoE.
8.2 Performance requirements applicable for IVAS split rendering scenarios p. 28
The following specific performance requirements and objectives apply to split rendering solutions employing post-rendering with pose correction for the IVAS codec:
| Reference systems | Split rendering scenario | Split rendering system constraint | Requirement | Objective | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Native coding system: IVAS codec | Second leg of native transcoding system: IVAS stereo coding mode | Note: the scenario should give rise to differences between assumed and actual End Device poses | Note: This is the constraint to be met by the candidate ISAR solution or under which it is evaluated | Note: The 0-DOF native transcoding reference system is composed of the IVAS codec operated according to column 1 (rendered to assumed pose) followed by transcoding with the IVAS stereo coding mode operated according to column 2 | Note: The native coding reference system is the IVAS codec operated according to column 1 |
| IVAS codec operated with HOA3 input coded at 512 kbps, rendered with head-tracking to binaural | IVAS stereo mode operated at 256 kbps | Split rendering scenario giving rise to differences between assumed and actual End Device poses: Scenario to be determined as part of test/processing plan | As specified under the physical and functional design constraints | QoE provided by split rendering solution shall be no worse than 0-DOF native transcoding reference system with same operation point of native coding system and best possible operation point for transcoding | QoE provided by split rendering solution should be as close as possible to quality of native coding reference system using same operation point |
| IVAS codec operated with MASA input coded at 512 kbps, rendered with head-tracking to binaural | IVAS stereo mode operated at 256 kbps | Split rendering scenario giving rise to differences between assumed and actual End Device poses: Scenario to be determined as part of test/processing plan | As specified under the physical and functional design constraints | QoE provided by split rendering solution shall be no worse than 0-DOF native transcoding reference system with same operation point of native coding system and best possible operation point for transcoding | QoE provided by split rendering solution should be as close as possible to quality of native coding reference system using same operation point |
| IVAS codec operated with MC 7.1.4 input coded at 512 kbps, rendered with head-tracking to binaural | IVAS stereo mode operated at 256 kbps | Split rendering scenario giving rise to differences between assumed and actual End Device poses: Scenario to be determined as part of test/processing plan | As specified under the physical and functional design constraints | QoE provided by split rendering solution shall be no worse than 0-DOF native transcoding reference system with same operation point of native coding system and best possible operation point for transcoding | QoE provided by split rendering solution should be as close as possible to quality of native coding reference system using same operation point |
| IVAS codec operated with ISM-4 input coded at 512 kbps, rendered with head-tracking to binaural | IVAS stereo mode operated at 256 kbps | Split rendering scenario giving rise to differences between assumed and actual End Device poses: Scenario to be determined as part of test/processing plan | As specified under the physical and functional design constraints | QoE provided by split rendering solution shall be no worse than 0-DOF native transcoding reference system with same operation point of native coding system and best possible operation point for transcoding | QoE provided by split rendering solution should be as close as possible to quality of native coding reference system using same operation point |
$ Change history p. 32
