Disruptive Technologies & System Requirements

Transcription

1

2 Disruptive Technologies & System Requirements Image Quality & System Design Considerations Dave Kanahele Director, Simulation Solutions Christie

3 SIM University - Objectives 1. Review Visual System Technologies and Metrics 2. Explore connections between technologies, system capabilities and customer requirements 3. Exchange ideas how to best solve current and future requirements in visual (and sensor) simulation 3

4 Outline Disruptive Technologies and Visual System Specifications The Changing Landscape Specifications for Image Quality Current specs - Theory vs. Application Spatio-Temporal Resolution / Sample Rates Alternative System Approaches to Optimize Image Quality 4

5 Customer Specifications & System Design Training Requirements Visual/Sensor Specifications System Design Technologies Products 5

6 Changing Technological Landscape changing what s possible Opportunities to improve the fidelity of simulation/training Ensure specs and system requirements reflect the intent Address the needs of the end users Meet the training/simulation tasks with the most effective system designs Allow for new and emerging technologies Clayton M. Christensen The Innovator s Dilemma 6

7 Visual Systems: from Analog to Digital Model Board Database Camera Image Generator Processing Processing Display (CRT) Display (Digital) Images: Link L-3 website 7

8 Specifying Visual System Requirements Proposed Criteria includes: 1. Ensure the system meets the training tasks 2. Develop with an understanding of the technology and test methods Recognizing applicability to current technology But without constraining or dictating a particular technology or design Meeting a clearly defined and measurable test criteria 3. Account for user s visual perception system 8

9 Resolution & Image Quality Spec, Examples Less than or equal to 4 arc-minutes per optical line pair anywhere within the entire FOV, at 10% modulation Provide resolution at 10% MTF at the selected line rate using a 0.75 Kell Factor Target ranges based on Johnson s Criteria / DORI Pick filter coefficients to maximize resolution as measured using industry standard methods including MTF, bar pattern, etc. eventual goal is the progression to eye-limiting resolution. and shall contain no distracting artifacts including stepping, scintillation, flicker, image smear, spurious images, noise, etc. 9

10 Resolution Specs - Application ( or things were easier with CRTs! ) Which MTF point to pick? Shrinking raster TV limiting 1/variance Other % And how much modulation is required? Contrast sensitivity function inverse of contrast threshold function (CTF) 10

11 Static vs. Dynamic Resolution MTF Curve for moving bar pattern How do we account for this in our requirements/specs? How to improve? Interdependence between spatial/temporal resolution? Relative impact on image quality? 11

12 IG MTF Advertised vs Actual As advertised As Calculated As measured? How does this relate to training value? 12

13 Visual Systems: from Digital to Perceptual Real-time man-in-theloop visual simulation (not TV or Cinema) Database Image Generator Pixel Data per Frame Processing Display (S/H) Human Visual System Retinal Image Perceived Image Gaze Control System 13

14 Motion-Induced Artifacts Motion-Induced Blur Interaction between eye movements and display sample and hold filter Proportional to image motion and hold time (update rate) Spatio-Temporal Aliasing Function of image content (frequency and motion) and update rate Provides false or poor velocity cues Proportional to image motion AND resolution

15 Motion-Induced Blur Dr. Barbra Sweet, presented at Christie Sim University, Orlando

16 Motion-Induced Blur 6 arcmin Resolution, 60 Hz Dr. Barbra Sweet, presented at Christie Sim University, Orlando

17 Motion-Induced Blur 6 arcmin Resolution, 120 Hz Dr. Barbra Sweet, presented at Christie Sim University, Orlando

18 Motion-Induced Blur 6 arcmin Resolution, 60 Hz Dr. Barbra Sweet, presented at Christie Sim University, Orlando

19 Motion-Induced Blur 2 arcmin Resolution, 60 Hz Dr. Barbra Sweet, presented at Christie Sim University, Orlando

20 Motion-Induced Blur 2 arcmin Resolution, 60 Hz 20

21 Motion-Induced Blur 60 Hz to 120 Hz Note impact of MTF on max resolution 21

22 Methods to Reduce Motion Induced Blur Perceived Motion Induced Blur can be reduced by shorter draw (hold) times But with reduced max brightness potential Flicker limited & increased image break-up / artifacts Hold times of 5.8 msec may provide results comparable to CRT displays Task Validation of Display Temporal-Resolution Measurements, I/ITSEC Conference Optional

23 Blur Perception Testing Task Validation of Display Temporal-Resolution Measurements, I/ITSEC Conference Optional

24 Dynamic Image Quality & Update Rates Problem: Christie AccuFrame addresses smearing, but: At the expense of peak brightness, image break-up and limited by flicker Does not address temporal aliasing Increased Update Rates address both perception of smear and spatiotemporal aliasing, but: 120Hz not compatible with all current Databases and IG channels One Solution: Composite multiple IG channels to achieve 120Hz update rate Leverage system architecture with dual-input modes Demonstrated at I/ITSEC 2011 and SIM University 2012 (WUXGA) Demonstrated at I/ITSEC 2012 (WQXGA) Demonstrated at SIGGRAPH 2013 (4K) with Christie TruLife TM platform 24

25 120/60/120 Hz Demo Side-by-Side (2) Matrix StIM WQs, edge-butted running 60Hz/120Hz (1) Matrix StIM WU running 120Hz (5) Vital X IG channels each running at 60Hz Host application runs at 120Hz or Host runs 60Hz and IG interpolates based on time stamp 120Hz output capability without changes to IG Reduced Spatio-Temporal Aliasing Noise maximizes training value 25

26 120/60/120 Hz Demo 60 (or 120 Hz) IG 60 Hz 2560 x1600, 60Hz IG 60 Hz 2560 x1600, 60Hz Matrix StIM WQ 2560 x1600, 120Hz IG 60 Hz 2560 x1600, 60Hz Matrix StIM WQ 2560 x1600, 60Hz IG 60 Hz 1920x1200, 60Hz IG 60 Hz 1920x1200, 60Hz Matrix StIM WU 1920x Hz 26

27 Impact of Update Rates 27

28 Impact of Update Rates 28

29 Conclusions Requirements and specifications tied to existing technologies can limit the potential solutions Image quality requirements should reflect the training objectives Blur can be reduced with lower display hold-time Blur and Spatio-temporal aliasing can be reduced with higher system update rate Higher updates rates can be achieved with current IG systems Breakup can only be minimized Update rate Reducing resolution Best approach may be a combination of methods and system level solutions

30 Thank you. Questions?