NATL INST OF STANO S

'^Sliif,'.!-,

A111Q4 m21Q2

Computer

Systems

Technology

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

COMMERCE

Technology Administration

National Institute of Standards and

Technology

NIST

PUBLICATION!

, , ft NIST Special Publication 500-219

NIST Workshop on the

Computer Interface to

Flat Panel Displays

Editors:

Mark R Williamson,

William E. Burr,

John W. Roberts

I QC

I 100

.U57

HO. 500-21 £

199fi
The National Institute of Standards and Technology was established in 1988 by Congress to "assist industry in the development of technology . . . needed to improve product quality, to modernize

manufacturing processes, to ensure product reliability . . . and to facilitate rapid commercialization ... of

products based on new scientific discoveries."

NIST, originally founded as the National Bureau of Standards in 1901, works to strengthen U.S.

industry's competitiveness; advance science and engineering; and improve public health, safety, and the

environment. One of the agency's basic functions is to develop, maintain, and retain custody of the national

standards of measurement, and provide the means and methods for comparing standards used in science,

engineering, manufacturing, commerce, industry, and education with the standards adopted or recognized

by the Federal Government.

As an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department's Technology Administration, NIST conducts basic

and applied research in the physical sciences and engineering and performs related services. The Institute does generic and precompetitive work on new and advanced technologies. NIST's research facilities are located at Gaithersburg, MD 20899, and at Boulder, CO 80303. Major technical operating units and their

principal activities are listed below. For more information contact the Public Inquiries Desk, 301-975-3058.

Technology Services

• Manufacturing Technology Centers Program

• Standards Services

• Technology Commercialization

• Measurement Services

• Technology Evaluation and Assessment

• Information Services

Electronics and Electrical Engineering

Laboratory

• Microelectronics

• Law Enforcement Standards

• Electricity

• Semiconductor Electronics

• Electromagnetic Fields'

• Electromagnetic Technology'

Chemical Science and Technology

Laboratory

• Biotechnology

• Chemical Engineering'

• Chemical Kinetics and Thermodynamics

• Inorganic Analytical Research

• Organic Analytical Research

• Process Measurements

• Surface and Microanalysis Science

• Thermophysics^

Physics Laboratory

• Electron and Optical Physics

• Atomic Physics

• Molecular Physics

• Radiometric Physics

• Quantum Metrology

• Ionizing Radiation

• Time and Frequency'

• Quantum Physics'

Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory

• Precision Engineering

• Automated Production Technology

• Robot Systems

• Factory Automation

• Fabrication Technology

Materials Science and Engineering

Laboratory

• Intelligent Processing of Materials

• Ceramics

• Materials Reliability'

• Polymers

• Metallurgy

• Reactor Radiation

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

• Structures

• Building Materials

• Building Environment

• Fire Science and Engineering

• Fire Measurement and Research

Computer Systems Laboratory

• Information Systems Engineering

• Systems and Software Technology

• Computer Security

• Systems and Network Architecture

• Advanced Systems

Computing and Applied Mathematics

Laboratory

• Applied and Computational Mathematics^

• Statistical Engineering^

• Scientific Computing Environments^

• Computer Services^

• Computer Systems and Communications^

• Information Systems

'At Boulder, CO 80303. ^Some elements at Boulder, CO 80303.
NIST Special Publication 500-219

NIST Workshop on the

Computer Interface to

Flat Panel Displays

January 13-14, 1994;

San Jose Hilton and Towers;

San Jose, California

Editors:

Mark P. Williamson,

William E. Burr,

John W. Roberts

Advanced Systems Division

Computer Systems Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

August 1994

U.S. Department of Commerce

Ronald H. Brown, Secretary

Technology Administration

Mary L. Good, Under Secretary for Technology

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Arati Prabhakar, Director
Reports on Computer Systems Technology

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has a unique responsibility for computer

systems technology within the Federal government. NIST's Computer Systems Laboratory (CSL) develops standards and guidelines, provides technical assistance, and conducts research for computers and

related telecommunications systems to achieve more effective utilization of Federal information technology resources. CSL's responsibilities include development of technical, management, physical, and administrative standards and guidelines for the cost-effective security and privacy of sensitive unclassified

information processed in Federal computers. CSL assists agencies in developing security plans and in improving computer security awareness training. This Special Publication 500 series reports CSL re- search and guidelines to Federal agencies as well as to organizations in industry, government, and

academia.

National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 500-219

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Publ. 500-219, 227 pages (Aug. 1994)

CODEN: NSPUE2

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1994

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
Disclaimer

The views expressed by the participants of this workshop are the opinions of the

individuals. Their views do not reflect NIST poHcy or agreement. Proprietary names and

model numbers are cited solely for clarity and do not imply a recommendation or

criticism

Acknowledgments

Special thanks are due to all the participants of the workshop. NIST greatly appreciates

the time, guidance, and assistance provided by Dr. David Lee of Xerox PARC, Mr. Scott

Vouri of Dinar Graphics, Mr. Mark Singer of Cirrus Logic, Dr. Paul Alt of IBM

Corporation, Mr. Thomas Credelle of Apple Computer, and Mr. Anders Frisk of ICL

Personal Systems.

iii

Contents

A. Preface

B. Summary

C. Minutes

1. Workshop Agenda

2. List of Attendees

3. Opening Remarks

Mark P. Williamson, NIST

4. NIST's Advanced Technology Program

Mr. Thomas Leedy, NIST

5. Issues in Interfacing Flat-panel Active Matrix TFT LCDs

Dr. Victor Da Costa, Xerox PARC

6. High Performance, Cost-Effective Computer and Video Interfacing to Megapixel AC-PDPs

Ms. Carol A. Wedding, Photonics Systems

7. Sun's Proposal for a Unified Display Interface Mr. Marc Klingelhofer, Sun Microsystems

8. I/O Connectors for Video Applications, History, Requirements, and Technology to Meet

those Needs

Mr. Gary Manchester, MOLEX, Inc.

9. Issues in FPD Interfaces for PC and Workstation Use

Mr. Bob Myers, Hewlett-Packard Co.

10. United States Display Consortium

Dr. Bob Pinnel, USDC

11. Issues Related to Interfacing Flat Panel Displays Ms. Jill Seman, Chips and Technologies

12. High Resolution Color LCD Interface Issues Mr. Sunder Velamuri, Cirrus Logic, Inc.

13. The Voluntary Standards Process

Mr. William Burr, NIST

14. Electronic Industries Association (EIA)

Mr. Thomas Mock, EIA

15. Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA)

Mr. Scott Vouri, Binar Graphics, Inc.

V

A. Preface

Television, computers, and telecommunications have been considered largely

separate technologies. Today, they are merging to provide a powerful tool for the

information age. This merger will provide new capabilities for diverse applications in

education, engineering, manufacturing, robotics, entertainment, medicine, defense,

security, transportation, business, and government.

Cathode ray tubes (CRTs) are used in current television sets and in most personal

computers. They produce light by scanning an electron beam (the "cathode ray") across a phosphor screen to stimulate the emission of light. CRTs have high

brightness, good color reproduction, and reasonably wide viewing angles. However,

since CRTs are evacuated devices, they must be made from strong materials to withstand the pressure of the atmosphere. The tubes become increasingly difficult to implement in large screen sizes.

In contrast, emerging flat panel displays (FPDs) are considerably smaller and lighter for a given screen size. FPDs are being integrated into laptop, notebook, and hand-held form

factors. In addition, flat panel monitors are becoming commercially available for desktop

computers and workstations.

However, FPDs are currently a value added product which requires the development of a unique computer interface for each display. This results in needless expense and

integration difficulties for the end-user. In addition, the lack of standards may slow down

the implementation of FPD technologies in the market place.

In order to achieve interoperability and flexibility comparable to CRTs, it is necessary to develop logical, electrical, and mechanical standards for the computer interface to FPDs.

Further, the wide variety of FPD technologies may require either an advanced computer

interface architecture to accommodate the varying requirements of different displays, or a

series of standards that address the requirements of different technologies.

FPD technologies have reached a point where it is worthwhile to consider the

development of voluntary industry standards for the computer interface. Therefore, the

Computer Systems Laboratory (CSL) at NIST sponsored this workshop to bring together

flat panel display manufacturers, computer systems manufacturers, graphic controller

chip manufacturers, industry and government users, and others who have a material

interest.

1
B. Summary

On January 13 & 14, 1994, the NIST Workshop on the Computer Interface to Flat Panel

Displays was held at the San Jose Hilton and Towers in San Jose, California. The

meeting was attended by approximately 55 people from over 40 computer, flat panel

display, and graphics controller companies. Representatives from the civilian and

military sides of the government were also present.

The objectives of this workshop were: to determine the need for a standard or a series of

standards for the computer interface to flat panel displays (FPDs); to identify what types

of standards are needed; to identify approaches for developing FPD interface standards;

and to obtain a consensus on a coordinated plan for standards development.

The workshop attendees agreed that a standard flat panel display interface for integrated

devices is needed. Furthermore, the workshop attendees agreed that efforts should be

made to encourage all of the flat panel display manufacturers to participate in these

standards activities.

'^he consensus reached at this workshop resulted in the following action items:

1) Form a Video Electronics Standards Association Special Interest Group

(VESA SIG) to undertake the development of a standard or a series of standards

for the interface between a FPD and its controller. This interface standard will

address both active and passive FPDs in integrated devices. It will cover both the

electrical and the mechanical (connector) specifications. An organizational

meeting will be held on February 9, 1 994, at the VESA headquarters with the

intention of having a proposal ready to discuss with manufacturers of flat panel

displays at the Society for Information Display (SID) meeting in June.

2) NIST will seek to inform all materially interested parties, especially the flat panel

display manufacturers of the standards plans, and encourage their participation.

3) VESA will distribute the February 9, 1994, meeting announcement and agenda.

4) The interface for remote FPDs requires additional technical discussions before a standard can be written. Additional workshops on display interfaces and /or

technical sessions at the SID Symposium should be explored. In addition, the

VESA Monitor Committee invited interested parties to participate in their

committee which will be considering interfaces and connectors to desktop and

remote FPDs in addition to their cathode ray tube (CRT) interface work.

Dr. Paul Alt of IBM will seek to set up a technical session at future SID meetings

to consider these long-term display interface requirements. It is too late to add a

technical session on interface topics at SID '94. However, an interface session

may be possible for SID '95.

2
C. Minutes

The Workshop began at 12:30 PM on January 13, 1994 at the San Jose Hilton and

Towers and continued until 4:00 PM on January 14, The agenda for the Workshop is section (1) and the list of attendees is section (2). Mark Williamson of NIST acted as chairman of the workshop and Bill Burr of NIST was secretary.

Mark Williamson of NIST opened the workshop by introducing the NIST participants

and stated the objectives of the workshop:

• Determine the need for a standard or a series of standards for the computer interface

to flat panel displays (FPDs).

• Identify what types of flat panel standards are needed.

• Identify approaches for developing FPD standards.

• Obtain a consensus on a coordinated plan for standards development.

Mark Williamson's presentation is section (3).

Mr. Thomas Leedy of NIST made a presentation on the NIST Advanced Technology

Program (ATP). Mr. Leedy' s presentation is section (4). The NIST ATP works with

industry to co-fund high-risk technology development programs. Enabling, high-value

technologies that promise large or strategic long term benefits to the U.S. economy are emphasized. ATP awards are based on a competition of both the technical and business

merit of the proposals. Cost sharing is required: single company awards are limited to $2M over three years and the government does not pay overhead, while joint ventures

(involving at least two companies) may take up to 5 years, and there is no limit on the

award, however the ATP funding is limited to less than 50% of the total cost. The ATP

has made several awards in the general area of flat panel technology; these are summarized in section (4). In response to a question, Mr. Leedy stated that any firm that

is not a "United States-owned company" (i.e., that does not have a majority ownership or

control by individuals who are citizens of the United States) may receive an ATP grant if the Secretary of Commerce finds that the company's participation in the Advanced

Technology Program would be in the economic interest of the United States, and the

Secretary finds that the country in which the company or its parent company is incorporated affords United States-owned companies similar opportunities and adequate

and effective protection for intellectual property rights. Further details on these eligibility

requirements for foreign-owned corporations are available from the ATP.

Dr. Victor DaCosta of Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) presented a discussion

of the issues involved in interfacing active matrix FPDs. Dr. DaCosta' s presentation is section (5). Dr. DaCosta pointed out two themes that other speakers were to return to:

3
• The cathode ray tubes (CRTs) which have predominated as display devices are strict

left to right, top to bottom raster scan devices, while active matrix liquid crystal

displays (AMLCDs), like most other flat panel technologies, are row and column

oriented. Thus the timing and ordering of signals on CRT oriented interfaces are not

well suited for flat panel displays;

• There is no standard interface to the flat panel, and the characteristics of FPDs vary, so each panel requires a highly optimized and customized display adapter in the host

computer to handle the specific characteristics of the particular FPD.

Dr. DaCosta identified four issues and problems in driving high resolution AMLCDs:

• Analog vs. digital interface; • An inherent speed mismatch between the frame buffer output and the panel driver

integrated circuit (IC) input;

• Different color filter mosaics;

• Different color/gray level control and correction schemes.

Dr. DaCosta stated that a flat panel interface standard is needed to provide a flexible and

consistent interface to a wide range of FPD devices. He further proposed that this could

be accomplished by incorporating within the panel electronics a flat panel controller IC

that provides a simple and standardized interface to the flat panel by performing all the

specific display dependent processing needed for the row and column drivers of the flat panel. That is, the customization should occur in the panel itself, so that there can be a

consistent interface. Dr. DaCosta stated that an example of such an AMLCD flat panel

controller had been developed by Xerox PARC and would be presented at the ISSC94

conference.

Ms. Carol Wedding of Photonics Systems made a presentation on the interface issues for

alternating current plasma display panels (AC-PDPs). Her presentation is section (6).

Ms. Wedding began by discussing the requirements for future FPDs. She noted that

displays must keep pace with computers and said that displays of at least 1280 by 1024

pixels with at least 256 colors will be required for some applications. She noted that it is basically a CRT-oriented world, and that CRTs generally use an analog raster scan Red,

Green, Blue (RGB) interface. All (or at least most) flat panel technologies must interface a digital panel to an analog signal or develop a special card to interface between the host

and flat panel display. Photonics has pursued both paths. She summarized the following

advantages and disadvantages of analog interfaces:

Advantages:

• Nearly universally available;

• Remote displays practical;

• Noise resistant.

4
Disadvantages:

• Added cost of digital in controller to analog in interface to digital in display;

• Cost of phase lock of different clock frequencies in display;

• Bandwidth degradation.

Ms. Wedding noted that a partial solution to the problems with analog interfaces would

be to include a dot clock with the RGB signal in the interface, eliminating the need for a phase locked loop (PLL) in the display to recover the clock. She then summarized the

advantages and disadvantages of digital display interfaces:

Advantages:

• Eliminate cost of digital-to-analog (A/D), analog-to-digital (D/A) conversion;

• Eliminate cost of PLL clock recovery;

• Reduce clock jitter.

Disadvantages:

• Not presently universal;

• Not noise resistant (or requires a large data bus);

• Very high data rate for 60 Hz or higher frame rate and high resolution

displays.

Ms Wedding proposed two possible solutions to the problems with digital display

interfaces at high resolutions and frame rates:

• Use an emmiter-coupled logic (ECL) twisted pair interface for its better high

frequency electrical characteristics; • Embed the computer itself on the back of a high resolution FPD.

While Ms. Wedding's talk was concerned primarily with plasma displays, she stated that

all FPDs use row and column drivers and load data in column form. She described

displays that load gray levels one at a time. However, other participants pointed out that

liquid crystal displays (LCD) do not necessarily use gray levels one at a time. Ms.

Wedding postulated that a "dream interface" for flat panels, or at least AC-PDPs, would

be digital and organized in a row and column architecture, with gray level data processed

in separate subplanes. She concluded that by exploiting the similarities of FPDs and

discarding the preconceived notion of a CRT interface it should be possible to define a

flat panel interface that is cost effective and technically acceptable to a wide variety of

flat panel technologies.

Mr. Marc Klingelhofer of Sun Microsystems gave a presentation from the perspective of

a workstation vendor. His slides are section (7). Mr. Klingelhofer began by describing

the CRT interfaces used with workstations, where unlike the personal computer (PC)

market (where the Video Graphics Adapter, VGA, standard provides some order), there

is great variation. Workstation CRT interfaces are predominantly analog RGB over coax

5
with BNC connectors. Various synchronization styles are employed, including

Horizontalertical drive or composite synchronization, which may be embedded in the

green signal or a separate signal. A plethora of horizontal and vertical resolutions and

blanking characteristics are employed. All CRT interfaces, however, scan pixel-by-pixel

horizontally, line-by-line vertically.

Mr. Klingelhofer went on to describe flat panel and particularly LCD interfaces. LCDs

use bit parallel RGB plus clock and control over ribbon cables. Pixel depths per primary

color are typically 6 to 8 bits per primary color. Various synchronization and control

modes are employed and there are numerous resolutions. They rasterized first in columns

then in horizontal rows. He noted that other FPD technologies are even less standardized

than LCDs. Mr. Klingelhofer noted the following shortcomings of FPD interfaces:

• The pixel depth is not standardized - typically 6 to 8 bits; • Pixel interleaving, if present, is display dependent;

• The cables must be short (certainly less than 10 m) and bulky, with 40 to 80 signals;

• Clock and control functions are not standardized;

• The row and column rasterization is incompatible with CRTs and most display

drivers.

Mr. Klingelhofer also noted the similarities between FPDs and CRTs:

• Both use RGB pixels of 6 to 8 bits per primary;

• Both are two dimensional with a row and column matrix, and each pixel has an

"address;"

• Sequences of lines constitute frames, and the frames can be identified.

Mr. Klingelhofer noted an industry trend to high bandwidth digital serial networks, smart

displays, self identifying data streams, and scalability so that feature and performance

enhancement are easy. He therefore proposed a relatively high level approach to a

"unified display interface" that would use serial network technology and could support

various display devices, including CRTs and LCDs. He proposed a serial interface, rather

than a parallel ribbon cable, that could be scaleable, supporting various display types and

resolutions, and be automatically configurable. The physical interface would include

standardized copper or optical fiber media, with a fixed low level protocol for clock and

bit serialization. The benefits would include common interface circuits, as well as standard connectors and cables, resulting in high volumes and low costs for these

components. Moreover, very sophisticated display drivers then could support any

standard display type and resolution without cabling or synchronization concerns.

He proposed that there be a standardized sequencing of color information ordering with

pixels sent row by row rather than column by column and with fixed headers to identify

resolutions and pixel positions. A low-end version of the protocol would be comparable

to analog RGB, with pixels sent line-by-line; in this case the display would lock into and

6
accept incoming data with no handshaking or feedback. A higher level standard protocol

would allow the driver to sense the display characteristics and allow the driver to set the

resolution according to the application as well as allow the driver to alter display

characteristics such as brightness and contrast.

Mr. Klingelhofer concluded by raising two open issues:

• Should such an interface directly support 3-D images rather than only 2-D? Present

displays are 2-D and deal with 3-D by showing the projection of a 3-D image on a

plane, but perhaps future displays may be 3-D displays;

• Are 8 bits per primary color per pixel enough?

A brief discussion followed Mr. Klingelhofer' s talk. Two subjects were discussed:

compression and cost. Should such an interface carry compressed data? If so, would the

interface include a protocol like an X-terminal? Mr. Klingelhofer was asked what

proportion of the cost of the display would be the embedded electronics needed for such

an interface. Mr. Klingelhofer responded ,"a lot." Sun is apparently developing such a

serial display interface, and may be able to discuss the subject in more detail in the future

Mr. Gary Manchester of Molex gave a presentation on the future requirements for

input/output (I/O) connectors in video applications. Mr. Manchester's presentation is section (8). He began by summarizing the history of video I/O connectors and the

D subminiature connector commonly used by the VGA and extended graphics adapter

(XGA) standards with CRT displays. In limited markets (e.g., workstations) where

performance is an issue, designers have used standard coax systems. Current trends are requirements for smaller connectors with more contacts, low insertion force and yet

increased life, perhaps as many as 10000 insertions. High volume consumer markets are developing, so cost becomes a major factor.

Mr. Manchester believes there is a need for a mixed layout connector supporting both coax and unshielded lines in one connector, as well as possibly power lines. The

cormector must be suitable for low cost manufacturing. Molex is now capable of

providing a connector with three or four 75 Q coax lines as well as 50 additional signal

lines in the same space as a 1 5 pin VGA connector. With such a connector Mr.

Manchester believes that it will be possible to package RGB video coax plus a fourth coax high speed sync line, mouse I/O, battery charger lines, serial port lines, keyboard

lines, phone lines, parallel port lines, pen I/O, audio I/O, and a network interface all in one cormector at a cost per mated line comparable to currently available I/O connectors.

Standardized connectors are required for such applications since the cost of connectors is very strongly a function of production volume. A standard will also promote the

atmosphere to development of suitable connector technologies.

7
Mr. Bob Myers of Hewlett Packard gave a talk on issues in FPD interfaces of PCs and

workstations. His presentation is section (9). Mr. Myers identified a distinction that

previous talks had hinted at and that was later amplified on: there are really two FPD

applications with potentially two interface standards. Those applications are FPDs in

portable computers or other computers that include the display integrated in the same

physical package as the video controller, and separate standalone monitor FPDs that may

be some distance from the computer. The integrated FPD-video controller interface

requires a very short, direct connection and consequently has less concern with

Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) issues. The separate monitor interface must support

a display removed from the controller by at least 1 m, and preferably should support

longer distances. The interconnect EMI performance and signal integrity are therefore a much greater concern. At least the monitor interface must support both FPDs of various

technologies and CRTs as well. The current analog video standard is a poor solution for

both CRT and FPD monitors. Moreover, High Definition Television (HDTV) will make

the standalone monitor FPD a big concern.

Mr. Myers discussed the bandwidth required for high resolution monitors with up to 60

frames per second. HDTV format displays and high resolution workstation displays will

require pixel rates on the order of 60 to 130 MHz for flat panels and 160 MHz to more

than 200 MHz for CRTs. At 24 bits per pixel that translates to data rates of 180 to 390

Mbytes/s for FPDs and 480 to 600 Mbytes/s for CRTs. Mr. Myers pointed out that as high as these rates are, multilevel coding can reduce the bandwidth needed for "digital"

transmission.

Mr. Myers stated that a successful interface must be cost-competitive while allowing

compliance with EMI requirements and providing for additional needed features (e.g.,

display ID, human I/O device connectivity). A successful interface must work within the

constraints of existing technologies yet be flexible enough to support different display

technologies and formats, including flat panels and CRTs. Mr. Myers said that computer

manufacturers cannot afford separate interfaces for both CRTs and flat panels and CRTs

will dominate in monitor applications for the foreseeable future.

Although he did not characterize it as a proposal, Mr. Myers outlined his thoughts on a possible common interface. It would have 4 signal lines per color, one of which is capable of analog video or of a binary or a quaternary digital signal, with three other lines

capable of four level digital signals. The 1 2 lines could then provide analog video for

CRTs, 4-bit color for simple digital FPDs, or 8 bits per subpixel digital color for high

quality FPDs (in this mode all four lines are quaternary). The interface would also

include horizontal and vertical sync as well as lines for an identification (ID) standard and

probably human I/O and analog audio. The total would be 20 to 24 signal lines plus

ground. Each display type would connect only to those outputs it needed, and provide an ID capability to allow the host to configure to the display's needs.

8
Mr. Myers was questioned about the cost of the multilevel drivers in the host. He felt that

the cost would not be great in quantity very large scale integration (VLSI), and observed

that every host might not support all features.

Dr. Bill Hale of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base discussed the need for plug and play

displays in flight instruments systems and the difficulty commercial display vendors have

in doing business with DOD. The greatest opportunities are probably in transport

aircraft. Vendors wanting more information on the Air Force needs can call Dr. Hale at (513) 255-8261.

The first day concluded with a question and answer session for the speakers. Mr.

Klingelhofer was asked just how much of network protocols he proposed to adopt for

displays: just the physical layer or entire packet structures such as Asynchronous Transfer

Mode (ATM) frames? He said that Sun is working on such an interface and that there

might be a more concrete proposal in the future.

There was a discussion of parallel versus serial interfaces and the needs for relatively

long (i.e., 100 m) distances between hosts and displays. What are the applications for

such distances? One apparently is parallel processors supporting many users. It was

observed that the X-terminal provides a partial solution for the remote intelligent display

application.

There was a discussion of costs. An interface standard between the graphics controller

and flat panel will add hardware costs to systems. However, there is a considerable cost

in the ad hoc engineering required to adapt specific panels with nonstandard interfaces to systems. A part of that cost is not so much monetary as in time to market.

Dr. Bob Pinnel opened the second day of the workshop with a talk on the United States Display Consortium (USDC). Dr. Pirmel's visuals are section (10). The USDC is supported by Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and based on the premise that

the United States must become a leading player in the manufacturing of FPDs to be

competitive in future computer and electronic products markets. Manufacturers,

suppliers, users and government must cooperate for this to happen. The USDC focuses on developing the U.S. flat panel display infrastructure, particularly the needed

manufacturing and equipment expertise. The USDC is an industry-led public/private

partnership and a nonprofit, non-manufacturing organization that provides a common

platform for FPD manufacturers, developers, their supplier base, and users to develop

plans and specifications for next-generation FPD manufacturing equipment and materials.

The USDC focus is on the needs of the wide range of FPD technologies. The USDC

follows a vertically integrated approach to include all elements of the FPD food chain

from equipment and materials suppliers to systems integrators. Nine Requests for

Proposals have been issued, and the first selected involves equipment to do on-axis

optoelectrical inspection of assembled FPD cells before attachment of the drive

electronics.

9
Ms. Jill Seman of Chips and Technologies provided a very informative perspective on the

interfaces used in flat panels for PCs. Her presentation is section (11). The VGA

resolution of 640x480 is common in FPDs for PCs. Several kinds of displays are used,

including dual scan monochrome LCDs, dual scan color passive matrix LCDs, color thin

film transistor (TFT) and monochrome plasma and electroluminescent (EL) displays.

These differ in the panel characteristics: different interfaces and various problems occur due to the lack of standardization.

Monochrome dual scan FPDs are the most prevalent displays in the PC market. They

use a dual drive scanning scheme that requires data from two separate controller memory

locations at the same time. Typically they have 8 data lines for 8 pixels per clock and 3

control signals: horizontal sync (LP), vertical sync (FLM) and Shift Clock (SHFCLK).

Two power supply voltages are required. Panel interfaces differ by manufacturer and

product. Even products from the same manufacturer and product line may differ. There

is no standard cabling scheme and different panels have different connectors and pinouts.

There is no standard labeling scheme and LCD voltages differ from panel to panel. There

is no standard panel sequencing mf"hod and both horizontal and vertical timing differ for

every panel.

Color dual scan LCD panels are most prevalent in the mid-range notebook PC market.

They also us^ a dual drive scheme with LP, FLM and SHFCLK control signals. They

have 8 or 16 data lines with 2 2/3 or 5 1/3 subpixels per clock, and require two power

supply voltages. Interfaces are not standard and have all the same variations as the

monochrome LCD displays. In addition clock divide schemes vary from panel to panel.

Color TFT panels are most prevalent in the high-end notebook PC market. They use a

single panel, single drive scheme that requires data from one memory location at a time.

Four control signals. Horizontal sync (HSYNC), vc Jical sync (VSYNC), SHFCLK and

BLANK are normally used. HSYNC, VSYNC and BLANK fmings are similar to a CRT. There may be 9, 12, 18 or 24 data lines with one pixel per clock. Again, two

power supply voltages are required. Sharp is the dominant supplier of TFT panels and its interface is something of a de facto standard. However there are no standard cabling

schemes, connectors or pinouts, and LCD voltages differ from panel to panel.

Monochrome plasma and EL panel screens are most common in embedded instruments.

These are single panels with a single drive scheme. Four control signals, HSYNC,

VSYNC, SHFCLK and BLANK are used with 8 data lines and 1, 2, 4 or 8 pixels per

clock. Two different power supplies are used. Panel interfaces vary by manufacturer and

product, with no standard cabling, connectors or pinouts. Bias voltages vary from panel

to panel. There is no standard power sequencing method. Clock divide-by schemes vary

and HSYNC and VSYNC timing vary from panel to panel.

Ms. Seman pointed out several challenges for present PC flat panel interfaces. There are both dual and single drive formats, as well as color and monochrome screens with various

data formats. Control signals must be programmable, with independent generation of LP,

10
FLM, SHFCLK and BLANK signals, several divide schemes and different panel power

sequencing. Variable voltage supplies are required for different panels. The challenge to controller vendors is how to support multiple panels with one controller design.

Ms. Seman was asked if the variation was product by product or by product line. Ms Seman replied that it is primarily by product line. Mr. Kevin Warren of IBM

commented that the details generally don't have to do with the display technology.

Rather, there are two reasons for the variations:

• To simplify the displays;

• Customers ask for them.

Ms. Seman was asked whether a standardized interface would make cheaper systems.

Ms. Seman replied that a standardized interface would make things a lot easier to understand but would not necessarily result in less expensive controllers. Tim Kriegel of

Hewlett Packard expressed the view that the big payoff to a flat panel interface standard

would be in reducing the time to market for new products.

Mr. Sunder Velamuri of Cirrus Logic made a presentation on high resolution color LCD

interface issues. His presentation is section (12). Mr. Velamuri pointed out that

expanding applications are going to require much higher resolution displays than the

currently common 640x480 VGA displays. He expressed the view that a standard would

concentrate on active matrix displays, since the passive matrix market is relatively mature

and is a "minefield" of idiosyncrasies. He sees three distinct market segments for color

TFT LCDs:

• Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) with resolutions of 640x480 or 320x240 and less than 8" diagonals;

• Notebook computers with resolutions of 800x600 or 640x480 and a 256k color

palette;

• Monitors and workstation laptops with resolutions of 1280x1024 or 1024x768 and a 16.7M color palette.

Key issues for high resolution TFT LCDs include color uniformity and consistency, a

color matching capability and the ability to have RGB color correction. In addition, the

module form factor (thickness, weight and display area), power consumption, refresh

rates, and cost are also key issues. A panel interface standard must have:

• Minimal EMI generation;

• A minimum number of data lines; • Upward/downward expandability,

• Minimal power dissipation, the ability to drive cables of lengths greater than 3 feet; • Appropriate hooks for multimedia;

• Expandability (i.e., 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280 x 1024, etc.).

11
Multimedia must be supported, including full motion video and existing video standards.

The bezel width must be minimal to have a large screen and the cost impact of this cannot

be large.

My. Velamuri outlined several interface options:

• A CRT-like panel interface with analog RGB, HSYNC and VSYNC. Gamma

correction would be in the analog domain and display quality optimization would

require multiple external devices to condition devices to provide opposite output

voltage polarities on adjacent pixels. Among the disadvantages to this approach are the need for a high frequency PLL to recover the dot clock, cost and power

dissipation and the number of ICs required;

• An analog interface that includes the dot clock. High speed A/D converters would be

used to convert data to the digital domain and gamma correction would be performed

with a control application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) using look-up tables. Data would then be converted back into the analog domain with high speed D/A

converters. A data inverting circuit would be used to optimize display quality.

Again, disadvantages would include the number of ICs and board space as well as the

high cost and power consumption;

• A digital interface that is an extension of existing interfaces. It would consist of 24

data lines for one pixel per clock plus HSYNC, VSYNC, data clock (DCLK) and data

enable (DE), and would have an existing base of controllers that could support this

interface. Digital logic is moving from 5 V levels to 3.3 V levels. The disadvantage

of this kind of digital interface would be either high frequency (to reduce the data

lines) or a large number of data lines to allow lower operating frequencies.

Whatever the interface, Mr. Velamuri said that it must satisfy several compatibility

requirements. First, it must be compatible with the Video Electronics Standards

Association (VESA) monitor timing and 60Hz, 72 Hz and 75 Hz frame rates. Second, it must allow software driver compatibility for different resolutions and frame rates.

Mr. Velamuri was asked whether the panel standard should be strictly compatible with

CRT timings. His answer was that the CRT blanking imposes too big a penalty on flat panels. Rather, it is software driver compatibility that must be achieved.

Mr. Velamuri was asked which of the alternatives he had outlined was his choice. He

preferred the extension of the parallel digital interface, however he had no solution to offer to the problem of very wide buses. He felt that the multilevel logic proposal was

interesting but he had many questions about it.

Mr. Velamuri was asked what additional considerations for multimedia are required. His

reply was that there are two approaches: (1) concentrate the hardware in the panel, or (2)

12
perform the function in the controller and send it over the regular interface. Mr. Velamuri

thinks that it is better to do it in the controller. When asked why not then just embed the

controller in the display, Mr. Velamuri replied that it is better not to embed the controller

in the display because controllers change more rapidly than panel designs.

Mr. Bill Burr, of NIST, made a presentation on the voluntary standards process. His

presentation is section (13). By "voluntary standards" Mr. Burr means the published

standards worked out in rather formal recognized or "accredited" standards processes.

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is the preeminent U.S. voluntary

standards organization. ANSI does not develop standards, instead it "accredits" the

processes of organizations that do. ANSI is also the U.S. member of the International

Standards Organization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (lEC).

Joint Technical Committee 1 (JTCl) of the ISO and lEC are the recognized international

standards organizations for information technology. Mr. Burr stated that ANSI

accredited procedures for developing standards are meant to ensure fairness and

consensus and to reduce the risks of antitrust actions resulting from standards activities. The price for this deliberate procedure is that it takes time, and time is often what is most

critical in the computer industry. Mr. Burr outlines several ways that standards originally

drafted in less formal, and perhaps quicker acting, industry groups might eventually be

recognized as ANSI or ISO/IEC standards.

Mr. Thomas Mock described the Electronic Industries Association (EIA) standardization

process. His presentation is section (14). He stressed that the EIA is in the business of

establishing information technology standards. The EIA has an extensive program in consumer electronics and audio and video standards, and its sister organization, the

Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) has one in communications-oriented

standards. With the apparent fusion of the traditional computer, communications and consumer electronics industries the EIA is a key player in the information technology

voluntary standards arena. The EIA (and its sister organization the TIA) are accredited

by ANSI and many of the standards developed there become ANSI standards. He stated

that the EIA would enjoy working with the industry on flat panel interface standards.

Mr. Daniel Chen, of Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc., supplemented Mr. Mock's

remarks by describing the activities of the components group of the EIA and their effect on standards for ICs.

13
Mr. Scott Vouri of Binar Graphics made a presentation on the Video Electronics

Standards Association. His presentation is section (15). VESA, established in 1989, is the industry organization that has set the prevalent standards for display controllers, video

BIOS, and monitors in the PC market. VESA has also established the VESA local bus

(VL Bus) standard, which is now very widely used in the PC industry to provide a fast path between the CPU, memory, high speed peripherals and video controllers. Many

major manufacturers of PCs, video controllers, monitors and flat panels are VESA

members. VESA has five technical committees:

• Monitor;

• Local Bus;

• Advanced Video Interface;

• Software standards;

• Advanced Graphics Interface.

VESA is now developing the VESA Advanced Feature Connector (VAFC) and VESA

Media (VM) Channel standards. VAFC provides a 32 bit, 150 Mbps standard for 1280 x

1024 displays that is implementable now with some cost reductions. It connects a video

source (such as an MPEG processor card) to a video display adapter. It allows only a

single source, is unidirectional, and cost reductions are modest. The VM channel will

provide a 32-bit bus supporting 16-bit color that can connect cameras, other video sources such as VCRs, video processors, and the like to a video display adapter. This will be a

bi-directional bus and will provide a greater overall cost reduction.

Mr. Vouri described possible panel display standards including an electrical interface and

internal laptop connector, and an external monitor cormector and a television connector.

He stated that he believes VESA is the organization that has the right participants to do

the job and could do it quickly and effectively by establishing a special interest group to address the controller-to-display interface. He proposed that interested individuals meet

at the VESA office on Feb. 9.

The questions following Mr. Vouri' s talk centered on greater participation by volume

panel manufacturers, particularly Japanese firms, who were not as well represented at the

workshop as the system and controller suppliers. Mr. Vouri said that VESA can reach

out to the Electronic Industries Association of Japan (EIAJ), but the thing that will really

bring the panel vendors in will be interest and participation of their customers, that is the

system vendors. Mr. Knox of Compaq Computer noted that the panel vendors cannot

react very quickly, but if customers want a standard, and allow a reasonable time for

deliveries of panels with standard interfaces (18 months or so), there wouldn't be a big

problem. Mr. Anders Frisk, of ICL and chairman of the VESA Monitor committee, noted

that they had scheduled a meeting for March 1 0 to consider ftature monitor interfaces, and

supported the idea of a meeting on the 9th to consider flat panel interfaces.

14
Mr. Burr moderated a panel discussion. The members of the panel were:

Mr. Thomas Credelle - Apple Computer;

Dr. Paul Alt - IBM Corporation;

Mr. Rick Knox - Compaq Computer;

Mr. Ron Pacheco - Digital Equipment Corporation;

Mr. Chuck Whelchel - Sharp Electronics Corporation;

Mr. Sunder Velamuri - Cirrus Logic.

Mr. Burr opened the discussion by asking whether a single interface standard that

supports both CRTs and flat panels is required. Dr. Alt's response was that there are two

different levels of interface that can and should be standardized. One of these, the remote

monitor interface, should broadly support CRTs and flat panel technologies through one

connector. However, it would probably be premature to immediately begin to standardize

this interface; there are at present too many unknowns, including multimedia

requirements, and it involves the very paradigm of computing (e.g., networked

workstations versus more centralized parallel processors serving a number of relatively

"dumb" terminals). Rather, additional workshops and study would be appropriate before

plunging into an effort to develop a standard interface. The interface that is now ripe for

immediate standardization is the interface for "captive" or "embedded" flat panel

displays, such as those that are used in notebook computers. Dr. Alt believed this could

be done quickly.

This position was broadly accepted by the participants and the discussion that followed was couched in those terms. Although the discussion was free-ranging and switched back

and forth between the two interfaces, in the interest of clarity these minutes summarize

the discussion by subject rather than in the order of occurrence.

The participants broadly agreed that in the interim until a general standard can be agreed

on, the de facto standard for many remote monitor applications will be the VGA CRT

interface. This standard, although deficient in some respects, is very broadly accepted in

the huge IBM-compatible PC market. The workstation market is much more diverse,

with a number of variations on the CRT interface.

However, there are many problems with this, especially for flat panel technology.

Although now uncommon as desktop monitors, LCD panels for projection displays are becoming fairly common. The major difficulty is the range of variation in the coding of

the analog video signals and the lack of a dot clock. There was a discussion of the

difficulties of recovering the clock for a flat panel. There is a significant challenge to develop clock recovery that works well over the range of video sources found in

computers, but it can be done.

There was no definite consensus about the range of distances that must be supported by a monitor interface, although there seemed to be agreement that something more than a few

meters was desirable. Nor was it certain whether a monitor interface should be analog or

15
digital. Mr. Myers of Hewlett Packard returned to the theme that there need not be a sharp distinction between the two, when multilevel digital signals are included. It may be

that a standard connector could support both. The precise requirements for multimedia

and the level of intelligence required in the display were both discussed. There was broad

support for the idea that monitor display should be able to identify themselves and their

capabilities to the display controller, and that the controller should be able to configure to the display without operator intervention.

There was broad agreemeiit among the speakers that the time is ripe to standardize the flat panel device interface for embedded displays, such as those in notebook computers and

PDAs. Even in this area, there are three fairly distinct markets: PDAs with relatively

small screens, notebook computers with at least 640 x 480 resolution, and laptop

engineering workstation displays which need a minimum resolution of 1024 x 768.

Moreover, both active and passive matrix color and monochrome displays are in fairly

wide use. Mr. Burr asked the panel if it is sufficient to cover only the AMLCD displays

in the standard and assume that the other technologies are mature and not in need of

standardization. The response from the panel was that the other technologies are not

disappearing any time soon and that, to be effective, the interface standard should not be

limited to just AMLCD displays, but should be applicable to other LCD, plasma, and EL

displays.

Although the amount of "intelligence" required on the panel for various applications was

not settled by the discussion, broad support was expressed for the idea that enough

functionality should be contained in the panel to regularize the interface, in the interest of

supporting diverse displays with one interface. This concept, first expressed by

Dr. DaCosta in his talk on the previous day, seems to offer a good prospect of a single

interface that broadly encompasses various display technologies. The amount of extra functionahty incorporated on the panel itself may depend on the application and the

intended market niche. Much sentiment was expressed that the panel itself, and not the

video controller, is the proper place for such functions as gamma correction and

temperature compensation.

Digital versus analog interfaces were again discussed. Most LCD panels expect a digital

input. However, some panels are entirely analog. The general trend in data transmission

is digital, and most participants felt that gamma correction and temperature compensation

could best be done in the digital domain. There was some discussion about requirements

for temperature compensation and gamma correction. Many applications may not be

particularly sensitive to precise color matching or consistency, but many other image

intensive applications are quite sensitive to these factors.

Mr. Burr noted that there are broadly useful de facto standards for the physical "footprinf

of storage peripherals, as well as their interfaces. This, he noted, greatly facilitates plug

and play substitution of peripherals by end users. Is it appropriate to consider similar

footprint standards for displays? The consensus of the panel was that this would be

unwise. Not only are the physical packages for displays evolving, but the physical size of

16
the display is directly related to and largely determined by its function. This is not the case for storage peripherals. There is no reason simply to change the size of a disk drive

for its own sake, but there are applications for displays of many sizes.

A final concern expressed was that mass market FPD vendors were not as well

represented on the panel and in the workshop as were computer system manufacturers

and controller vendors. This had been sounded earlier in the workshop and would be

repeated in the following discussion of proposals for standards development. The feeling

seemed to be that it took some time for panel vendors to respond to such initiatives, but if system vendors expressed their interest to their panel suppliers, then they would

participate.

At the conclusion of the panel discussion, Mr. Williamson opened the floor to specific

proposals on how to proceed. Mr. Vouri made the proposal that VESA establish a special

interest group to address the controller to captive flat panel interface in a timely manner. He proposed that interested individuals meet at the VESA office in San Jose on 9

February. Mr. Burr took the floor and led a discussion to develop a consensus about the

specific conclusions and action items resulting from the workshop.

The consensus reached at this workshop resulted in the following action items:

1 . Form a Video Electronics Standards Association Special Interest Group (VESA SIG)

to undertake the development of a standard or a series of standards for the interface

between a flat panel display and its controller. This interface standard will address

both active and passive FPDs in integrated devices. It will cover both the electrical

and the mechanical (coimector) specifications.

An organizational meeting will be held on February 9, 1994, at the VESA

headquarters with the intention of having a proposal ready to discuss with

manufacturers of FPDs at the Society for Information Display (SID) meeting in June. Inputs are requested by March 9, 1994.

2. NIST will seek to inform all materially interested parties, especially the flat panel

display manufacturers, of the standards plans, and encourage their participation.

3. VESA will distribute the February 9, 1994, meeting announcement and agenda.

4. The interface for remote FPDs requires additional technical discussions before a standard can be written. Additional workshops on display interfaces and /or technical

sessions at the SID Symposium should be explored. In addition, the VESA Monitor

Committee invited interested parties to participate in their committee which will be

considering interfaces and connectors to desktop and remote FPDs in addition to their

CRT interface work.

17
Dr. Paul Alt will seek to set up a technical session at future SID meetings to consider

these long-term display interface requirements. It is too late to add a technical session on interface topics at SID '94. However, an interface session may be possible for SID

•95.

The meeting adjourned at 4:00 PM on January 14.

18
1

Workshop Agenda

Nisr UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Nal:lonal Insti1:u«e of StandardB and Technology

Gaitheneburg, Maryland 20Ba9-0001

Workshop on the Computer Interface to Flat Panel Displays

San Jose Hilton and Towers

San Jose, California

Januairy 13, 1994

11:30 AM Check In

12:30 PM Opening remarks

Mr. Mark Williamson, NIST

12:45 PM "NIST's Advanced Technology Program"

Mr. Thomas Leedy, NIST

1:10 PM "Issues in Interfacing Flat-panel Active Matrix TFT

LCDs"

Dr. Victor Da Costa, Xerox PARC

1:35 PM "High Performance, Cost-Effective Computer and Video

Interfacing to Megapixel AC-PDPs"

Ms. Carol A. Wedding, Photonics Systems

1:50 PM "Sun's Proposal for a Unified Display Interface"

Mr. Marc Klingelhofer , Sun Microsystems

2:15 PM "I/O Connectors for Video Applications, History,

Requirements, and Technology to Meet Those Needs"

Mr. Gary Manchester, MOLEX, Inc.

2:40 PM BREAK

3:00 PM "Issues in FPD Interfaces for PC and Workstation Use"

Mr. Bob Myers, Hewlett-Packard Co.

3:25 PM "Plug and Play Flight Instroiments"

Dr. Bill Hale, Wright-Patterson AFB

3:50 PM Q&A, Speaker Interviews, General Discussion

4:30 PM Reception

Hot and cold hors d'oeuvres and cash bar
Workshop on the Computer Interface to Flat Panel Displays

San Jose Hilton and Towers

San Jose, California

January 14, 1994

9:00 AM Opening remarks

Mr. Mark Williamson, Mr. Dana Grubb, NIST

9:10 AM "United States Display Consortium"

Dr. Bob Pinnel, United States Display Consortium

9:30 AM "Issues Related to Interfacing Flat Panel Displays"

Ms. Jill Seman, Chips and Technologies

9:55 AM "High Resolution Color LCD Interface Issues"

Mr. Sunder Velamuri, Cirrus Logic

10:20 AM BREAK

10:40 AM "The Voluntary Standards Process"

Mr. Bill Burr, NIST

11:10 AM "Electronic Industries Association (EIA)

Mr. Thomas Mock, EIA.

11:30 AM "Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA)"

Mr. Scott Vouri, Binar Graphics, Inc.

12 : 00 PM LUNCH

1:00 PM Panel Discussion, "Are Standards Needed for the

Computer Interface to Flat Panel Displays?"

Moderator: Mr. Bill Burr, NIST

Panel Members: Mr. Sunder Velamuri, Cirrus Logic

Mr. Charles Whelchel, Sharp Electronics

Mr. Thomas Credelle, Apple Computers

Mr. Rick Knox, Compaq Computer

Dr. Paul Alt, IBM Corporation

Mr. Ron Pacheco, Digital Equipment Corp.

2:30 PM Proposals for Standards Development and Future

Activities, Invited

3:00 PM BREAK

3:20 PM Discussion of Proposals and Action Items

4:00 PM End of Workshop
List of Attendees
Mr. Larry Kopp Mr. Arley Miller AMP Inc. : AMP Inc. M/S 210-020 P.O. Box360&

P.O. Box 3608 MS 2414

Harrisburg, PA 17105-3608 ^ ^ Harrisburg, PA 17105-3608

Mr. Dick Cappels ^

' Mr. Thomas L. Credelle

Apple Computer Apple Computer, Inc. 3535 Monroe St. 6 Infinite Coop

69-C MK306-3D

Santa Clara, CA Cupertino, California 95014

Mr. Doug Moore

At&T

2 Oak Way

Room#4NC20

Berkley Heights, NJ 07922

Dr. Les J. Wu

AT&T Bell Laboratories

600 Mountain Avenue

Room 2d-325

Murray Hill, NJ 07974

Mr. Scott Vouri

Binar Graphics, Inc 30 Mitchell Blvd. San Rafael, CA 94903

Mr. Sunder Velamuri

Cirrus Logic, Inc. 3100 West Warren Avenue

BZ-541

Fremont, California 94538

Ms. Jill Seman

Chips and Technologies, Inc. 2950 Zanker Road

San Jose, California 95134

Mr. Rick Knox

Compaq Computer, !nc. P.O. Box 629000

MS 080404

Houston, TX 77269-2000

Mr. Ron Pacheco

Digital Equipment Corp.

4 Technology Park Drive

DSG1-21K5

Westford, MA 01886

Mr. Brian Fuller Electrical Enginnering Times

1054 Saratoga-Sunny Rd.

San Jose, CA 95129

Mr. Thomas Mock . . Dr. James Akiyama

Electronics Industry Association Epson America

2001 Pennsylvania Ave N.W. Portland Div

Washington, DC 2006-1813 3950 NW Alociek Place

Hillsboro, OR 97124
Dr. C.J. Noorhan

Flat Panel Display Co.

BIdg WAY-2

Prof. Holstlaan 4

5656 AA Eindhoven

The Netherlands

Dr. John Erbacher

General Research Corp

2940 Presidential Drive

suite 390

Fairborn, OH 45324-6223

Mr. Bob Myers Mr. Howard Honig

Hewlett Packard Hewlett-Packard

3404 East Harmony Road 1 000 NE Circle Blvd. Fort Collins, Colorado 80525-9599 5UP8

Corvallis, OR 97330

Mr. Tim Kriegel

Hewlett-Packard

1400 Fountaingrove Pkwy

4US-S

Santa Rosa, CA 95403

Mr. Don Montgomery

Hewlett-Packard

1400 Fountaingrove Pkv\/y4USM

Santa Rosa, CA 95403

Mr. Tony Wheatley

Hewlett-Packard

1400 Fountaingrove Pkwy

4USM

Santa Rosa, CA 95403

Dr. Paul Alt IBM

Thomas J. Watson Research Center

P.O. Box 704, 71-A01

Yorktown Heights, New York 10598

Mr. Ed Anwyl

IBM

Internal Zip 2212

1000 NW 51st Street Boca Raton, FL 33429

Mr. Kevin Warren

IBM

TJ Watson Research Center

100C Old Sawmill

EastView, NY 10591

Mr. Anders Frisk ICL Personal Systems

800 Central Expressway

M/S 34-10

Santa Clara, CA 95050

Dr. M.K. Hatalis Lehigh University

Dept. of Electrical Engineering

and Computer Science

Bethlehem, PA 18015

Mr. Kaushal Mehta

LSI Logic, Inc. 1525 McCarthy Blvd. MS G-780

Milpitas, CA 95035

Mr. Daniel Chen

Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc 1050 E. Arques Ave.. Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Mr. Gary Manchester

Moiex

2222 Wellington Ct.

Lisle, IL 60532

Mr. Mike Garner

Molex Corp.

194 South Hillview Drive

Milpitas, California 95035

Mr. Frank Eveleno Mr. Richard Atanus

NEC Electronics NEC Technologies

475 Ellis St. 1255 Michael Dr. MSMV4561 Wood Dale, IL 601 91

Mountain View, OA 94039

Mr. William E. Burr NIST

BIdg. 225, Rm. A61

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Mr. Dana S. Grubb

NIST

Bldg.225, Rnn. A61

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Mr. Thomas F. Leedy

NIST

BIdg. 101, Rm.A415

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Mr. John Roberts

NIST

Bldg.223, Rm. B364

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Mr. Mark P. Williamson Dr. Olivier Prache

NIST Optical Imaging Systems, Inc. BIdg. 225, Rm. A61 1896 Barrett Street Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Troy, Ml 48084

Ms. Carol Ann Wedding

Photonics Systems Inc. 6975 Wales Road

Northv\/ood, OH 43619

Dr. Larry Lev/is

Planar Systems, Inc. 1400 N.W. Compton Drive

Beaverton, Oregon 97006

Mr. Larry Weber

Plasmaco

1 80 South Street Highland, Nev/ York 12528

Mr. Kevin Gillette S-MOS Systems

suite 1 1

11780 Hammersmith Way

Richmond, BC V785E3
Mr. Bill Thompson

SAI Technology

10240 Sorrento Valley

Suite 1 00

San Diego 92121

Mr. Charles Whelchel

Sharp Electronics Corp.

5700 NW Pacific Rim Blvd. MS 20

Camas, WA 98607

Dr. Motofumi Watanabe Mr. Ron Hanson

Sharp Microelectronics Technology Inc.. Silicon Video Corp.

5700 NW Pacific Rim Blvd 1 0460 Bubb Rd.

Camas, WA 98607 Cuppertino, CA 9501

Mr. Marc Klingelhofer

Sun Microsystems

2550 Garcia

MTV1 4-203

Mt. View, CA 94043

Mr. Christopher Miles

Systems Planning Corporation

1429 N, Quincy St. TCI-I

Arlington, VA 22207-3645

Mr. Kevin llcifin Tektronix, Inc. P.O. Box 500

MS 46-944

Beaverton, OR 97077

Mr. Gene Primm

Texas Instruments Inc. P.O. Box 655474

MS 8207

Dallas, TX 75265

Dr. Joe Morrissy

Three-Five Systems, Inc. 10230 South 50th Place

Phoenix, AZ 85044

Dr. YueT. Chiu

US Army Research Laboratory

Myer Ctr, BIdg 2700

Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703-5601

Dr. Bob Pinnel

USDC

2 Oak Way

Rm 45F-31

Berkley Heights, NJ 07922-2747

Mr. Kirk Lowry

Western Digital Corp.

800 E. Middlefield Rd.

Mountain View, CA 94043

Mr. Wallace Kou

Western Digital Corporation

800 East Middlefield Road

Mountain View, California 94043

Mr. Bill Hale

Wright Laboratory

WL-AAAZ, BIdg. 146

2210 Eighth Street STE 1 Wright-Paterson AFB, OH 43433-751
Dr. Victor Chiu

Xerox Palo Alto Research Center

3333 Coyote Hill Road

Palo Alto, California 94304

Dr. Victor Da Costa

Xerox Palo Alto Research Center

3333 Coyote Hill Road

Palo Alto, California 94304

Dr. David D. Lee

Xerox Palo Alto Research Center

3333 Coyote Hill Road

Palo Alto, California 94304

Dr. Alan Lewis

Xerox Palo Alto Research Center

3333 Coyote Hill Road

Palo Alto, California 94304

Mr. Jin Jiang

Yamaha

981 Ridder Park Dr. San Jose, California 95131
3

Opening Remarks

Mark P. Williamson, NIST
^"1 n-i

o

(J ft

o

0^

On

I

u

o

H

€

o

o

o

53

U

o

S3

53

a o

WO H-C9

—, I— •<C3

"1 ^

T SI

0^

o

o

o
0^ Ooo

0)OOC

0)

(0

(0 u

to

(0

(0

(0

0)

0)

T3

(0

Urn (0 DC

0)

(0^ mco g <3 O

0) = I

reE E o o I I I

iSc

Q.O

CD c

(0 (0 O 0)

(0 o O (0

IIS >

.So. > w

IE Q. EEoo

(0 "D 2 1 I I 0 ^ "1 ^

[0 #

0CI "i^iPiP

-ID

a

Pha 3a

C

(0coE3

(0

CO

0)E

U)c

(0

CO o^ Eo2o

CO i>c c 2 o o c — z w

0) >t W Q.

>t (0

(0 -5 E ii oo

(0

O)c

0)

(1) (0

.E •=

4-1

C E w 15 — 0

IN

OC c E

(0

0)o o

t:

0)

Q. 2 i

(0

O

Q

O co

(0

"So

0)Eo+-» o

Q.o o I 2 O O " ^ u O .2 — "O

(/) CO E

(0

D)O^ 1 o g

ItO a

0) (f)

T5

0)Oc

(0

reoE > <

"5 1 ^ 1 ^

SiT Si
H

M>

ec

ment

acti

(0 o D

Q.

Ph elo tand >

fac oa mmmc0

(fi

+-» (0

•o Q.

ndar

partici

w oc

TO o OS a MB Q. c 3 1 (0 c

TO

G)cMB

>»oo

Q.O

TOo

_TO . (0

TO

O

il

0) ^ c to

TO ^ P TO

0.14. I

(0

TO

"OC

TO

(0c

(0£00o£0

O)

TO

+JC0

E-c0>

O) 0) =

<D 1Q.

(/)

O 0 "5)

§0^I € .1 P Ci # 0 P : P 0 0

4

NIST's Advanced Technology Program

Mr. Thomas Leedy, NIST

E

(0

D>O

UiOOcoH

T3Oc

(0>< o

(0 o

x: ^

O) CO o ^ o cc O CL

CO 2 O

CD

CD

-4—

E

CO

CDE

QlO>

CD

COO

"c

CO

Q.Eoo

CO0

"O)

_ooo

CD
111 <

(0

o.< £ .. ^ Q. <D

13 CD ^-^ O >

(B (SB SZ

x-o

CD ^COo

a.o o sz

>^ CD o

i3 CD

CO -^i^ 3 .CO Q.

.E JC <D . O) > ^ O CO O ^ O

CO QO

•4—* 0)0

CL

05

CO

"cB o o ^t= ^

CD o QCD O

II

ft

CO

O . ^

CO ^

CD

CD

g

LU £ocoo

CD

CO o

"O)

CD +—

CO

to

c:

CO

CD

D) 2

CO ~ o O; S

0)

lU J2

3e< CD > -r

-I- ^

CD o
eg

(5m

I-<

CO (D

CD

CO

CO

00o O >^ CO E _ o ^ O CD

CC =

CO3> OEo 1 ^ ^

CO 3 <

CO

cB

CIO LO E S ^ 5

LO CO CO

(- > CO

»!

CD c: 0) 3 0) ^

CO

k • — -C

C

O c CO

(D P ^ > ^ = CL o o h- s z z < Dili

CD

O E Jo C CD > 2 O ^

O) c

CD

CO "O

CDC

CD

5- S-CD > c o o

=6 2 o w

w o .9? a> Z CO .E

oc oE o ^ § § ^

"T"" C/D o

CMI oo

lO

tno O to

<^ ^ H S

UJ ? O (0 z r < 2 > 2- Q E < ~ 0E

CO

i2

CO

COoO

ID

CD

N OC to ^ -O "D O C CD

O)

M CC

'•g

.0- < Lll 9 — —

V* CO CC

CO

O

O

CL h- Ico Ifo o E o

13

CO

O

.2-I—* 1^

CO P

.9

O c < CL

5>o_

QH 0

CO

CO^

0)

CO D) O C O CO

T3 Q:

ECD — y

to CO

LU_ ^^

cO CO o >

h- <

$2 -—o

o

-—^coo

CO

COOo

_3oX

LU
O

OOO

O -K

O

OOO

CO CD ^

CM $ suonniAi
m

111 <

CO

CO

111 o

o.o

UJ

111

CO

O

(0

0)

(0oc

COQ.

CO o C 3

CO OQ c

0) >

CO&-oo

CD QO

oS

COc

CO

O

COwEoco

UJ OQ qI

COC (D

^•2

CO Q. 2 .CO

Q.O

TII

COocou

LU

CO

(0 o o

•4-' o

CQ





'ooH

00 • 1—1

C

cs

Q.I oooo

c:o

a>o

05

<DC CO < Q So

CO

c:oo

-2a

CO

c:O

in Q.

QO £ T3 O O S ' _ oo -Q

CO

O

CD

S= o o)

.2 -o

5°- I Eo

CO

CD

O)OOO

15 E^._ o iS CO ^

.E "5

m o ^ c h^T

-E o ci-r^ o o

COoOEo

CO

CO

CD

CO

.2 S o

CD D) ^

LU

CO O

J5

COo

C/) o

c:

.<1>

CD

"3

Oo

COE

in

in

JC o

CU >

(]> CO

^1—Si <D o -5 o

Q- o ^^ o O CO

_o _o

<D

O

.tr: -Q

CD^ > CC

g-co 5 ^

CD

.tr <3 Q o <
'o

-sHQ

a>E

a.o>Q

iS

(O oE

LLI

CU

"5) Q

03O

C5

c:o2o

S-oop

O

CO

CO

SI

CO

Q.

CO

CDC

CO

Q.

CO

CO

CMoooE

O)

CUO CO

CO M= I —

CD ~

CO

VO of E ^ o O^ CO 5 S o

CO 2

•5.2 CM o CO 3

CD *- > CO CL O c h- Q O <

(0

JO

a.

CO ocI is

LJLOO

CDooo

"cS

Q.

:3o

COoo

-2

CO Q

c:

cxs .0s

Q> 5 o E o 2 a>

CM

CO

T3

5=: CO

CO

O

C CO

CO £

.3> CO O c

*- T3

O)^O o o

MB

cSo

CO

i> co-^ 2 CO o .S2

CD

O

CO ^

ci> J:; O o Q o

CO

CO

CO

CO

"DOOE

<D ^E ^ ~ CD

co</5^

OL CD "2

TO s

op:
SB

'oo

CD • i-H Q

Q.

CO o

75

toO

i2oE<

-Si Ocoo

COo

COo

CO .5" 1 =

Ie

0)£

75 o O Q.

CMO

CO

</3^

O)

73O

(DO

CO

CDo o o o o

>*

a>

"S

CD

O)

"Oc

cuCO o

CO

"3o O T5 O CU H -Si o ^ =s

Q. <D

_0

N ^

"m > i5

a> o O a.

CO

_C2 <

T5 < oO

C/)O

<D

LL.OO

T5O

c5 oaoo

€0

O

CO

.o

c:o

4:: o

CD

Uj

COso ^ s g CO

o> cn c <5

<i> o *^

CO =

2> ^o =

.5 <D o ^

(D

O

O S

x: o

CO 3= o o

<i> "St

CO .5^

CL o

CO

_

CO

CO

CJ> u m oo

(Do

CL o<U6Q00

CO

CO o

•—iso

CO c

X5

O

_ O)

(D s»

CU c^ o "co > CO

CD

O

a Q.

CO

CO ..
<

111 Oo &> o

u.

CL<Q<O

CO

-4-» oa

O)

CL CO

1—1 VI/

rCD

CO

_CI +—

i_

(D c

150 E c

03

I— 0

CD 0

+-

D

a. CDC

CO

iS 1 to

LU 5

CD

-t—• kD 0 .

<D

C

CD

B > 05 1 ¥

05 CO t

c: 05 2

05 ^ O)

-9 "co o

CO "O

LU .g s

13o

T3

CDO

CDo2 CO E o E -S 3 CD C Q-

(D £

SI oo

CD c

C^ ^

05 05 o o — Q.

C

CD

a.oI CO

CD

Q-Eoo

(D

O

C

O

<D

C

O ^O 2 CO

n"* CO ^

1—

C 05

•4—• O 2
E i CO

- —^ o : Q.

E

&

D)CQ O

£-2

g>|<
ID.

03O

D)

CO

CO

0)c

(0

T3C

COoo—CD

CD

CDI

CD

c5E Q.

+^ o Q

DCEo

CO

CO

a.

CO

CD

COOD

CD

0)I 5oo

"Eocoo

CD

CO

ZJ

CO

CO

CD

CO

CO

<D

CDOE coo

CO

Q.

CO

CO

O

CD •—

COExo

QQCOOE

COo

CO

<DCooI o

CD

CDc

CO

CD

CO CO

D)CD O "O

A- ^

Q- ^ c

COO

CD0 CD O CO

CO

CD E • o 1 o

E^

CO o

Q- 

Q.O c o

c"-i= CO E CD o i ^

COo

D)

CO

CO

CDC

CO

COoc

T3

CD

CO

CD 3 CO.E ^ P O

oo

0.9Eooo

CDc

CO o S CO

ito 52

iiO 13

bi, LL CO
o

111

111 o

u.

Ill <

ccO

(£

Ql ProgramPlanning ProjectSelection

Execution
g

I-o

UJ

UJ

(/> <o

cc

0.

cco<

cc

Ul

cc

UL

LJJ z

LJJ

£DO

CO<9<

CO o ooo

HI<

I-z

LU

I-o

CL o

LUQO

CD

HZ

Lil

I-oo

>-

oc

Ico

(3zo

cc

hco

CO

UJ<o

I-

(D

LL

CLH LU < O

Li. cn . LU

CL ^ o <

o

111

CO

CO - 

^

CD

O

CD CO o c ^ w O ^ o o

CLJC CD

cc

O CO

Q. 0) ^ ^

-o cc

CD

CO

0)o 2 CO

Q. 0 £ CD 0 CO "D

ti o -a

CD ^

CO

•^ 0 CO E "o 02

1;^ CO 5 5^ o

CO :£ O)

CO

CO

CDE

CO E

CO\_O

O)ooo

CDO

_

C

c^ 5 t;;

CL < Z

C^

C3)

COO. CM

g§CD

CO

1—

CD E<o

CO<

CO

CD

*•—g

COEoc

"cO

CDc

CD S > Q O 3 CM IU_ LO CO ' ^ Z

it CD Li00 CO CL oi = —: "co O ^^

CD CC I I— U- LU

CO3

(/)

UJOX

(/> zo<o

u.<

IUJ

oc

a.O

CC
Issues in Interfacing Flat-panel

Active Matrix TFT LCDs

Dr. Victor Da Costa, Xerox PARC
0)cI

(0 Q

CO .1^

0)

(0

0)3

(0

(0

CO>o<

CD

CD dQ

COoO

CT3 O

CJ s Boo

CD

C/) CD

DCO

03

O.Xo

CD X

"D

03O:

CDo

>^oO

CO

CO

CO

CO o

CO<O

_o

03

CL

LUX



Q

CL

U.c

0)>QX EEc

E^

C/) >

CO

0)^'5

CD^_co CDXX

C/)

C/) 0)

C/) CDE

CD

CO

CDE

CT5

cS

CD>

CO

CD

"D> > Q- X JZ

_a) o

Q. CT3 •73 CD

CD>

"DO

CO

0)

Q_

>^

CO 13E

CD 2 E

CO

CD 2

CO

=3 05

CO

Q

Q

O

OX

(/) 03

CD ^ > <D

CO >

CO

C\3

O

CL <

Q.

CO

ID

hcro

CO>QcE

_^oO c

03O

CO 1a

0)

D)g

"co

Q

Q_

LLc

CD>D

><

"c5 c

03O

COs

0)c

'co

CDC

03

Q_

03

CD. CO

T5

sjeAUQ Moy |/\| s

LUX
(0 O o

0)

CO

(0 oc

0)

0)

Q-

(0 o

CO ^

CO ^ o CO oD

CDNEo

"5) 3O

"D

0)N

Oc

CDc

CD

Q.

0)

T3 P —CO _ Q- O ^

CO

CO

"D

03

0)

00

O

cn<

"o

i_coo

>^

CL

CDX

0)

Q.Eoo• oo

Q)ccoocc

0)

0)c>

03cooc3

CO

03

CO

_c5 1

'co

CO

0)E

03

03

Q.

>>

QCO

ID0

CD>

CD

D)C

03

CO

03

CD SZ c

03oo

COooo

-1^ CD

"5 Q)

CD JD ^ i 2 8 oo

CD

_3o

CO

CD

C

COcEDOoDO

umm N

Toc

CD

U)c

COoE

55

CO

-t—

Z3

Ql

-t

—

o

CD>o&

COo0-t—

o

03

03

_CocoEEoo

03 CD

T3C

CD

CD

D)

_cg o>

Q-o

QOX

"Sm

Q)O<

CO OO<

(DO

toMMo

CO

c5 O

D

CD

CO

13

CD

(f) g

"co

-»—

o

0)

CD

1—

<D>

TDC

03

CO

0)

"D)

_ooco00c0

"D I o c

CL 'o 1 03

CO o 0 03

'D) Ql O co D

no .5 an

chi 0 O 0

h- E 0

LL o >

1- _J

_co>0 0c0

Q.

CO op 0X CD

q. sz o

CO

i_

col xel

O o 'q. o o o o 0 o

mor and o%0

"D CO Q. c 0 CO

03 c 0 c X g

"5 o jbpi o

CO0

O)0>

03

-I—

0o

CO 0 O JD

03

13

or0

D)

03E 0 —

O)

I-O

03

03

-—0

0

JD0

JD

O)OOCo0

03E0>

03
CO QOcoO

(/) 0

QCQc

CO0

(/)

0)

"DC

CO

COE

0)

JQO 0OI0o

CO

egO

CO < 0c

CO

Q.

COo0D0E

CO 0 iS c E O

0) 0 0 >

a.

cn "o

CO03

CO

CO

CO3O0

D)

COE 0

CO30n

COE

(0o

"co

COoE0

1- CM

C00D

CO

CO0E0o

COo0oocoo0>00 o o oo oooc0

«+- D

"co 0

"D0o

CO0cX0

£LEooo

T5

CO0

CO03

CO

CO0

CO0 0

Q.

CO D

Cu

</) o

(0

"O o 0N co c o o o

ff% H-B^H 3 o o 0

sp1 O)M o

LC c

(0 <o 3

CO o 0 c

V. CO

(0 o s

LUX

0)oBc

"5Q>oo

COc

(000NIoQO

ILi. OOo B 9- EHccoo

"a

C/3 o

1^

1^ o

oc 00 O o QU<>

ooX

<NO

1—

X

C/D

'Eh om ^ Q

C/3

OXo

oo

(Z5 XO oo

X3

QU<

T3OOEo

S2 'of) E ^ O 0 O 0) O (D

</> ^ Z E 0

CO E

(A 0

ft
(DOc

"5o

(0>oo

CO o

CO *^

(1)

CO ^—

"5) Q

0)3

"DOOo

u.

I-OOO

q> I*-» oo

Q. b> Q.EoO

v_

"6)

CDa

.5)A

CO b<

0)>QcEoO

onc

03

LJ_ Q.Q O O O _J o < coO >Qo

DC

CD>Qo

DC

CD 1 iA A A 0

II ^ C

</) o o i_

'sz c

rap CD DQ
ooo>

0)c

CO

Q.

"5o

COo

Q.

>» ^—

>

inc>oE>o

CM

C/) "3

4-^ 3O

CM

D

0)

0)

CL

0)ocE

0)3

0)3

Q. o D

°-

aO c < Z Q

>.

O • • < ac

^—

t "

i»

_ 9 5) E ^ CDaE n o E '

(0

CM 0)

T- O)o CO > 3

Q.C

CDO

QC

c5

—.1 5 CLD

0)

(0

"5)

0) o<QO<oo<ao<Q

0)

U

to '5)

0)

CO coocoocou3oo aE

CO ^

(0 o

0)

(0

0)o>o>nCOEE

CO

k-O)o

CO 73

k_a

CO

C3> CO

CO

COa

>«c

COE

CO

a>

CO "O)

0)

C/)

0)

T3OO

CD

CD •oOU

CD o

O)C0 O 0) c > LUX
0)3moc

COEo

a! 3

Q.Co0>

0)c

03

Q. DC

CO3ooE

OS

CO>

il

CO

CD

CE 0 oo E 52 0 bz

:= Q.

15

13

030

CO

O "o o

0)

COE

CO

CM o > c

•c: o c > ^

Q. o^ O 0 0 .± 0

CO

-2 o

4=

A < ^

rT nr Trt <

DC c >

.9 ^ o >

CO xj

cr5 00

sz sz

MM

a MB 0

c5

a.

c:oo

en0cO

.50

CO

CO0

'50t

a:5 O -

UlUI O > O

OhQ oOUHH


(0cooo

mwmm ooQ

(0I QONEo

o53O

IL. oc

0)E

0)QE

0)

0)

0)coocoo

0)

Q.

CO

"D

CO

>t

iSb coo

"o

CD

Q.

(/) Q

CL

UL0

"D

_3Oco

-t—

COEo

C/) E

CT3 CD

i_

to

CTJ

D .i=

CT5 i=

D)

CD

CD

-f—

CD

"D

CD

c\3 E

Q. v_

CD

"D 0

">O

C

Q_ "+—g

*—> O

"D

CD CT3 C

4—' o CO

CD

*—> 0 O 13

c\3 0

_C <

DC 0 > Q.

new

multi

0)

0) - TJ

COc

,0oc 0>D0

Q.

CO i=J 1 i E

CD

'5

cr0i_0> o 2^ o0

Q.

CO0c

C^

Q.0

"Dc

C\3 co = C\3

13

-f—

o 0oC Q. O CO g _0

"q_ D)

0.E

CO o 0 O

CO b 0

T3

03 0 ^

03O - o

"D0

"D0 G O

0) E c

CO

Q.

g

03

CC 0

Z3o

CO 0

1_

03

CO

Q.

'szo O

Q.

u.

s:oo

0)ocooQo o

CO>

CO boc00 0

-—

CoE

030O

03 H—0-I—

_c

_C0

CO

IDC0-I—

CO

'cocoo

03 CO

CO i- 0 cc

CT3 c 9 0 C

03

V-0

Q.

03

"D

03

COg

Q.

03

D)

•4—

COo0

sz^

CO £ Oo — ^ 0

CO > 0— 03

Q. s

LUX
ca

"a.

V3

Q)O

OUHU

ueoUOu

AC

-t—

Q A >Q o G £

)< 'o. c _ o © = w o

0)>

•cQo

•cQo o j 3

lines) « I © E©

©

v.

X)

or) O

Oh o

Q.

O S3 o s

or:

LUX
0)co

55ocooc

(0

COEE

C5sC

C/5

C/5

00Eo CON

i/5 3

*3

crucoca

-2

(/3

7d3GOo

CGo

C3

.a

B

00

Onooc

0) Sos

JG4—

-4— O

c• ^

0-) 4—

P.O

u>

'oGOo

0-) >G

T3

c/2 O (U

ex

c3 >^

C/5 Gh oGE>

'O

-4—

G

<D TDG

(D

<DGo

^5

G

cx ^ G o cd

C/D a>Gh

cd

cd 2 cd G »-i 0) W) Q

Oh

tin
6

High Performance, Cost-Effective Computer and

Video Interfacing to Megapixel AC-PDPs

Ms. Carol A. Wedding, Photonics Systems
High Performance, Cost-Effective

Computer and Video Interfacing to

Megapixel AC-PDPS
High Performance Displays

-The world is becoming more complicated

- Computers, local area networks, multi-media,

and advanced applications software have given

us the ability to manipulate large amounts

of data and make decisions based on many

complex variables

- A new world of possibilities awaits us due

to these technological advances,

- Interactive TV, video conferencing, HDTV,

Information highways, Federal and civil C4 I are just a few of the possibilities.

- Just as the eye is the key to the mind

the display is the key to this new world
To meet the technological challanges

a high performance display must...

Meet the demands of the application!

This means

If the application is full motion video

it must be displayed without ghosting or

smearing. This requires a high update rate.

If the application is topological in nature

a high number of gray levels and colors may

be necessary to display all the details.

If the application is word processing or

desktop publishing the image must be stable

and flicker-free to prevent eye strain.

If the application is multimedia it may

require all the above plus high resolution.
Photonic's Megapixel Displays AC-PDP

Photonics AC Plasma displays already

meet the previously mentioned criteria.

Photonics has recently developed a

full color, 1024-768, with 256 gray levels

per color.

This display may be updated at a rate of

over 60Hz.

It has a 30 inch diagonal and a depth of

4 inches.

A full color 1280-1024 with 256 gray levels

per color is now under developement
A cost effective challenge

for interfacing to video and computer

sources

Its a CRT world

All flat panel displays are faced with the same

challange of interfacing a digital source to an

analog signal or developing a special card to

interface between the host and the flat panel

display.

Photonics has presued both paths

Our analog receivers accept standard VGA input

analog red, green, blue, horizontal and vertical

sync

Our digital receivers accept

vertical sync

horizontal sync

dot clock

red data bus

green data bus

blue data bus
Advantages of an analog interface

- Relatively universal

-Can have the display remote from the source

- Noise resistant

Disadvantages of an analog interface

e - Added system cost to go from digital to

analog to digital

- Expensive to phase lock to all the different

clock frequencies on all the different video

cards

- Band width degradation

Possible solutions

- Including a dot clock on the data

connector along with the RGB and sync.
Advantages of digital interface

-Eliminate a costly reciever circuit

-Eliminate uncertainty due to clock jitter

-May eliminate an entire frame buffer

Disadvantages

- Not universal

- Not noise resistant ( requires a large data bus)

- Difficult to transmit data at a rate to maintain

60Hz frame rate ( with present FPD controllers

and memory)

Possible solutions

- Sending signals from the host to the source

ECL twisted pair

- By embedding the computer on the back of the

AC plasma display noise and frame rate problems

can be eliminated with out the use of ECL
Two things all flat panel displays have

in common

- all use row drivers and column drivers,

data is loaded in a column form

- all use gray levels one at a time

Dream Interface

- Data loaded in a more column like fashion

- Data bus sent in separate subframes of gray levels

- Data sent in ECL twisted pair for noise immunity
7

Sun*s Proposal for a

Unified Display Interface

Mr. Marc Klingelhofer, Sun Microsystems
3
CO

0\
o en

a*OOO

02

I—

4^ CO H (D

^-1
on
O 00

5h CD

CO « -2

t. I—

cd

03§

CQoI

p-t

2^§o §.2 • rH d a §

CQ

oa

(D • rt ^

03 " O Ph N O

ll^ id
H

i2

•iH

00

I—

cdao•rHaa• I-tI
0)

r-" ^ O

4-5

COo oo O

(D

PI

C3oo

q=!

a

«1

ao

'a

R

H -1^ •co

ft

ft I o oo

ftr^H

ft

CQ

•r-l

cdO

t5

Pl

PIa

0) S

r—I TO

CO

TOoQ CO0

CO

CO

CO

CQ T3 xi 8

i_J o a» O

Eh
CO

»—
I—

• HQ

a» • iH

CQ PoOd

r-H

r—

CO

C/2 o'i-H >

CO

m>•r-l m

•pH

F-H

r-—

•i-H cd>

I—

•i-l cdaoO

02 43

?3 I—I 1—

P. P. ^ CO 03 W

0^ o :=j r—

cd

c/:i

CO<DO

I"

CQ

•i-i

bJD PS

I—

CQo>

4^

<D

CQ

•I-H CQ

<D

CQ

(UO § a

bx) -t^

CQ

CQm CQ

<U

a>

rP

1—1 f" i

<= o u O PL,
EL,

-soI—

la

03Oo

CO ^

.2 o

COuOo

03 o

(D ft

.a ?^

CO

M

I—

ft • i-i 'aO o o

CO

O

0) c2 ^ ^ ft

O) ?u

•r-l oooo

r—

> O0 COo oooO

•rH

0)

CO

a; o PQ .a

1d

*aoM

ena0 Oo

CO

CD

O

CO

•r-l a

CO

O)

<D>

0)A

CO

•r-l Oo >O

(U

,i4

A ^ I

CO

a

ft >

CO -rj

CO •a

CO

-id

13 o

ft CO CO rj

CO

O o• i-i >o oo

PIo

CO ^

Sioo

PI . . o S O oo

CO

CO

CO o >

>>

O

CO

O

cdo•fHCO

COo

ft SCO
0)

cd

to

•rHooa•i-t

-l-s oo

cd

CO

COa>o

<D3 p.

<D to

O

bJD o

cdo-(J

CI. 2 OO

.a ^to

CDo

13oO

CO J5

(D P4

Ph

q

bj) CO

PIo

cd

«i i

•rH I—

a•iH CO

uo

•aoam

cdu•pH

•cO

Cdo . . cd _i I—

O ^

CO

(D

CO

CO>

CD>

03

Cdoo

03

CD 2 ^ oou

a,u

•d ^

aCd 03 O Q -ri

CQ rj Jh <D 0^ 8 S O TO

Cd ,£3

JL CO ^ U

uo

CO 1—

<D0 -P

<D r-j ^ m Cd

cd fH -H Q) <D > > P Q P
C/5

ID

CD

COE

^—o

M

>N

0)oo o

CD r—

O

.a

ft

Hio

rt0UOI—

oa•r-l

;h

P.

-4^m 00

CO ^
8

I/O Connectors for Video Applications, History,

Requirements, and Technology to

Meet those Needs

Mr. Gary Manchester, MOLEX, Inc.
FUTURE REQUIREMENTS

FOR

I/O CONNECTORS IN VIDEO APPLICATIONS

PRESENTED BY MOLEX INCORPORATED

JANUARY, 1993

NIST WORKSHOP

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA

GARY MANCHESTER

PRODUCT MANAGER
VIDEO I/O CONNECTORS

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

INTERCONNECTS USUALLY ARE THE LAST CONSIDERATION

IN A NEW SYSTEM DESIGN

HISTORICALLY IT WAS MECHANICAL QUESTIONS

SIZE

NUMBER OF CONTACTS

NORMAL FORCES

INSERTION FORCES

CRUDE SHIELDING

THE D-SUB CONNECTOR HAS PROVIDED THE INDUSTRY A

SOLUTION THAT MET THE SIZE AND MECHANICAL

REQUIREMENTS

VGA AND XGA CONNECTORS

FILTER CONNECTORS WERE CONSIDERED USUALLY AS AN

AFTERTHOUGHT

IN LIMITED MARKETS WHERE ELECTRICAL PERFORMANCE WAS

AN ISSUE DESIGNERS WENT TO STANDARD COAX SYSTEMS

TYPICAL IN WORKSTATION MARKETS
VIDEO I/O CONNECTORS

DEVELOPING TRENDS

INCREASED MECHANICAL PERFORMANCE FROM STANDARD I/O CONNECTORS

IS BEING DEMANDED - HIGHER PIN COUNTS, LOW INSERTION

FORCES AND INCREASED CYCLE LIFE

SIZES ARE SMALLER - .050"- .025" AND 1mm CENTERLINE CONTACTS

ELECTRICAL PERFORMANCE IS BECOMING A FACTOR AND CONNECTORS

ARE LIMITING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

INCREASED FUNCTION WITHIN THE CONNECTOR IS DEMANDED

- SMART CONNECTORS

HIGH VOLUME CONSUMER MARKETS ARE DEVELOPING FOR THE HIGH

PERFORMANCE SYSTEMS - COST BECOMES A BIGGER FACTOR

CRT AND FLAT PANEL ARE SHARING THE SAME SUBSYSTEMS

CREATING THE NEED TO INTERFACE TO EITHER
s VIDEO I/O CONNECTORS

DEVELOPING REQUIREMENTS

MIXED LAYOUT DESIGNS - COAX AND UNSHIELDED LINES

WITHIN ONE CONNECTOR

VIDEO COAX LINES - 3 OR 4

HIGH SPEED DIGITAL LINES

STAND SIGNAL LINES

POWER LINES MAY BE NEEDED - 3V, 5V, 12V

MINIATURE DESIGNS FOR FIT IN THE "PORTABLE" WORLD

LOW COST MANUFACTURING TECHNIQUES

STAMP AND FORMED CONTACTS

AUTOMATED ASSEMBLY

MASS PRODUCTION/MASS MARKET - STANDARDIZATION

HIGH MATING CYCLE LIFE - 1,000 TO 10,000 MATES

BLIND MATE OPTIONS FOR USE BOX TO BOX WITHOUT CABLE

- DOCKING CONNECTORS

FIRST MAKE LAST BREAK CAPABILITY

ESD PROTECTION

ADAPTERS FOR BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY
VIDEO I/O CONNECTOR

CONNECTOR TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITY

ABLE TO PROVIDE 3 TO 4 75 COAX LINES AND 50 ADDITIONAL

SIGNAL LINES IN THE SPACE OF A 15 PIN VGA CONNECTOR

SUCH CONNECTORS ARE CAPABLE OF OPERATING AT UP TO

1.5 GHz BANDWIDTH

CROSS TALK WILL BE LESS THAN ONE PERCENT @ IV/lns RISETIMES

IMPEDANCE CONTROL OF + 1 OHM @ 500 ps RISETIMES ON VIDEO

LINES, ±5 OHMS ON HIGH SPEED DIGITAL LINES

A CYCLE LIFE OF 5,000 MATINGS WILL BE AND IS TYPICAL WITH THE

USE OF STANDARD PLATING AND MATERIALS USED IN CONNECTORS

TODAY

WITH THE MIXED LAYOUT AND SIGNAL DENSITIES WE SEE IT

POSSIBLE TO PACKAGE:

RGB VIDEO COAX

FORTH COAX FOR HIGH SPEED SYNC LINE OR REFERENCE LINES

MOUSE I/O

BATTERY CHARGER

SERIAL PORT LINES

KEYBOARD

PHONE LINES

PARALLEL PORT

PEN I/O

AUDIO I/O

NETWORK INTERFACE

ALL IN ONE CONNECTOR

COSTS PER MATED LINE WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH STANDARD I/O

CONNECTORS ON MARKET TODAY
VIDEO I/O CONNECTORS

SUMMARY

SERIES OF MIXED LAYOUT FORMATS ARE DEVELOPING TODAY

DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS AND

PROTOTYPE UNITS FOR INDUSTRY EVALUATION ARE

BECOMING AVAILABLE NOW

LEADING CONNECTOR COMPANIES ARE SUPPORTING EFFORTS TO

DESIGN THE INTERCONNECT EARLY TO PROVIDE:

THE BEST SOLUTION ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL

LESS CHANCE OF TECHNICAL COMPROMISES

LOW COST SOLUTIONS

INCREASED CHANCES OF STANDARDIZATION

DEVELOPMENT OF MULTIPLE SOURCES TO ASSURE PRICE

AND SUPPLY OF THE DEVELOPING TECHNOLOGIES

TODAY WE HAVE THE CHANCE TO OPTIMIZE DESIGN FOR LONGEVITY

STANDARDIZATION OF DESIGNS SHOULD OCCUR TO CREATE:

ECONOMIES OF SCALE

ATMOSPHERE TO QUICKLY ADDRESS DEVELOPMENT OF

TECHNOLOGIES

A FORUM FOR PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT FEEDBACK

FROM AND TO USER GROUPS

CONNECTORS CAN BE LOOKED AT AS A WAY TO ENHANCE SYSTEM

PERFORMANCE AND FUNCTION. THEY CAN DO THIS IF WE

DEFINE UP FRONT THE TOTAL REQUIREMENTS AND NOT

LIMIT OURSELVES TO YESTERDAY'S SOLUTIONS
9

Issues in FPD Interfaces for PC

and Workstation Use

Mr. Bob Myers, Hewlett-Packard Co.
CO

Q>O

ft

CO

:3

CO

CO

CO

0)

_ 5- O *^o

(0 oo >QE

"So

C/) Q.

T3 I <D 5- I g > O <

0)o

42oSSoo

Q>

i5

mmmE

0)o3 . Dm Q.

£=5 7 3 o o ^ o = o

0) - 

a:

a. o|O 0)

JI (D o

a-oc cc o E w 2 § °: « Q o _i

II3 0

"=

Bo o

12« 

0) 3 ^ O

II

S5.E

*- 3 > O I E o B o

(0 0)

CO .— Q- > O 1-

(0O

CD **r > o ? gotc -o o c - o

oi2 t

9= 3

C3 Q.

C

CO O

O "5 3 i> c o

CO 0) O -D

CO

O -D

CO ^ Q 2 CO o

CO

COE 0

CO

8<

Jb - 3 c q>

Q.

O CD

CO

CO

MBCO

COc

CO

COoccO CO o o

0) OT

I-o I

52

H c »- 0 O

i_ s— 3o I co 5 3

CO

X cMBo E CO 0 0 o ^

"F < S C/) o >

Ui 2

>» CD

JO

Om

O Q.

0) u. co0

COo3

CO

COco o

CO 0 N

•il

T3 V- O O

2. <^

CO 0 "D > C

CO

B

CO C/) ^ I cC CD O C O O C CO O T3

*3

C

CO CO 0 CO C 0 0 jz U)1 CD 2 E

CO 3

IsC Q O I
c

00oo

CO O

(0co

0)

(U0cOoEo0

0)E

(0 0E O :^ CO D) ^

CO

2! S

^2

OC

N coEEoo00oooE0—CO i2 ^ E I 0

4-> 0 0 n E "g

"4= o

T3O

<^ ^0 O ^

CO

0)75 c 0 c 0_ P E

in

CO

CO0

CO ^

Q. CO o o

CO

"co E3 CO

CD CO

cc E £

CO

COEo0

CO ^0 0 g

CO

O) c E iS E

'^ ^ H LO

DC CNJ o ^

CO SI O CO

"5- 2 o ^N 0 X

CO LO o S 0E3

CO

CO <
range range c

u>c E 1

CRT FPD •

"IC

(0 I o

00oXo

CM

O)

Oo

CM

T-Xoo

CMO

r-Xo

00

CM

00X

CMO

OO

(OXoo

00 o

00Xo oo

CMo

00o

COoo

CM

NI o S o

C3

0)

— 00 Q. ooo

CM

Ooo

ino

00o

CM ^^ 0X

a.

To o <i> CO jQ

CO

(0

«)

+^

§^

CM S

(0

T- <a O o

CMO

(D

a>uc

(0><

(0coi

T3C

(0

(0 O

Q.

</)

(1) o

0> O

Q.I

<dO>

>»'^

CQ-3

CO

(0

CO

0) o

CO3E

c5co

(0

(0

(0

(0

0)oo3

(0

0)

|2 coo

(0>

0)

Q.EoI COOo o

O)0oc

CO i

LU

0) .-5 .tr

CDOc

COEoo

Q.

CDE

0)3

C7

CD

CO

CO

CO -=r 5.2O ^ c

"U ^0

d9

0)

w 2 ^ .

So IoO0O

Ma>

CD

T5

CO

O

CO "D

CD 4^

"DO

"D 0)

CO Q. ^ X o <i>

O o n ^

!2 "D CO

o3 E

S: o 3

CO

CO

COcoo0oc

CO

D)0 3 ^ > CO

-i= 3 "Z ^ 0

CO0

D)O 5 ^ > Q)

d)

CO

n

.N JO S0 >

CO 0^ o

CO

CO

CO0 3 0 O o B

CO co <i>

CO ^ V

CO COO c o

Ui'U 0 3 C O CO Q

F> ^ ^ 0 0 UL ^

"o) = ^ JD CO

"X

O CO 0 C COoo

.E o 0 5;^

<i>
o

UJ o b 9 i +

CO

O) >

IJLI ^

I- ^ i?

1- C/) *- Q.IU .-S I o Eoo W (1) ? > c o w — c I £ c/) O 0

(D T5 >O E 15

"5 CD O Q. > O CO < d

CD -3.

O

-a< §— o' M

2 03 CD W

Q.

.^^

(/) »- O <1> "a

Q.

0) CO CL w 3 CD O T3 0 D O o Q ^1 I

CD

OQ>o >

inod+

be: ^ o z < <

CD CD 2.

CD >

9= >

h- ^

CO ^ J c

_C0 SI -o o t CD

13

O

(n c

(O CD

=5 (D O >

jO) o = <<

V)CD>

CD CD o — C CO

CO T3 CO

CD I Q. CO c to = o 0c oc ° I l£) Q. 0

C/) o

13 T- 0 O

CQ CD 1 I
OoSSoo

Q)

is

CO

COOa

0)E

ino JSi

(0 O<Qo>0

Q. > > O 3O o o

TO X

(0 c cO 3 o B

in ^ = o

"ac

a>w

Q.3 G) Oo o « £ 0 o o <i> w .E

CO Z1 iS

(/) Q

Q.

U.

C

0) .2

rj c

Q. c E o oo .t:

.0)

B

O 0) (0

1- Q.Q O c CL

.E U.

O (/)_ 0 o g C W *r

LLD ^ 1 I >

Q)I O 0

o5O 2 c =5 .n 0) E 5 o a

II

IIo ~ o w c o

.2 ^ O 0) oo

.2^-D .-s Q c A oooooo

0)wc

D)

"wOc

COo>

•uc

0)

—

cco

r3o

'c3EEo ^o = ^ o < -

LU (0 > E o

Q-3 ^

t- ^ .Q o o wo

CM coNoX 0c3

csD)O

(0cw

03O3

0)W0

OJ0O

Ol

Q.3W

05 0 c ^ c

.2 «J

—

D iS 5 < t) o c3O

G)

(03

COoc

COc

"co

CMI o

CMo

V.

Q.

Q.

CO

752I
0)o

.So

c:oSSoo

733 O

isw o o 5 cooo

0)ccoo3

asI c

0)

(00

(0

O

LU

OJ CO o ^ - 0

05 CD E = o </)

CO JS 2 ^

>. 5

OT E

C/)

O o^

CO ^

Q.

Si0 ~ T3

s>

CO (D cl£

CB 9 3 O «O)

Q

FP o

"a o c1

bits

O

_J o

cn

CO

Coo DCD

C

Q) -J Cc o

CO ^V)

— EEo ^ Q Q W

LU>

(A
c

'cc3ooo

x:

CD

0)c

0)>

CD

Q

Q_

U0)cI D

OO

4—'

CD Eo

C/)

CLo D0) DC o

a>

CO

oo ^ cc o

x> ^ EEo ^ Q Q

(/) LU>

(DV13

0) I0)OI

11

D(D CC c

Q)

Q)

Q)

CD cc o

,^>^ o

X> ^ EEo ^ Q Q

<a

LU>

(/) 0

03

Q)

L§3 >«ooca<

v>

T3C

(0wO

Q.Oo

0) Q

Q.

u.I

0)05

>»'^
Issues in FPD Interfaces for Personal

Computers & Workstations

Bob Myers

Senior Engineer

Advanced Systems Division

Hewlett-Packard Co.

Introduction

The development of interface standards for connecting flat- panel displays to computers is, by necessity, following a considerably different path than that taken

in the course of CRT display standards for computers. CRT display standards were

strongly influenced by the existing practices in television equipment, and even

today the impact of what are (on the scale of our industry) some very old television

standards is very apparent. For example, the most popular computer display

standard ever - VGA - is essentially a non-interlaced version of the U.S.

television format, and most computer displays still follow the ElA's RS-170 or RS-343 standards in terms of their signal specifications.

Flat- panel displays, of which the matrix-addressed LCD is probably the most

important example today, present a different problem, and there is no similar past

practice to draw from. These are essentially "digital" devices in terms of their basic

operation and interfacing. And yet, many of the same issues which had to be

addressed by CRT monitor standards face us when attempt to come up with

corresponding standards for FPDs.

There are two major classes of FPD applications to consider, each of which

presents unique challenges. The first, in terms of the extent of current usage, is the

Inclusion of flat - panel displays in portable or transportable products. This

category should be taken as including any application in which the display is contained within the same physical package as its host computer or other provider

of displayed imagery. In short, there is no requirement for a connection, external to the common packaging, which carries image information to the display proper. A

good example of this is the laptop computer, where the FPD typically has a direct

connection to a graphics controller located on the main PC assembly.

The second class of FPD application has not yet been very large from the

standpoint of current market volume, but will very likely at least equal and possibly

exceed the volume of the "all-in-one-box" category in the near future. This is the use of the FPD as a "standalone" display, more like the present model of

separate computer and monitor common in CRT display use. Standalone monitors

based on FPDs are already finding a place in certain space-critical applications or

In environments where the CRT cannot be used, and will find broader use as the

cost of such displays continues to drop. Such applications present a unique set of

FPD Interfaces for PCs & Workstations 1 B. Myers, Helwett- Packard Co., Jan. 1994
challenges, not the least of which Is the desire for simple interchangeability with

CRT displays - which may reasonably be expected to remain in use for the

foreseeable future. Requiring two completely separate interfaces to support these

two types of displays is clearly not an acceptable solution.

The Issue of Bandwidth

One of the basic factors behind many FPD interface problems is the bandwidth

needed in whatever channel delivers the image information to the display itself. As

compared to CRT displays, the FPD technologies generally can make more

efficient use of a given channel by virtue of not requiring a significant blanking

period (which can consume more than 25% of the total time available); thus, for a

given format and refresh rate, the overall data rate can be reduced. Still, the rates required for current and expected future display formats can present a formidable

challenge.

We can get a better feel for this problem by calculating the minimum requirements

for a number of these formats. Such minimums may be found by assuming that no

blanking or other "dead" time is required, and that the display technology in question does not require a certain minimum refresh rate in order to avoid

wide-area flicker (which means that the refresh rate may be chosen solely on the

basis of the need for smooth displayed motion). To further provide a data rate in terms of bytes per second, we can also assume a need for not more than 8

bits/color in the displayed image. These assumptions give the following:

All at 30 frames per second; zero blanking time.

Format Pixel rate Date rate at 3 bytes/pixel

640 X 480 9.22 MHz 27.6 Mbytes/sec.

800 X 600 14.40 MHz 43.2 Mbytes/sec.

1024x768 23.59 MHz 70.8 Mbytes/sec.

1 280 X 1024 39.32 MHz 118.0 Mbytes/sec.

1 600 X 1200 57.60 MHz 172.8 Mbytes/sec.

1 920 X 1080 62.21 MHz 186.6 Mbytes/sec.

We must keep in mind that the above are absolute minimums for the formats

described; more realistically, we should recognize that many technologies will require a faster refresh or update rate due to at least a partial reliance on temporal

modulation techniques to obtain gray-scale capability, and the assumption of zero

"blanking" time is also unrealistic. More practical rate estimates might be obtained

by doubling the update rate to 60 Hz, and allowing approximately 5% of the total as dead time. This would give the following, which might now be assumed to be

closer to the upper limit of the expected range of timings for these formats:

FPD Interfaces for PCs & Workstations 2 B. Myers, Helwett- Packard Co,, Jan. 1994
All at 60 frames per second; 5% blanking time.

Format Pixel rate Date rate at 3 bytes/pixel

640 X 480

800 X 600

1024x768

19.40 MHz 58.2 Mbytes/sec.

30.32 MHz 91 .0 Mbytes/sec.

49.67 MHz 1 49.0 Mbytes/sec.

1 280 X 1024 82.78 MHz 248.3 Mbytes/sec.

1 600 X 1 200 1 21 .26 MHz 363.8 Mbytes/sec.

1 920 X 1 080 1 30.96 MHz 392.9 Mbytes/sec.

Again, the data rates are based on a three-color system with eight bits per color; if these figures represent the highest rate needed for each format, the lowest rates for

each would be either the pixel rate (for a one- bit- per- pixel monochrome

system) or three times this rate, for a simple eight-color display. These rates are

in all cases lower than those required for an equivalent CRT display - but we

should recognize that the rates are not so different so as to make a common

interface unreasonable.

"Digital" vs. "Analog" Interfaces

Delivering image data at these rates could be accomplished in any of several ways.

The fundamental tradeoff in terms of a digital interface is one of channel width vs. clock rate. However, there are certainly limits to how far one can go in buying a

rate reduction through use of a wider channel; it is unrealistic, for example, to assume that one could achieve an eightfold decrease through this means in a

full-color (8 bits/color) display. Transmitting eight pixels at one time would require a 192- bit channel, not counting power, grounds, and clock and synchronization

signals. Such a massively parallel channel might be conceivable over a very short

path, as in a direct connection to the display in a laptop, but is most likely not

practical in any case where the display is separated even slightly from the graphics

controller. It is probably more realistic in this latter case to assume that the

connection is via a purely analog channel, perhaps an adaptation of existing video

signal standard. This would permit CRT and FPD displays to share the same

hardware port in the host system (although the timings for each would likely be

different). Even in the portable applications, an extremely wide parallel interface will cause problems. The economics and physical size constraints are driving very

high levels of integration in such systems, and drivers, pads and pins are precious

commodities in VLSI devices.

The obvious alternative to a purely "digital" channel (one in which the data is transmitted as one or more simple on/off or high/low signals) is an "analog"

transmission scheme, such as what we usually think of as video for CRT displays.

Extremely high bandwidths are possible in such a system, as a simple coaxial

cable can carry signals at least to several hundred MHz. But the traditional video

signal standards are definitely better suited to display devices such as the CRT, in which the video signal need not be accurately sampled and displayed with a

FPD Interfaces for PCs & Workstations 3 B. Myers, Helwett- Packard Co., Jan. 1994
one-to-one correspondence between the pixels of the host frame buffer and

those of the display. To do this in an "analog" system requires either the parallel

transmission of a high-speed and accurately-aligned sampling clock, or the

generation of such a clock by the display itself. (The latter is usually achieved by

means of a phase- locked loop synthesizer using the synchronization signals -

which also requires that the relationship between these signals and the video be

accurately maintained by the host.) Either choice requires additional cost in the

display as compared to the simpler digital interface, but can provide benefits

beyond high bandwidth - such as making the FP display compatible with other

options such as CRT monitors.

It should be noted that there are alternatives between these two. What we usually

refer to as "analog" and "digital" interfaces are actually just the two extremes of

transmission over a channel - a "continuous" signal and one comprising only two

discrete levels. There are intermediate possibilities, which use some number of

levels or similar encoding scheme of discrete states to convey more than a single

bit of information per sample. Such an encoding system can also be extended

over multiple physical channels; for example, two eight-level lines would be

sufficient to carry the equivalent of a six- bits- per- pixel video signal. Multiple

channels per color in such a system could permit a flexible interface which could

be configured for a wide range of formats, without the need for a high density

connector or large number of conductors in the interconnect cable.

3. Other Issues

While bandwidth is the basic concern as far as simply defining the interface

problem, there are several other factors which need to be addressed in designing a

practical solution. These are, in no particular order: - The cost of implementing the solution, - The ability of the interface to meet other constraints, such

as limits on radiated emissions, - Additional features, such as display control & ID or human I/O

connections, which will use the same physical cabling, - The limitations, in terms of things such as drive requirements,

timing constraints, etc. , of the technology used to implement

the interface, and - The flexibility of the interface (if needed) to adapt to different

display formats and technologies.

These factors cannot be assigned a single prioritization which will be applicable across all possible FPD designs. Cost will be the highest priority in low-end

systems; flexibility and the ability to include additional features may be more

important in higher-end applications. The limitations of the interface technology

and the need to meet various regulatory requirements will constrain interface

design in all applications, but these requirements may differ among specific

applications or systems. Standardized interfaces are very important to the

FPD Interfaces for PCs & Workstations 4 B. Myers, Helwett-Packard Co., Jan. 1994
continued success of flat- panel displays, but it may be a mistake to assume that a

single interface standard can meet the needs of all possible FPD uses unless

careful consideration is given to each of these areas.

4. A Single Standard?

Despite the wide range of possible interfaces and corresponding needs, there are undeniable advantages to a single physical interface standard. An excellent

example of this is again found in current PC -CRT practice - while there are as yet no true standards, such de facto standards as the 15-pin D-subminiature

connector used for the "VGA" video output connector have proven usable for

low-end 640x480-only systems up through high-resolution workstation -class

displays. Organizations such as the Video Electronics Standards Association

(VESA) are working now on developing the next generation standard for such

connectors, and such wide applicability is a basic assumption of these efforts. Is something like this possible for FPD applications? Could a single standard be

developed which could be used for all display connections, including both CRT

and flat- panel displays?

Current CRT video signals for computer displays are almost entirely based on the

RS-343A levels of approx. 0.7 V peak-to- peak, not including sync pulses. This

standard amplitude represents the biggest difference between these signals and

typical FPD interfaces, which are usually based on standard digital logic families

with a peak-to- peak swing of one to five volts. However, the trend in portable

systems - those which can be expected to make up the bulk of low-end FPD

applications - is to lower-voltage logic with correspondingly lower signal levels. It may be possible to define a single standard for signals and connectors which

would meet both the future needs of FPD displays and still provide backwards

compatibility with existing CRT displays.

Earlier in this paper, the range of data rates which can be expected to be required

for FPDs was presented. This range is slightly below the corresponding figures for

CRT displays, owing to the larger percentage of time consumed in the blanking

periods used with CRTs (20-30% of the total). Still, the frequencies involved are not so different that we should expect this to be an issue in developing a common

interface for both. And a common interface standard is definitely desirable -

manufacturers do not wish to produce different versions of their equipment

depending on the intended display, nor is requiring separate outputs for CRT and

FPD use an optimum solution.

This is a particularly opportune time to consider a common CRT/FPD interface

standard; the computer industry, through groups such as VESA, now recognizes

the need for new standards in both signals and connectors for CRT displays,

including the establishment of standards for the identification and control of the

display by the host. Designing these standards right from the start to be usable

with flat- panel displays as well should be viewed as a very high priority by all concerned.

FPD Interfaces for PCs & Workstations 5 B. Myers, Helwett- Packard Co.. Jan. 1994
Reviewing the issues presented here, we can now define the requirements for such

a common standard:

1 . The standard should define a connector or connector family and cabling which

is inexpensive enough for use by all systems, but which is capable of handling

signals in the range of 10 to 250-300 MHz, while permitting the system to comply

with all relevant EMI and safety standards. The connector and cabling should

provide sufficient conductors for carrying a minimum of eight bits per color at the

full rate, possibly through using a multilevel encoding system. The connector

standard should also meet the needs of display communications & ID and

multimedia features, as are currently being considered by VESA's monitor

committee and other groups.

2. There is in addition a need for sets of related format and timing standards, such

that a single graphics controller or video output system could easily be

programmed to drive both CRT and FPD displays which conform to these

standards, using a single standard reference clock. One possible solution would

be to base all timings on pixel clocks in the N x 2.25 MHz family, as this is the

established base rate used in video timing (as in the SMPTE-240M and CCIR-601

standards). This would provide simple compatibility between the two types of

displays as well as with video sources using any of the existing television

standards, and hopefully future HDTV standards as well. Some example timings in several standard formats are given in the accompanying figures. This approach

was also used in VESA's latest set of timing standards.

3. Finally, a new signal standard will need to be established which will permit a

single set of outputs to provide video signals for both CRT and FPD monitors.

CRTs can reasonably be expected to continue to use signals which are at least

similar to the current standard of approx. 0.7- 1.0V p-p at 75 ohms. Some FPD

monitors may also use this standard with a single signal each for red, green, and

blue, digitized by the display. However, it should also be possible to provide a more economical interface by using the same output design in parallel for a

multilevel interface. The "normal" video output could easily be configured to operate in this mode, with simpler outputs operating in parallel to provide additional

bits.

As an example, four outputs per color could be treated as four bits per color, eight

bits per color with four levels per line, or as a single eight- bit output as in normal

CRT practice. Adding additional lines for the pixel clock (or at least a reference

signal which is an integer fraction of that clock), plus the synchronization and

communication signals, should still permit a connector and cable of less than two

dozen lines which would be usable with all compliant displays. Given the display

ID functionality provided by this connector, a single video output design could be

automatically configured (in both the outputs used and the timing) for any display

selected by the user.

FPD Interfaces for PCs & Workstations 6 B. Myers, Helwett- Packard Co.. Jan. 1994
10

United States Display Consortium

Dr. Bob Pinnel, USDC


B

O 3© u wO c/i s s

>-> ^

C3 ^

&< Ci^ <n 'mm -3 §

On ^ u

C«

O

"5, 2 2S Si

--^

® • pa* s

0)

C/3 =3scu>ooPC

c«u

O) P

C/3

a> eg3 c

C3

V3©

d3 C3 ? ^ ^ .2

OX) e 3 ^ 3 a> I ^ 3 2 © on

C/3 3

0^3

C3

c/3

=: 3 3 ^ Q ^ 3 P £ s

CO

CO
o

enO c

a.a

a,I C co

03

'5

03o

OX) 3C

03scoc©

a.o

C/3 S

»\ u

X

flj

O

QJ ^ QJ

"7^

O <^ ^ S

see

Q.3

cr

OX)

03 ^

a, c o a, u ^ © 3 S a> u - > ,033

US 3

cu ^ 3 03 P c

c« OX) • mm

^-^ 03s3^3s

a.

*3

cr

=2s3 ^ ^ 3

.22 c ? -3 E3©3©

C/5

a.

a.

03

c/3 a;

OX)

"©3Q

Ph©

OX) 3
©%U ^ ^ S^ ^ 2 S ^ ^

Co

Co

CO

CO
C/3 QJcG o

C/3 E>I H o

a;

a.

asOEEo uP

C/3

C/3 O

C3 Q .2

.2 SS <

eS

ISFL

CO

C

(/3 o

C/3 Eo o

&X) c

'Sd

C/3 oCoo EC oE o>co

>ou 2 ^

OX) o c o

a.c

13

C/5 cSa u

—CSX

C2 a> S -a

C3

.Si

"a.

a<I

.2'>ao

Q, > S a

C/5 o o a 3 S 2

1^ SoC 1 = I*s ^ s ^

'5 I

St* ^ 2

aDX) ^ 3C

OS^ C ^ S

(/3 co

03

(J o

C/3

03 S c 5

-033Cc

03

BO

03C

03

03

C/3 E

a.>

-^

OX)

o: o

E2

OX) Q- 3 V5

OX) ^ 3 3 c/!) S p

03o

.SUE

Oil s o3

x:• r 3O

033

t/3

V3

"3 3O .3 • - OX) u© w

12 2 o E U o 3 a> O -3

13 3 ^ '3

itOW 3 ' © H 3©

OX)

"©3

x: 3

a> ^ © Cf3 3 3

03 'O3

OX)

—3

.-3 a. 3 .'^

03E3

03

QJ©

Oh 3 = 3 '-iS e5 .3 3 53 O ^

CO

CO

ou

0^

C/3

</3

C ^ Pi

u

Q S

73 ^

ft

OX)

O o ^ C ^ ^ cou I o

.s

C/3 o ©

§0 S C« c«

XS

C S ^ u a> c cd ^ Qi) 73 PHU< -11

C/3 o> 3c

73C

(/) O)o

73

C3C

03

W ^

Ph

w

B

as Pu

P^P

C/3

'"5 ^ > cr o S O C3

<>5
C/3

C/3 s z 1 1 ^ B

«5r OX) ® c ^ .S

'S ^ > Q

CO

*3 ^ c ^ 0 ^

a> cs a. ^ co1

*^

©

U

U OX)

OX) .S c ^ EoOo

*u. C

OX)

©

^©C©© C/5 ^ c-> © ^ c o s

eg

U

©

OX)

u

a.

a,

*3 J- « i © ^

s- 3 © C/5 ^

if

1^ 1 H <
11

Issues Related to Interfacing

Flat Panel Displays

Ms. Jill Seman, Chips and Technologies

o

o

o

0^

im

O

o

s

^

.2

^

o ^

o ^

a

h-1

So

S

Ph

s

o

o

fl

o

Q

o

In

o

o o UU

0^

s

o

U

D

a;

^

^ ^

'oS 'oS 3

(/3 c o ^

C3

fl fin • • •

Si; u
QO

u

C3

inuO o o

in6 5 5 cc

CO

ll

4-* -1— o o O O

DC

CO

d)

"Z

X ^

CO CM 7 o 52 > o <o m

CD o O CO . 

c^ CO o

DC -4= r- E3

CO

1.2

CO

r I5

CD CD

O

OC > CL

CO

CDC

W

<D

;— XCD

CD

p>4 <J) QQI QUoo

flo

COco

CO 5 o ^ o ^

-1

*—CD• 5—J

CO UL

CD a>- ECO Q.

rs I Q._l

O ^ CD

CO

O CO

0) 5 3 > CD Q o ^ _ CO

CO Q £ .5)

CD a*--. m <1> O

a. £E ^ — CO s

CO t:

CO

LU

LU>>

IT) aQ>

0)

V.3 OO CO O 0)

O)

jo 2

(D

O

.S >

<^ CO Q.

CO 3

CD CO

:§ %

CO CM
C

C3 QQQUEou

<uoco L o

CNCOo

CN

O

COo Oo

in

Oo3

00 o

CNCO

Xs00

<3-

Ooom ooo

in" o3o00 1 S;N; •^^^i •^^J; •^^ ^i^^ <^ 00

C/O 00

L \ ^.X \\ 5s.\ \\ \ 1L

ocC£3QC 1 O V'W* VV" VV* VV V'

r- X

X

Ha<

[1,o u < ^ QQQQQQQQ D D D D J

73EXwOs< noU-
'-a ^o o a Q

a; ^ C C s s ^ S > Jo

C3

.Sio

a;a

O c;

a;

X!

on

C3

C3oco

V5

a;s

a;

.So O

C3

a;>

ISo

hJ

a c so

OXc

C3

V5sc

DX) >

OX) QU

0^

a;ca^ ©>

T5

O

a> ' o

OX) c U

H-5 o

DX) oaaCO

0^a

a;ua

OX) H

13>o

.So
(/3

im uc

C3

C3

03 U

=3

InoUsau

CO

**- T3C

CO

(D

CO ^ N

CO

X E o O CD

CO

CD

in CO OO (1) o ^ c

*^ CO o c 5 5

COo

v>oE 5

in

COo

CMc

CO o

r- a.

CO

CD

CD

CD nr

CO ED

COco - o

CO t: ^

CD CD

O

DC > Q.

en>

CDE

CDO

CO

CD>MB o

Q)

D)C

z:<c

CO o

LLX

(/) c O O Z> S CO o ^

C3

OE

CDE

CDCoEo

CD

CDC

CO

CL >

(f)

T3

CD

CO3

CD

CO

i2

COc

(75 ooo i2oo

-J^

LU

LU>>QO>0

CO3

CD

CO

CO

COc

CD

O

DC i=co c CO o

CD

C5

0) CO CO

_co a>X CO

q. >»

CO a. ^ CO

CM o I o

CO Q-

<D ^ c c = CD

CO CD

t; *^

CO jt: D Q

CM

niJ
-3

N Q

00

L L

cc

1 I

u u

3

»

» I

0n

\ u w \\ w ^

^ \ \\ \\ \\ w ^

1

1 n

^ \\ ^ u \\ \\ \v \\ ^

;1

>«9

11 I

K7

n n

:-7 •

- ts

h

51

Ov o -H N m ^ irt 0^ pH i-t iH fH iH rH & & CLi 0. CLi Cl<

J

X

w50

si 0

.So

u a COw 0

)^'^ J >

<« « °i0 c

«^

.So

Ai2 0

oil
n o

Urn u

C3U

0^

•FNo o a

.£

a3 ^

5^ ^ u ^ O o c c S ^

QJ ^

in 03 o: ^ a a ^ u u

i2 03 03 o • • O

x: • ^ i 1

cruOa%c

03a

03O

a;

03ao

-0^

V5

DX)

03>

in<

.1^o

V3

03 o DiD > C ^ c

en ^

a;C ^ y 03 • •

a;
uc

a; Uooo

OX)

fluo o OOI ^ O CO o DC ^ Of) CD o o O O

CO

*+— DC

.2

X ^

(0 ^ »^ o O I LO CD

CO " ^

DC E " o

E-3

COcoo t CD H ^

CD

CO ^ O 2 -

CO "C ^

CD CD

O

DC > £L

B

s:u

in

>^ QQQQUu coMM

-J>

SxE ^

CD od

CD _J m UL

0)O CD

CO

O CO

CD 5 =3 3 C/) tr

OO

LLI

LJJ :^ > o ^ ^ > 0 ^

.><

Q

Q. n >

CO ^

CO

'5 o CO

CO 0

CNJ ^

CO 0S <i> o

Q_ EC 4- m O Q °

CO 0 >»

.E Q. — QCO 30 O CL

00 CM

CD iJ
0^c

PhQQQU

_oo L I II II II II II II II II II II II

i4UQ

UQ So1/5 >-H

O

Oh

XX 0

><

(N0X

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX 0X X

XXX

x;

XXXX X

XXXX

XXX0 X

X

XX

XX0 0 ffi X 7X0X

X

XX

><

XX

XX 0X0

><

Oh Oh

in vo 00 os

Oh Oh CL, 0, Oh

O --I (N CO IT)

Oh Cli CLi Oh Ct| Cli 0 C I/) cv u

c3 Oh

--I in o o o1—1 o ^ oO 13c

'I2 W

£6 o

as OhX 1u3m

wuM

COw

(Ao0u0Q

00>u

•dt0ca3U

XI

X!o

4> 00

VO
a;D

in Hau

^1I QU

OUac

a;

;^ac>

inu co u ^ ^ o ^

a;

QC oT

0^ 0^ ^a ^ ^ c u a o

c3 c ;j

uo

.5 ^ O

in

0^a

0^ao

^•^

So; ^ ox 2 ^

0^ o

ox

Os

oxc

*s

s:

a;muoacaucO

^1 > s .s

ox

13 2 > o . • n

IE
V3cHU

«^o

yi

a;

UI K>u

Pho

T3C

03

0)

(0

N

CO

X E o o CO COI CO T-1 CO o 09 ate c o a o

cr o

CO imes 1 o

tio res E3 o (0 h- *^ CO o

Tq:

CO ponse

CD

oc Con

CO "co o CD c CO o o CD CD o O o > Q.

C/3 s

a;

pCQH <

-Jmc

CO o

LLX

(/) c O o z

'5 >

CO (A o ^ E ^E O (D

CO

CD> Oz

CO c —

Q

CDCo

CD

CO3

CD

CO i> E c ^

co-D 2 - CD

Q)C 3 CO

CO O"

—

OL CD

O

u)2 o c CO o QO

-J

LU

LU>>

+^ QO> O CD O .tz

CD ^ X CD

Q- CO

CO

CD

CO D)

CD CO c is = o

CO >

CO ^ Q.

CM 3 ^ CO o

00 CD

cjT cnj

IILI HIV

:cJ
0^

a;

C

H

H

o

o

U L

J

u

Q

X X X X X X X

X X XXX

X X

0 0

XXX

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

XXX

X X

XXX

0

o

a X ><

XXX

0

Q

X X X X X

XXX

D

X X

X X X X X X

X X X X

X X

1^ fii &i

5^

O^^C^)tn'^tO\O^OOC^O

rHrHrHr-ltHr-lr-lrHr-tf^)C^CS(N

0

X

H

0 $

X" ^ _ rl

8

-

@

e

U 0 cs 'S

Oh

0

0

1

00
a; HHU

HH

C3

C3

OX)

In

C3

c/5

C3

C3

CDc

.2io

a;a

1/3 <t- S ^

-^2

-5 ^ ^

a; o ^

fi ^

cS ^

fi fi 2

C3 C3 5

I- • Gao

In

OX) >QU
(d4

C3CUcQU so oa 5

a;

CDU> Q ooco U

... S ^

OX) c:

In E c

c/5 so o^

13 ^

0^

0H

uo

C3ou

O C3

C3

C o a;

cn

"ISc

.2f oU

DX)

cruO

® s

0^ OX) ^ ?

c/3

0^

'aa

a;

ox

C3O

0^ oaoa

V5O

0^

OX) ^ -2

0^> ni
12

High Resolution Color LCD Interface Issues

Mr. Sunder Velamuri, Cirrus Logic, Inc.
(003wo©Ooo

CO

(0c

CDOcoo

(0

(0cE

CD

(0C O"

0) o

(0 DC

"5o

(0cE? o ; o

f- CD

^) .E

i5

X S LU c

'5)

(Do

03

(0

enooo

Q.co

0) -lis CD

O0O
0) o

(0

(0O

Q.

(0

0)E

(0co

"So o

Q.

Q. c (0

mmm o 0)

ical

IL.

oti\

Q. o E

Q. o o

(0 0)

CO o <

EW

w 66

"2c o X I LU o .JS

"F to 0 (0 S

(0

Q.

O 1 I I I O ^
(0 QOOOO

0)co

to coc

0)E

G)

0)

"5

(5

0) o8 oo Q O

Q. Z

(0O

II^B co o o o

(0 (0 (0 O Q Q O O O
QOOOo

tf) 3

0)

(/)

00

COX

CMO

'it

CMOXo

00

CM

(0co

u>

00 o

00Xo

CO

COo

Q.

C3

Oo Xo

(/) >< 5 §

LU 00 £ O o o

.1i ^ cO - — J C 0) o0 ^

COO

00Xo

CO

CO <D

0. 0) o o o

CO

Q.o

Q.

iS

CO

LJJ

V ^

CO

COcoE

COoooco H0 0 S CC

*:f ^

iS o a -J

CO CO Q G O O U -I I I 0 ^ 0 8 2 Co

COm CO

O CM T- 0c0^

CO

LU

CO o E -2 oo I I I 0>00

G)o>c

D)

CO

4-' CO oc

COooI u2u
oOOOo

(/)

0)0

0)

(0

10o

(0a

(0

0)0

Hiwoo>o

0)a > .E E ^

4-* o

(0

(0

Q.

(/)

0) c o

.2 T3

0) CO

CC^ c 2 "o

>. o « o a u

^5

LU 0)

O ^ O o « 

O .2 _ "-^ ^

(0 £ .£ w £

0) = Q UJ

OO

-J >* O =

f? Q) o S £

.12 <o

w

(/> o coo co o £ < < O ^ S

S- -2 2 o

U) i~ £ o o

cS o E o

ZI ^ o m o O o cc
oooo

(03

(0

0)0 u

(0Eo

COc o

(0

0)N0E3E

(00

(0

>»

iS

Q. 1(0

"O

"D

Q>NE «§ i20

|lS (0 CO C 4-* ^ O o £ o > w

>- 05 ^ 0 -hS ^ g

jO 0

+- 0 o .5> "5 — ~ 0 S H 5 S i I I 5 « s E -2 S I Q >

(/) oo

75E
o

O)oo

COoc

(0

Q. o

CQ0 Oa0Eo

(0oc

ID oc

CO

Q.

(00O

(000c

(0

Q.o

X2oC

CQ

Q.X0 0 0

O) -Q 1 I

LUC

75 15 E E ^ c o 5

+- o 0 9 = -o s a O 3

COA

(0

+-» c0cn

(0 c o O a.

'4= 0

CO >

Q.

O

W CO

CO

Qc

CO

Q.0> 0o

Q. D0 O N +-

COoo

CO0 » m 4-* = 55 S < S
(0c

(0

Q.Xoo3 uo
0)coSgwcoo

(0MB0

CO

(5c o 2 0 (0 a>co o>

<00N

0)

ia ^ 5 CO

"E E o u c O

c5

<^

.-s .t; -£ 0

.H c ^

i3 iS CO < < S a. ^ 0 o o

Q. Q.

Q.a

CO CO o o
co

Q.OooaBc

OSEo o O O >

(J) >Oz

>-

(f) X - CO 8 o

CO cc 0 o

.E 1 —. CO c o

(0 0)

Q- IS ^ c = o ^ o « To o

0) c

(00

(0 *-

*- o H-I 0

Q.a

D

C 2 <^ c t o o

(0 <^ 0 (0

110 (0

IT

O E 3 O Q.

*^ ts X 3 0 O 0 0

±i o = o <i> 5 > £ ^ ^co N 5 O C ^

<0 c 0

Uo

CO o iS 3 O O

CO CD Q)

Q..Si CO 0 o Q TJ > I i I 0c0

"5o

"55 oo0

(0co

CO0

Q.oo 3 0 c ^

CO>

CO

CO

0)ooc

CO0o

CO

Q.

CO CO

.2 §

T3

n co0

CO 5 2 O s— a o " I

CO 3 o c ^ 0 — !=

CO

^111
0)co

Q.OOwc oooz

>-oz

>-

(/) X

CDw

C£o

(0c o (0o 0 (0 c

"S

G) c O o

CO o c 1 <

CO

CD c>coooo

(03

0)

CO0 ooo

C/) <ocoo

>»0Eo 0>cooQ^ E £ *i

o)"5> I -o I 0ao0

CO

JOa

CO c

"5Eo

T3OO

COc

COoc

MBO (0 5 0 0 0> o

CO 0 E iS

CO Q. I 0Nao0

CO33O > o .E

CO 0 CO

+-» CO Q, CO G CO Q 0O

CO

Q.

CO

COo

ToO co I I

210 3

JQ CO £ C 1 ^ 0 0 ?5

CO

O

— Q.

CO £0 O

CO £

CO ^0 CO

O) o

CO o

CO O)

CO >»

CO ^ Q >
oo«

Uic

mw^m wX

0)ococ

><

LU oz

>-

(/) oz>

(0z

"S

Q.

(0

0) 3

cS 0 CM O5 ^ LU

0)

CO °°

CO o O

.t^ OQ o>

CO

COo

C3) Ci>oE

T3a

(0

CO >

in

— CO

CO0o5 CO C CO

±^

O) o c >

COco

Q.

Q.3

CO

COQOO

COO

CO0

CO

CO n 0

±1 Z ^

co

g I

.!2 0

LU .E I

COoa

CO

CD0Eo00

CO

mmm 0O0 — Z CO

CO

CO

""5 o 0 -o 2 O 0 1- co 0 0 C (0 o

CO f- ^ w O

CO

X o

.2 I 0o

Q.

Q.

COoD03

D"0

k.

CO0c= CO

CO .2

to o

"° 0

a> SJ

if

"'I X O I
wc

0)E0

swmm 3C

0)

(0a£oo

(0

COu>NX

lO ^

-o

!-= c 2 CON

fiL CM Eoo

.E (o E t:

(A

"55 .2

Km — 3Ooc

0) 23 ^

(A1 S 2 N +- a 0) coE<

CO

LU> < S o p o

0)

CO £ a_E ^ o -C

0)

0) > ^ c u o o o

lol^ o c

(/) CO
Refresh |

rate

(Hz) 1

K3 K3 8

1

nes

reqiired 1 CO CO 00

ns

and

data

II

4096

colors C\J Hi

B

^

512

colons 00 G) 00

T— o> CO

Qock

rate

67.5 i2

39.375 19.688 3Z5 16.25

Pel/dk (M CM

Panel

Size

1280x1024 1024x768 1024x768

i

!

13

The Voluntary Standards Process

Mr. William Burr, NIST

u

S3u

(0

(0c o S

(0E c

CDE

D) Q. = >

-Q .E

(1) OS

Q. .9- o

t:

(TS Q.

>»

OSE

(1) >

CD

C

CDE

Q.O

CD>

CDo

Q.

(0

Q.

(0

0)

"DOO

(03O

OS>

(0o

(0o

T5O E

0)

T3

i_

OJ

T3

03

>» 'J0 — re o> C (0 3 o O> 0oc000 ^ o o " o =

(0 iS0

OJ 0

(0

_

(0 OJE 3

Q. o o>0Eo 03

(0O

Q.X0

OSE —c o0 0 0 S SI 0 OS

SI ^

>»E E

0)0 0

55 CO ^

OS

O 0

II I I I I T T T T

"1

T

Tn
ouu0 oN1o , . fit

tno

(0

(0

(DOO

(0E

(0

(0

O 3 iS 0 JQ

si

Q, (0 C ^ --So

CO o

OSo I oI O

CDOcoo

CO0

0)

(IS 0

OS >oE I 8

|3 "1

T
S3 < O

(0 (0

D)

O

(0

— I >

^2 c o eg

Mlo3 O O -5, OS05co

OSa

OS

(TJ (0 o c 0 o o c S;J -g _ o C 05 >

(0

O +3 -

T3 "E += = ^ 2

05 Q. 0 O

:^ o

05

05

+j ^ 05

—-Or- c

Q..*i <o 3 »- =

CO ^-o 0o

05oomO LU C CO

0)

0)

(0o

(1)

"U

0)

C

O 3 ^ > -5 o (/) o ^

CD I 05 Q.

(/) 05 c

"D <D 05

c5 > (0 n CD 20 £ —o coo0o

Q.0

iZ

(5co

05co

05Nc

05

O)o

U) oo0E0

i_

Q.3

(0 o o .E

iii M- -J 0 (/)

.2— o 5 05 0 0 ^

to 0 O 0 ^

0)I (0

T3

05

"DC o

05oo S CO

CO < ^ T n "1 T T T
T

n -1 o

as0o o o !2 b

>* E o E jc c ^

(A > O 0 O JO c — Cu

T3 0 <D

"DC c o m o 0 0>oao b c O E m

"0 0 0^

58 «

T- E o

(0

0)0oo

OS

(0co

(0O :: c z

180 0o 0 O O (0

"i> o

>»_oo 0 E

(1) (0 > £

i> <3 ^ CD

or CO

"5

— o> ^

OJ o O CM O

.nj o> .=

"S > =b

(5 o 0

i: Z O)

.a c = E O OS 0 -

c^

m

O

0) ^ 0 0 E i 0 >

T3 ^ ^ (/) £^ 0

,r 5 9> "E S c ^ ? S

05 "D -M (/) 1- O OS

Q.T3 0 C

OS

IS E

(/)

u.

m (0 0

.ro 0

CO Q. 2 (0 c O o ^ <^ 8

1^

is0 CO

(00o0

CIS o

>»co 5 ZCTS 15

CO G)

isl C CO 3 C - 0 0^

CO

c^E0•a o >o 0 Q.0 ~

CO 0

CO o S>

CO -C o

CO0

4-oc

COo

CO0c

CO

Q.Eoo

O)c

+-» CO0o0m

CO0 s o3o

CO

CO

CO0o 0 o

%L CO

f| ^ M| «^

WM x-:o>; i'^ 1 1 1
6

o

PQ

U

mm

mm

c

O

LU

O

CO

CD

_go

c

x:

<D —

FCO

|-§|

E

oc

O

i

4^

e

CO LU

LU

LU mm

CO 5 5S ""Ills

5»

O

CO S g

Q.J2 CO

w> .—

£ C

o

c

.9

( ) c o Q.E

CO

PI

2T3 E

Q-S E ocoo

£2u

5^0) .. .E Q. ^ ^ (a

to .. ^ Q.i2-^

^ n 1 T

^ "1 "I T
t3

0)

"U

(0C

iSo

T5

(0

(1) ao

(D>

(1) D

(0 > C5

CD

*^ ^

(0 o ±; c -o o oo

OS

(0 u

OSc

to

iSco>

15co

(0 ~ C/) 3 O ^

CL LO

CD ^

(0o>

1^5EE " o

111

O

O

•2 1

OS "(5

D)

O

(0 o

"D

(TS

O c o

TO _0

C/) LU

75 75

(0 o o

C5 (0

W

(0 (0 I I
in<

(03

"(5o

CO +-» OS0

i_

15 o o 5 o TO

Q.

(0 oc O 1 c oo

OS

15

(0o

Q.oo>oo

0)

(0c _

iS CO

(0 z

CO ^ E3 ooI <

CO

LU> < I I

OSc

(0

1- "O o ^ O oo

aso

05

(0c

O)o ^ o << >^ LU

CD T3 ^ Hi ^ LU

(0 LJJ

T3C

OS O

jJLj o

CO0Eoo

oej 0 o

LU

CO o o o

J_ (/) 0 "U C OJ

*^ "O E TO

CO ^

CO

(/) z

Jo<I T T T
T

n 1 O

u

-11

O

•i-j OSNc

OS ? o O ^

"D c

±S .12 ^ m

(D LU ^ 111 o == o I (0

0)ooo

(0 00

0)EEo "s

(0 ?EEoo

in

(0

T30

(0C

1-OO

OS

as(0

COXI E

(0

(0

OS> o

(0 o ^

D) (0 3 as ^ o O ? O £

Q. o

(0 ^

"D c 0 as O CO o z O I en ^

ni

T

T ^

"I "1

T
#####

u

<

o

o

CO

CO

c

CO

(0 o

(0

CD CO O

O

CO

CD

O

fai np

CO

CD

CO (0

P CO

3

CD

CD

O

O

I o

I MM

c

D)

OO

0)

CO D

to

"co

CO

c

CO

CO

3

CO

c

CD

CO

o

o

CO

0

CO

CD

>

CO

^ m| ^ ^

^1 "I T
T "1

T 1^

-t-^^ .-.W^

(/3

WD

?/5

uooo

(0 5 > ^ Q.

it oj

CD "§

Eoo B3

(0oc

(0oE

(D

iS ' E

CDE

(1) oo

iS

(0

(0

(DOO

Q.

T3

(1) DC0o co

'55 (03O

0)

0)0Oo5o > o ^ Q.

(0 ^

OS oE

Q.O

05 c Q. C

Q. £? 3 O O o >» o (/) O (TS

0) 0 E € O O

(0 o

—I 0

OS

OSo

Q.3O

1-

D)3O

>»

0)

(0 o

(0a3O

0)c I I I i iS

(0

1^ - oo

0)5I

"1 "J "i

T
CX2 ouQ (0Q .Eo 3 > o .9- 2 I c I _ S 1 S

^111

as>o

(0co O ^ ~ > oOo

(0

(Do

CD ^oo o

0)0O o3 r « E -2 O o

odO 0 o ~ "E g o 8 I 1 & EI I o

(/) MB>oSL. o

(0 CL

CO § O o o o

sZ *^

(0 0)

(0

Q.Oo O 2o O (0 —CD Q.— "D

COO I O o

0) <1> Q-iS CO iJ ^ 1= "S i O =

(D I

"1 ^1 'I ^1 ; "I T T
CMOU

PhQ 0 .Eo 3 >

(D ^ O .5- 2

CL o s 1 ^

OS>o I

(0coo

CDo

0)coMMo 3 >o

(0 (D

o3 ^ 0

mm> O 06 E -2

0^$O o

IS

(DU

a (0 I oo o

'35coo oo

-3 0 E ^ I I ^ T T "i "I

*1 "I

TT
"Oo

Q.OO>

CD

"U

(0

(0

0)

T30

(0O

Q.O o+-» o

CO3

T5>

mw^m c

CO .s>

05

Q.OO

CO>O o

(0 o

>»

"DO

(1) ^ > o S> ^ It oc

<0

(0coO

O

II P O) >O

T5

O

O

COco

Q. I CL CO

CD

+-» COc

MOsoO

CO—C CTJ ^-J D ^0 0 O > O O C CD C X

CO LJJ I I

COi

CO

CO

CTJ >oo

75

JQ

(/)

(0coX0

x:coE

CO

CTJ .1i5

4-» o

CO s T ^ T 'Jl ^

COc

T300u

O0 ^OO0

'is 8 1.8

g- CO

O

1- I I

+J0

CO

•4-*

C/) 3E 0o

Q.00

jQ

'I-' (/> 3E

(/> co

+-» o0noD0>O

C/) (0 p 3E c3

yS^J >%^^ '""^H .'.W^ -I?^
to

c

1o

>

o

c

o <^

S i

o ^

_ "O — o

5 1

# IsD" ll T ^
# iP # # # ^

T T 'T 'M -M

<

o

E

© -a

c

0) CO ^

5) .E

« o « 1 ^ 1 ^ i

c

CL

^

*r ^- fli f/i ^ D o = ^ £J a ^

C5 "D (/) O Q. CO O

O I I I I I I CQ

^as stJKS 1 T ^ T T n

,wj

""I
i:^^?r"l T "I "1
xnU

55ou o

COocoon

(IS E o

to o o c

h- oE

Q. c OO

ure 1

dev3+j o O o

OJ1 Q. c

CD

k_

0/

FN fli o50

(0Ooo

(0 05

V. Q.

05 0 c 05

(0

(0 ay

55 E O

(/) o 3O

vari (0o

ft Eo1

COQ

(0 z<

-J

ego

00

LU

LU

Lll o3

"U

CDOO

O ft CO o

CO

(0

n 05

J;; 4S ^

"U 05

05

05 0>

1- 0) a uQ. ^

05 o

05 I I

^^i"? "7

T

t:? 1^ ti

a> o N ^

Pio

5/3 o£

a; 5 = O 2

73O

73OOO

73O

SI

0)3

73

.11

£= 8

(0>c

05O c

05

Q.Eoo

G> nE

(DE<o

LUO

(0

05

05 5 CD

T3 < o o (/) LU

is

CO -g Z (/)

05>o

CO

(3 ^ < .E o Q.X0 c o

05

O

—

=^ CO O

COo

>»o

0)

05 .trE

(0 o

Q.0

JZ

CD I I I EEoo

OSo

rds COX

73 D) C C

iS

a mam 1o %

LU

Xo

LU

UJ

(1)

0)c oEE b o o O Oo

CD

IcoX

CDC

CO

c!r^ ^
14

Electronic Industries Association (EIA)

Mr. Thomas Mock, EIA
EXISTING EIA STANDARDS SETTING PROCESS

USERS PRODUCERS PUBLIC

IDENTIFY OR REQUEST [*- A NEEDED STANDARD

5 YEAR OLD

INTERIM

STANDARD

NO

EIA STANDARD AFTER 5

YEARS OF PUBLICATION

OR REAFFIRMATION DATE

COMMITTEE

CONSIDERS

THE NEED

FOR AN

EXISTING

OR NEW

STANDARD

REAFFIRM,

REVISE, OR

RESCIND

STANDARD

COMMITTEE

REQUESTS A

PN NO. FROM

EIA-HQ

YES EIA-HQ ISSUES

A PN NO. AND

NOTIFIES ANSI

A COMMITTEE TASK

FORCE/GROUP IS

FORMED

YES, REAFFIRM

EXISTING STANDARD NOTIFY

ANSI

A COMMITTEE TASK

FORCE/GROUP

REPORTS ON RESULTS

PN NO.

(YELLOW)

BALLOT

MAILED

DRAFT 1+N DRAFT 1

YES ENGINEERING

COMMITTEE VOTES

ON PROPOSAL NO

COMMITTEE/

SUBCOMMITTEE

YES, BUT

NEEDS

CHANGES

YES

EDITING/

CORRECTIONS

SP NO.

ISSUED

SP 1

(PINK)

BALLOT

MAILED

COMMITTEE/

SUBCOMMITTEE/

ANSI BULLETIN

YES, IF THE COMMITTEE

AGREES, THE FINAL DOCUMENT

IS ENDORSED BY THE PANEL

OR COUNCIL CHAIR AND THEN

SUBMITTED TO THE EDEC CHAIR

BEFORE PUBLICATION OF AN

INTERIM STANDARD.

I

SP 1+N

ISSUED

EDEC

PUBLISH

INTERIM

STANDARD

NO

YES

PUBLISH

APPROVED

STANDARD

PN = Project Number

SP = Standards Proposal

EDEC = Engineering Department Executive Committee

ANSI = American National Standards Institute REV. E
Reference to Patented or Patentable Products in EIA Standards

Requirements in EIA standards that call for the use of patented items should be

considered with great care. While there is no objection in principle to drafting a proposed

Standard in terms that include the use of an existing or pending patented item, if it is considered that technical reasons justify this approach, committees should ensure that

no program of standardization shall refer to a product on which there is a known patent

unless all the relevant technical information covered by the patent is known to the

formulating committee, subcommittee, or working group. If the committee determines that

the standard may require the use of patented or patentable item fsi then the committee

chairperson must also receive a written assurance from the organization holding rights

to such patents or patentable item(s) that a license will be made available without

compensation to applicants desiring to use the license to implement the standard or a

written assurance that a license will be made available to all applicants under reasonable

terms and conditions that are demonstrablv free of any unfair discrimination. Additionally,

when a known patented or patentable item is referred to in an EIA standard, a Caution

Notice, as outlined in this document, shall appear in the EIA standard. The term

"patented", as used in this policy, also includes pending patents on items and processes

under consideration by a committee, subcommittee, or working group.

All correspondence between the patent holder or applicant and the formulating

committee, subcommittee, or working group, including a copy of the written expression

from the patent holder as mentioned above, shall be transmitted to the EIA Engineering

Department at the earliest possible time, but not later than the point in time when the

standards is ready for subcommittee or committee ballot circulation.

Committee Chairpersons Responsibility Concerning IPR

The Chairperson must call to the attention of the members present the requirements

contained in EIA Legal Guides, and call attention to the obligation of all participants to

inform the Committee of any knowledge they may have of any patents, or pendino

patents that might be involved in the work they are undertaking. Appendix E - Legal

Guides Summary provides viewgraphs that should be used at the beainnino of the

meeting to satisfy this requirement. Additionally, all participants must be asked to read

the statement on the back of EIA Sign-in/Attendance Rosters.

When a formulating committee has determined through its balloting process that a patented or patentable item or process is included in the proposed EIA Standard,

the following notice shall be Included in the inside front cover in addition to that

given in Appendix D:
Committee Chairpersons Responsibility Concerning IPR (continued)

"The user's attention is called to the possibility that compliance with this standard

may require use of an invention covered by patent rights.

By publication of this standard, no position is taken with respect to the validity of

this claim or of any patent rights in connection therewith. The patent holder has,

however, filed a statement of willingness to grant a license under these rights on

reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions to applicants desiring to

obtain such a license. Details may be obtained from the publisher."

In addition, a footnote should be included on each page that has a reference to patented

item(s) as follows: "Compliance with this section of the standard requires the use of

patent No. XXXXXXX, XXXX." or "The formulating committee has determined that a patent

has been applied for elements involved in this Section. The applicant, XYZ Company has

agreed to [license without royalty] [license under reasonable terms demonstrably free of

discrimination.]"

Policy Statements on EiA Sign-in/Attendance Rosters

The policy statements reproduced on the reverse side of ElA Sign-in/Rosters shall

become an integral part of all Committee and Working Group meetino's minutes and a statement shall be included in the minutes indicating that the foregoing policy was

complied with.

2
Commonality between EIA and International Standards

It is the policy of the of the U.S. National Committee of the International Electrotechnical

Commission (USNC/IEC) to work toward commonality between lEC Standards and U.S.

National Standards. Commonality between lEC Standards and U.S. National Standards

shall also be an objective of EIA Committees. During the development of an EIA or JEDEC standards proposal, the formulating committee, subcommittee, or working group

shall conduct a review and compare the standards proposal with any similar I EC or ISO

standard. Where similar lEC or ISO standards exist, a determination shall be made

regarding the extent to which the EIA standards proposal is based on an existing

international standard.

Where similar I EC or ISO standards do not exist, it shall be recognized during the

development of the EIA standards proposal that the resulting standard will represent a

basis for a U.S. position in the development of an international standard. EIA is currently

responsible for supporting the International Secretariat activities of eight lEC TC's and

SC's for which the U.S. holds the secretariat and serves as TAG Administrator for

approximately 40 U.S. TAGS for lEC and ISO TC's and SC's. The EIA Engineering Staff

can provide information to committee chairpersons or secretaries on how an EIA

committee draft-standards-proposal may be reviewed by the Technical Advisor of one of

these groups to obtain assistance in following the above policy and in development of the

I EC or ISO similarity statement.

Statement Outlining Similarities with Non-EIA Standards

During development of a standard, the formulating committee or working group shall

conduct a review and compare the standard with any similar non-EIA standards such as those from the International Electrotechnical Commission (lEC), International Organization

for Standardization (ISO), Electronic Industries Association of Japan (EIAJ), etc. EIA

standards should agree technically with these non-EIA standards, especially international

standards, unless there are valid technical reasons why this is not possible. Once this

review has been completed, the chairman should select the one paragraph of the

following five that most nearly expresses the extent to which the standard agrees with a

similar non-EIA standard. The wording may be modified if necessary to achieve an

accurate statement. This information is useful to U.S. users of EIA standards as well as

to the cognizant U.S. Technical Advisory Group for international standards. The

paragraph selected will appear on the inside front cover of the completed EIA standard.

(1) "This standard is based upon the major technical content of [International

Electrotechnical Commission] [or International Organization for Standardization]

[or Electronic Industries Association of Japan] Standard [number], [title], [date].

It conforms in all essential respects with this [lEC] [or ISO] [or EIAJ] Standard."

3
statement Outlining Similarities with Non-EIA Standards (continued)

(2) "This standard contains the major technical contents of [International

Electrotechnical Commission] [or International Organization for Standardization]

[or Electronic Industries Association of Japan] Standard [number], [title], [date].

It differs from [I EG] [or ISO] [or EIAJ] Standard [number] in certain important

respects, as given in Appendix . These differences have been called to the

attention of the U.S. National Committee of the [lEC] [or ISO] [or EIAJ] Technical

Committee [number], [title], [date], and resolution of these differences will be

sought in future meetings of [TC number] [or EIA number]."

(3) 'This standard was developed by EIA Committee [number] after consideration of

the contents of the latest draft of the [International Electrotechnical Commission]

[or International Organization for Standardization] [or Electronics Industries

Association of Japan] [Document] [or Standard] [number], [title], [date] covering

this subject. This standard does not agree with [I EC] [or ISO] [or EIAJ]

[Document] [or Standard] [number]. The important differences that made

reconciliation of the two documents impossible are given in Appendix . These

differences have been called to the attention of the U.S. National Committee of

the [lEC] [or ISO] [or EIAJ]."

(4) "This EIA standard is considered to have international standardization implication,

but the [International Electrotechnical Commission] [or International Organization

for Standardization] [or Electronic Industries Association of Japan] activity has

not progressed to the point where a valid comparison between the EIA standard

and the [lEC] [or ISO] [or EIAJ] document can be made."

(5) "This EIA standard is considered by the formulating committee not to have

international standards implications or interest."

4
APPENDrX

PATENT POLICY GUIDELINES

Committee discussion of pending or existing patents is a permissible activity and

is encouraged when the Committee feels that the subject pending, or existing

patent represents the best technical practice for a given standardization.

Discussion of a pending or existing patent does not constitute an

acknowledgement of the validity of the patent since validity is based on prior art and determination of who first (made application) (discovered the technique or process). The Committee or Working Groups concern is with its technical

content and whether that content is suitable for standardization.

By its terms, the Patent Policy applies with equal force to situations involving 1)

the discovery of patents that may be required for use of a standard subsequent

to its adoption and 2) the initial issuance of a patent after adoption. Once

disclosure is made, the holder is obligated to provide the same assurances to EIA as are required in situations where patents exist or are known prior to approval

of a proposed standard as an EIA Standard.

Thus, if notice is given of a patent that may be required for use of an already

approved EIA Standard, a standard developer may wish to make it clear to its participants that the EIA Procedures require the patent holder to provide the

assurances contained in the Patent Policy or suffer the withdrawal of ElA's approval

of the standard as an EIA Standard and ultimately as an American National

Standard.
BRIEF SUMMARY

IMPROPER ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS

. PRICES AND PRICING, POLICY

. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE

. COSTS PERTAINING TO INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES

. FUTURE PLANS OF INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES

. BOYCOTTING CUSTOMERS OR PRODUCTS

CONDUCTING ACTIVITIES

. NOTICES AND AGENDAS

. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS

* OPENNESS

* DUE PROCESS

, VOTING

. MINUTES

I
BRIEF SUMMARY

EIA/JEDEC PATENT POLICY SUMMARY

• Requirements in Standards that call for use of a patented

item or process may not be considered by formulating

Committees unless all of the relevant technical

information covered by the patent or pending patent is

known to the formulating committee or working group,

and the committee Chairman has received written

expression from the patent applicant or holder that one of

the following condition prevails:

(1) a license shall be made available without charge to

applicants desiring to utilize the patent for the purpose of

implementing the standard(s), or

(2) a license shall be made available to applicants under

reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free

of any unfair discrimination

In either event, the terms and conditions of the license

must be submitted to the EIA General Counsel for review.

An appropriate footnote shall be included in the standard

identifying the patented item and describing the

conditions under which the patent holder will grant a

patent
15

Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA)

Mr. Scott Vouri, Binar Graphics, Inc.

>

O

^

S O 0)

N

^

CO d)

CO

CO CO CO

CO C

"S

"

5J

o a 0)

(0

« =5 £

^

c (0 IE 0)

«^ (3-5=
©Hu>

(0

(0 o

(5c

CO

GO

(0 ^

0) c =

Q- Z 5 I 1 ^

CO 2

O)c

(0 ^

§; E

0) o > > >

(D
CmU

in>

(0

a.

(C

T3<c

(0

«> s

Q. 2

(0 c 5 oO

0) (0

I" ^ o o

(0

0)

(0

(03

ffl

0) 0) 5 « E I o o O 0)
0^uU©

(0

CB O

0)

Q

(0 n

(0co

0) I 8 CO O ^ O) ^ O _J

a> J.O

Q. -S

H < = <

(0

JQ

(0

0)>

(Q

<j> O

(0

Q. "S

MB

H

0)

Ph o

Q.

(03

i2 (0 >

(0 o

UJz m
o

13H o

0)oo

(0 2 — c 5 o > o o ^ S J <

0)o«c

(0 (0

"S - C 2 5 (5 I ^ S (0> o 5


03Ou

On© oooccoo

0)

(C 0) o c o «

CO ^ > T3 < m < <

C/) 0)

CD coo0

(00a

LO

CMX ^ 5 § DD

CO

Csl

TCM 2DC

A (D

(0 _^ = 2

(U o E " £ (0
Os> coo3o

tooo o 2 « ^ c o 3 O ~ O "iP ~

.£ c o

(0 3 Z

V3

>

c

o

3

•a

CO

c

oMM

o

o

X

(0

(0 _ m Q.

(0

i: -r; '-S (U

iI 3

ffi

±: m DQ

CM CD

o

o

X

CO 1- HI

N

u

a

QJ

©

H

c

c

o

o

OOO^ t

(0

c

c

o

o

OOOC o

oooc c

o

ooo

coo

Int. ^^\^Ext.

Clk Hsy Vsy o m

o

o

c

o

>

fl) .0)

o

0

Q.

CO

W

o

o

0)

LU

Q < O
NuoH

Q.O

Q.

<0

CO

(Uc

(0

(DO

(0oc

752 o u

oi

0) o

LU

O o

0)c^ 8 o i

"E o o O m cow c 0) O I >< 0)

0)5

(5

Q.

(0c
(DO o £Eooo

(0

(0

0)

(03o

1-

(/) z c

(0 I-

(9 o

Q. 0) 5 i r o

CO o

(0o

Q-

—

O ^ Q) £ E> R5 O0 - o 0 o Q = .£ O Q (/) H

> .S3

o

OS fTj

o oo

C/3

•D.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW PUBLICATIONS ON

COMPUTER SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY

Superintendent of Documents

Government Printing Office

Washington, DC 20402

Dear Sir:

Please add my name to the announcement list of new publications to be issued in the series: National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 500-.

Name

Company

^

Address

City State Zip Code

(Notification key N-503)

NIST.Technical Publications

Periodical

Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology — Reports NIST

research and development in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in which

the Institute is active. These include physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, and computer

sciences. Papers cover a broad range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement

methodology and the basic technology underlying standardization. Also included from time to time

are survey articles on topics closely related to the Institute's technical and scientific programs.

Issued six times a year.

Nonperiodicals

Monographs — Major contributions to the technical literature on various subjects related to the

Institute's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks — Recommended codes of engineerin| and industrial practice (including safeh' codes)

developed in cooperation with interested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory

bodies.

Special Publications — Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NIST, NIST annual

reports, and other special publications appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket

cards, and bibliographies.

Applied Mathematics Series — Mathematical tables, manuals, and studies of special interest to

physicists, engineers, chemists, biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others

engaged in scientific and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series — Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical

properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed

under a worldwide program coordinated by NIST under the authority of the National Standard

Data Act (Public Law 90-396). NOTE: The Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data

(JPCRD) is published bimonthly for NIST by the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the

American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions, reprints, and supplements are available from

ACS, 1155 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20056.

Building Science Series — Disseminates technical information developed at the Institute on building

materials, components, systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results, test methods, and performance criteria related to the structural and environmental functions and the

durability and safety characteristics of building elements and systems.

Technical Notes — Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive

in treatment of the subject area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NIST under the sponsorship of other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards — Developed under procedures published by the Department of

Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish

nationally recognized requirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis

for common understanding of the characteristics of the products. NIST administers this program

in support of the efforts of private-sector standardizing organizations.

Consumer Information Series — Practical information, based on NIST research and experience,

covering areas of interest to the consumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide useful background knowledge for shopping in today's technological marketplace.

Order the above NIST publications from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC 20402.

Order the following NIST publications— FIPS and NISTIRs—from the National Technical Information

Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUB) — Publications in this series collective^ constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register serves

as the official source of information in the Federal Government regarding standards issued by

NIST pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended.

Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented by Executive Order 11717 (38 FR 12315,

dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).

NIST Interagency Reports (NISTIR)— A special series of interim or final reports on work

performed by NIST for outside sponsors (both government and non-government). In general,

initial distribution is handled by the sponsor; public distribution is h\ the National Technical

Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161, in paper copy or microfiche form.
U.S. Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300