Computer graphics processing and selective visual display system – Display peripheral interface input device – Light pen for fluid matrix display panel
Reexamination Certificate
1997-04-15
2001-01-23
Saras, Steven J. (Department: 2775)
Computer graphics processing and selective visual display system
Display peripheral interface input device
Light pen for fluid matrix display panel
C345S213000, C348S441000, C348S510000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06177922
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
The invention relates generally to video display systems, and more particularly to a method and apparatus for converting an input video signal of a first viewable display resolution, pixel rate, and line rate, to a second output video signal of a second viewable display resolution, pixel rate, and line rate.
2. Description of the Related Art
There are numerous kinds of interlaced video signals such as NTSC and PAL, as well as progressive scan video signals such as computer video output VESA VGA, SVGA, XGA, and SXGA. These and other sources typically have different resolutions in terms of pixels per line, lines per frame, as well as different video timing in terms of horizontal line rate and vertical refresh rate. In order to accommodate many different types of input video signals for viewing on a single display device several methodologies have been adopted in the prior art.
A first prior art method involves adapting the operating format of the display device to match the resolution and video timing of the source input video. According to this method, the display device must be capable of adapting to different resolutions and video timings of the available input video sources. Therefore, this prior art methodology is commonly practiced with Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) devices which display video image data by modulating an electron beam intensity while sweeping the beam both horizontally and vertically across a phosphor coated viewing surface. The CRT can adapt to different input formats by detecting the input video source horizontal line and vertical frame rate and then automatically phase locking and adjusting the CRT display horizontal and vertical sweep rates to the detected input rates in order to maximize the active portion displayed on the viewing surface.
This first prior art method is not commonly used for displays wherein the viewable display region is made up of discrete image elements (pixels) arranged in a two dimensional matrix and wherein no horizontal and vertical beam sweep apparatus is provided which can be adjusted to accommodate different input formats. One class of such discrete pixel displays is referred to as Flat Panel Displays (FPDs) which includes Liquid Crystal Displays (LCDs), Field Emissive Displays (FEDs), Plasma Display Panels (PDPs), as well as many other emerging technologies.
A second prior art method of accommodating different types of input video signals for viewing on a single display device involves converting the source resolution and timing to a format that is supported by the display device. This prior art method converts the input source video format by means of pixel conversion, line conversion, and frame frequency conversion to a target video format that is supported by the target display device. Conventional format conversion circuits operate by taking a digital video signal, extracting the desired viewable or active portion of the video fields or frames, and storing the active portion into a frame buffer. The frame buffer provides elasticity so that the data write rate need not match the display read rate. The stored data is then read from the display frame buffer and processed to convert the number of pixels per image line, and the number of lines per image, to match those of the display device.
Such processing typically incurs latency between the time when source video data is available at the video source, and the time when the resulting processed data is available for output to the display device. It has also been common practice in some systems to process the data first before storing the data in the frame buffer. In either of these prior art processing scenarios, a display timing generator is provided which operates at the desired display line and frame rate and generates synchronizing signals to control the display as well as the transfer of processed frame buffer data to the display. The display timing generator produces timing for a different number of pixels per line and line rate than the video input source in order to achieve the format conversion. Also, by operating the display timing generator at a different frame rate than the video input source frame rate, a conversion of frame rates is achieved. Conventionally, such display timing generators are either synchronized on a frame by frame basis to maintain frame lock with the input video source, or are allowed to free run relative to the input video frame rate.
When the display timing generator is free running then the rate at which video input lines are required to be processed into display output lines may not match the display output line rate, and the difference between the actual input rate and the required input rate to sustain the processed display rate must be accommodated through memory buffering. Also, if the input and output frame or field rates do not match, then input frames or fields are either repeated or dropped by the frame buffer controller. This results in temporal artifacts for high motion sequences because of repeated or dropped input frames or fields being used as source data for processing into display frames. Also, when only a single frame of memory is provided in the memory buffer and the display frame rate is not locked with the input video frame or field rate then the input video data write pointer can cross paths with the display processing data read pointer creating the situation where a display frame may be comprised of image data processed from two different input frames captured at different points in time. This produces an objectionable artifact, usually referred to as “frame tear”, in the display output when the source video contains high motion sequences as media content. Thus, if the display device can lock the display frame or field rate to the input video frame or field rate there are significant advantages because fields or frames no longer need to be repeated or discarded and temporal distortions in the display video sequence can be eliminated.
In the majority of pixel based displays, such as FPD devices, the individual pixel elements are selected or enabled through the use of an orthogonal scanned interface where pixel columns are selected based on a number of timing clock cycles relative to a horizontal sync signal or data enable signal, and a particular row of pixels is selected based on the number of horizontal sync or data enable pulses that have occurred relative to a vertical sync position. This column and row selection process enables a pixel or group of pixels to be refreshed.
In the case of format conversion, it has become common practice to frame lock a display timing generator with an input video source by allowing the display timing generator to free run from the start of the display vertical sync pulse, through the entire active region, to the vertical blanking front porch region. At this point, the display timing generator continues to scan blank lines until the input video vertical sync pulse causes the display timing generator to immediately jump to the start of the display vertical sync pulse. Then, the display timing generator returns to free run operation. Many pixel based displays can accommodate this step change to the display timing sequence since the individual pixel or groups of pixel elements are addressable in a sequential fashion relative to the synchronization pulses. Once the entire active region has been updated, the step change to timing in the vertical blanking front porch region, prior to the vertical synchronization pulse, does not visually affect the display. It is relatively easy to implement a “vertical reset” feature in a display timing generator. The other advantage to this technique is that the display timing generator can use a free running display pixel clock which need not be synchronized to the input video pixel clock, line rate, or frame rate.
However, a principal disadvantage of this technique is that since the display line rate is based on a free running pixel clock, there can be no exact relationship between the input line rate and
Hanna Steven
Schiefer Harold
Alphonse Fritz
Genesis Microship, Inc.
Marger & Johnson & McCollom, P.C.
Saras Steven J.
LandOfFree
Multi-scan video timing generator for format conversion does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Multi-scan video timing generator for format conversion, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Multi-scan video timing generator for format conversion will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2456473