SPWG Meeting Summary, Presentations from Intel and HP

by Mark Fihn

The DisplaySearch Monitor, April 30, 2002 -  In connection with DisplaySearch’s March conference, we held an "open" meeting related to efforts of the Standard Panel Working Group.  About 27 people attended the meeting, including representatives from Hitachi, Toshiba, CPT, AU Optronics, TI, Intel, nVidia, Corning, HP, LG.Philips, and the USDC.  Unfortunately, of the SPWG "member" companies, only HP was in attendance.  The meeting included formal presentations from Tom Rossi, who presented Intel’s CPIS ides (Common Panel interface Specification), and from David Braun from HP, who presented ideas about implementing SPWG-like efforts for the LCD monitor market.  Paul Salisbury from Dell was to make a presentation, but was storm-stayed in Texas and did not arrive in time for the meeting. 

Intel’s CPIS effort extends the efforts of the SPWG, primarily in the area of video timing and brightness control.  Rossi’s presentation suggested that standardization is needed in terms of video timing by minimize dot clock rates, developing better noise immunity, EMI profiles, the eliminate of SSC solutions/costs, reduction of blanking times, support for multiple display timings, and power savings at lower frame rates.  With regard to brightness control, Rossi identified needs for cabling/mounting solutions for brightness, opportunity to define platform power consumption improvements, CCFL/inverter conversion efficiency, and systems control during idle conditions.  Rossi offered a no-royalty, no-licensing proposal to the SPWG to include CPIS (or something similar).  Basically, Intel’s goal is to enhance industry standards with standard reference timings, including default video timings for all panel sizes and resolutions that supports multiple frame rates, establishes power efficiency targets and establishes brightness control standards.  Rossi also suggested future technologies need to be supported including added color depth, wider aspect ratios, and RF/optical interface support.

David Braun’s presentation discussed ways to bring to the LCD monitor market the same benefits SPWG has brought to notebook displays.  He suggested that it would benefit monitor makers by creating common form, fit, and function parameters to permit ease of panel second-sourcing and more consistent product design.  Panel makers would benefit by establishing industry commonality for those product elements that do not benefit from differentiation among suppliers.  Braun identified three “types” of LCDs used in monitors:

1. Conventional panels:  Require standardization similar to what was done for notebook panels: basic dimensions, connector location, connector pin-out & interface type (probably still LVDS).

2. “Smart Integration” panels:  As above, but without TCON; requires selection and standardization of driver interface (proposed: RSDS).

3. Full “Smart panels”:  Defined as those providing standard video interface (such as VGA, DVI, etc.) and integrated scaler, inverter, etc.  Braun advised that Smart Panels should be the lowest priority for standardization, due to greater likelihood of significant differentiation in these products (OSD, scalers, etc.)

Braun pointed out that many suppliers are developing monitor panels around the “smart integration” concept, expecting the monitor manufacturer to add the interface/scaler board that will provide the TCON.  This requires AT LEAST standardization of the TCON/driver interface, and possibly standardization of the interface/scaler board location, mounting-hole location, and maximum size.  HP proposed that the RSDS interface be selected as the standard TCON/driver interface.

Braun suggested that companies should begin a monitor panel standardization effort now.  First step is to survey major panel makers for inputs/proposals and simultaneously survey monitor makers for similar inputs.  Interface/scaler manufacturers also need be surveyed for inputs on interface standards, esp. on RSDS interface for “smart integration” panels.  Braun suggested that these efforts might be best done in cooperation with VESA.  Additionally, the effort needs to solicit connector manufacturer’s proposals for standard panel interface connector (might leverage SPWG 2.0 work for conventional LVDS-input panels).  Such survey work should be completed by July 2002, with SPWG review/approval targeted for November 2002.

Braun also offered a “modest suggestion” that all future standards should avoid using acronyms for image formats; the acronyms are becoming “ever more confusing”.  According to Braun, VESA has already proposed dumping the “GA” names in favor of a megapixel-based designation, whereby:

• “XGA” (1024 x 768) becomes “0.8 Mpixel” or “0.8M”           

• “UXGA” (1600 x 1200) becomes “1.9 Mpixel”           

• 1920 x 1200 is “2.3 MW” = “2.3 Mpixel – wide”

This renaming system matches what consumers are already used to in other areas (digital cameras) and provides more information, more clearly. 

An open discussion followed the presentations, during which the attendees discussed about how best to take next steps to help boost standardization in the industry.  DisplaySearch will continue to support efforts toward industry standardization is now considering ways to take a more active role in the SPWG effort.