Basically, what we have done at our company,
Clairvoyante Inc., in Cupertino, Calif., is to rectify
these shortcomings of the Bayer pattern. First, our
pattern of subpixels, called the PenTile Matrix,
addresses the Bayer’s color imbalance by going easy on
the green. In addition, our pattern is rotated with
respect to that of the Bayer by 45 degrees; this
rotation has the effect of mapping the conventionally
square orientation of the incoming pixel data to the
high-luminance green subpixels on a one-to-one basis. We
also resize the subpixels with respect to each other,
making the green ones a lot smaller, a process that
renders information with higher resolution.
Another seemingly slight tweak enhances the display’s
performance immensely. By adding a white (or clear)
subpixel to form a red-green-blue-white pixel, we
dispense with one out of four color filters. We thereby
boost efficiency: color filters absorb wavelengths from
the backlight, so they sap energy from a display. We
call this scheme the PenTile RGBW pattern.
We weren’t the first to come up with an RGBW display;
past experimenters did it by simply swapping one of the
two green subpixels for a white one in every pixel of a
Bayer display. What we did differently was to squeeze
the subpixels into long rectangles.
Even so, there is still an inherent inefficiency in
using four subpixels instead of three. To get around the
problem, we found ways to render a pixel with an average
of just two subpixels—two-thirds as many as in the
conventional RGB pattern. We do it by using software
algorithms to create, in effect, virtual pixels.
Basically, the algorithm fools the eye. It defines an
edge of an object in an image with the red, green, and
white subpixels, and adds the requisite dash of blue off
to the side, on the ground that the eye cannot discern
the exact location of the blue bits, anyway. Such tricks
provide very crisp images with good color.
Another trick enhances the color on a single pixel
indirectly. The goal is to minimize the number of color
subpixels needed to display an image by getting each one
to work as hard as possible in resolving the image. And
there is a lot of freedom in doing so. For instance, to
enhance a red pixel on a gray background, you can add a
dash of white—increasing the luminance of the red—and
also turn down the surrounding blue and green. The eye
perceives this reduction of the blue and green as an
enhancement of the red.
The bottom line is that brightness and color can be
conveyed in more than one combination of red, green,
blue, and white. Orange, for instance, will look the
same to a human eye whether it comes from a single, pure
wavelength at 600 nanometers or from the combination of
two or more wavelengths from the red and yellow bands of
the spectrum.
In tests, our PenTile Matrix pattern did well on many
kinds of image files, including video,
computer-generated graphics, and still and moving images
[see illustration, “Best by
Test”]. The PenTile technology, however,
works well only in high-resolution formats. If the
resolution is too low—below about 185 dots per inch for
near-range devices like cellphones—it can produce
artifacts, such as texture in the background. The matrix
did especially well displaying the higher-performance
versions of the Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG)
and MPEG-2 compression formats. A version of MPEG‑2 is
what is used to compress video data so that a whole
movie and more can fit on a DVD. Briefly, MPEG-2 has
several versions; the kind used on DVDs is known as
4:2:0, which indicates the ratio of the samples used to
convey the moving image’s brightness (the 4) and the
color (the 2 and the 0). A superior form of MPEG‑2 is
4:2:2, because it allows for more detailed color sampling.
Our PenTile Matrix did particularly well with this
superior form of MPEG-2. That was encouraging to us,
because MPEG 4:2:2 is the compression format used for
high-definition video, which is growing in popularity
with the proliferation of big-screen TVs and the
imminent arrival of high-definition video players, such
as those offering the competing Blu-ray and HD DVD formats.
Vertical black-and-white lines show off the advantages
of the PenTile RGBW [see illustration, “”]. While the conventional
pattern must turn three adjacent columns on and three
other columns off, our display renders the same detail
by turning just two on and two off. Because this scheme
requires just two-thirds as many subpixels as the
conventional one, fewer transistors and drive lines are
needed to control the subpixels, and less of the
display’s area needs to be obscured by opaque elements.
In other words, the aperture ratio increases, letting
more light through. This improvement, together with the
white subpixel, provides about twice the brightness for
a given draw of power. The savings in manufacturing
costs more than balances any increase occasioned by the
addition of a fourth, clear, color filter.
Engineers can use the gains to save power or to rev up
the brightness. In a cellphone with a 2.8-inch display,
you can get a luxurious 350-candela-per-square-meter
level of brightness for 475 milliwatts. That’s a power
level that would give you a meager 175 cd/m2 if you used
a conventional pattern. If, however, you are content
with the meager brightness, you can make do with 233
mW—and with a backlight having half as many
light-emitting diodes.
In anticipation of the expected demand for optimized
displays, several manufacturers have already begun
incorporating these power-efficient subpixel patterns
and rendering algorithms. So far, the following LCD
companies have publicly demonstrated PenTile display
technology: AU Optronics, BOE Hydis, CPT, LG Innotek,
Samsung, and Wintek. Silicon Works and Tomato LSI have
also developed chips.
Clairvoyante hopes to see a PenTile display in a
commercial product by the end of this year.
The art of designing products to conform to the needs
of the body has been dignified by a name, ergonomics.
The expansion of information technology into new domains
means that engineers must now learn to make products
that conform to the needs of the mind and the senses, as
well.
The advantages of biomimetic displays are discussed
in “Reducing Pixel Count Without Reducing Image
Quality,”
by C.H.B. Elliott, Information
Display, December 1999, Vol. 15, pp. 22–25.
For a discussion on the total list of processing
operations required to view a pixel, see “What Is a
Pixel?” by J.F. Blinn, in IEEE Computer Graphics and
Applications, September-October 2005, Vol.
25, no. 5, pp. 82–87.
More information on subpixel patterns is available
in “Subpixel Rendering on Nonstriped Colour Matrix
Displays,”
by D.S. Messing et al. in Proceedings of the 2003
International Conference on Image
Processing, Vol. 2, pp. 949–52.