This application claims the priority benefits of PCT International Application PCT/IB2006/052673, filed Aug. 3, 2006, which claims priority to European Patent Application No. 05107305.4, filed Aug. 9, 2005.
The invention relates to motion judder cancellation in image sequences.
A typical motion judder cancellation system comprises three parts: a film detector, a motion estimator, and a frame rate upconvertor. If the system processes interlaced image sequences, a deinterlacer can be present. The film detector detects if the incoming video sequence contains motion by analyzing information between consecutive images. This motion is classified in several common patterns of motion.
Any sequences that do not fall into one of these categories could be treated in a fallback mode, which is usually equivalent to the mode selected for the video pattern, potentially causing judder. Alternatively, sequences that do not fall into these categories will be treated as either 22 pull-down or 32 pull-down, potentially causing severe artifacts in the frame rate upconvertor.
If the pattern is not video, the motion estimator will typically use this pattern to estimate motion vectors between the most recent image and the most recent image that differs from the most recent image. These vectors will not be global for the entire image, but will be localized to specific areas of the image. Thus, these vectors indicate how parts of the image move over time. The vectors will be used by the frame rate upconvertor to interpolate new images between the most recent image and the most recent image that differs from the most recent image. The frame rate upconvertor outputs these new images instead of some images of the original pattern. Because now the sequence will not appear intermittently stationary, the motion will appear smoother to a viewer, canceling the so-called judder artifact.
Unfortunately, there are some exceptions to the above categories:
With respect to the frame rate upconvertor, falling back to video will cause judder again in example 1 for the pull-down parts. Treating it as pull-down, will cause the frame rate upconvertor to introduce a new judder-like artifact in the video component. Also, the motion estimator will motion estimate inconsistent vectors, while the deinterlacer introduces severe artifacts.
WO 02/056597 and WO 2004/054256 disclose methods for recognizing film and video occurring in parallel in television images.
It is, inter alia, an object of the invention to provide an efficient system for motion judder cancellation for use with video image sequences containing both video and pull-down motion. The invention is defined in the independent claims. Advantageous embodiments are defined in the dependent claims.
The invention is based on the recognition that prior art artifacts can efficiently be removed by introducing a hybrid processing mode. For detecting if images contain both a pull-down component and a video component, we use a film detector as disclosed in WO 02/056597 or WO 2004/054256, incorporated herein by reference. Main feature of this hybrid mode of the present invention is to treat some images (e.g. with 32 pull-down, the phase 0 and 3 images) as film and to disregard the other images (i.e. the phase 1, 2 and 4 images), even though parts of the latter images are non-repeating. The missing images are generated by means of the motion estimation process and the up-conversion process. Thereby, a smooth motion portrayal of both the video and the pull-down part of the picture is preserved, while no deinterlace artifacts are introduced.
In a preferred embodiment, when hybrid mode is detected, we will adapt the processing of the motion estimator, an optional deinterlacer and the frame rate upconvertor accordingly. The motion estimator needs to motion estimate on images in which the temporal distance is the same for the pull-down and the video component or the vectors will fluctuate erratically causing a bouncing motion in the video component. To achieve this we estimate motion between a base image and the image we receive two images before the base image. This causes the temporal distance to always be 2 images for both the video and pull-down components. Because of memory issues, we choose not to do this in phase 2.
To do good motion judder cancellation, the frame rate upconvertor needs a sequence that contains a pull-down rhythm. To achieve this we only use phase 0 and 3 images (32 pull-down mode) and phase 0 images (22 pull-down mode) in the frame rate upconvertor, effectively forcing the video component into a pull-down motion.
For interlaced image sequences, instead of putting the deinterlacer into an image-insertion mode (which results in optimal vertical sharpness, but only for true pull-down), in hybrid mode the deinterlacer is put into the video motion deinterlace mode.
Together, these measures create a smooth motion, even in hybrid image sequences.
These and other aspects of the invention will be apparent from and elucidated with reference to the embodiments described hereinafter.
In the drawings:
In the embodiment of
It should be noted that the above-mentioned embodiments illustrate rather than limit the invention, and that those skilled in the art will be able to design many alternative embodiments without departing from the scope of the appended claims. In the claims, any reference signs placed between parentheses shall not be construed as limiting the claim. The word “comprising” does not exclude the presence of elements or steps other than those listed in a claim. The word “a” or “an” preceding an element does not exclude the presence of a plurality of such elements. The invention may be implemented by means of hardware comprising several distinct elements, and/or by means of a suitably programmed processor. In the device claim enumerating several means, several of these means may be embodied by one and the same item of hardware. The mere fact that certain measures are recited in mutually different dependent claims does not indicate that a combination of these measures cannot be used to advantage.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
05107305 | Aug 2005 | EP | regional |
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/IB2006/052673 | 8/3/2006 | WO | 00 | 9/19/2008 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2007/017808 | 2/15/2007 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5610662 | Hackett | Mar 1997 | A |
6041142 | Rao et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0685968 | Dec 1995 | EP |
1551181 | Jul 2005 | EP |
2001024988 | Jan 2001 | JP |
02056597 | Jul 2002 | WO |
WO 02056597 | Jul 2002 | WO |
2004054256 | Jun 2004 | WO |
WO 2004054256 | Jun 2004 | WO |
2006043203 | Apr 2006 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Lee, Young Ho; et al “Judder-Free Reverse Pull-Down Using Dynamic Compensation” IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, vol. 51, No. 1, Feb. 28, 2005, pp. 256-261. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20100201882 A1 | Aug 2010 | US |