N/A
The present invention is directed to a rear projection simulator display system with a free-form folding mirror interposed between a projector and a screen.
A simulator, such as a flight simulator, typically includes a projector and a screen. One using the simulator is positioned in front of the screen with a variety of controls which allow for virtual training. A “fold mirror” is often used in such systems to reduce floor space or ceiling height of the system. This is accomplished by reflecting light traveling to the back of the screen from the projector. Such fold mirrors are typically flat (i.e., planar). However, use of a flat mirror, with expanding/diverging light rays from a projector on a non-flat screen, can result in uneven resolution and brightness of the image as viewed by the user of the system. This is particularly evident near the edge or boundary of the projected image.
The present invention provides an improved system using a fold mirror that corrects or reduces any loss of resolution or brightness.
The present invention provides an improved rear projection display system used for simulators (e.g., a flight simulator). The system utilizes a fold mirror having one or more non-planar portions shaped so that the projector light cone will result in a more uniform display performance. This type of mirror will be referred to herein as a “free-form” fold mirror. For one implementation of the technology as disclosed and claimed herein, the free-form fold mirror is shaped to reduce or remove the loss of resolution of image components near the boundaries of the projected light cone. Freeform Optical surfaces are defined as any non-rotationally symmetric surface or a symmetric surface that is rotated about any axis that is not its axis of symmetry. These surfaces lead to a smaller system size as compared to rotationally symmetric surfaces. The free-form mirror when illuminated by a point light source produces a given illumination pattern on a target surface that is flat, spherical or of other shape. For one method of accomplishing the design, the optical ray mapping can be modeled by second order partial differential equations. For another method for accomplishing the design, an approximation of the optical surfaces is modeled and validated through ray tracing and design of the optical surfaces, particularly the free form mirror can be determined.
In accordance with one aspect of the invention, a simulator projection system is provided. The system comprises a projector and a display screen for receiving images from the projector. A free-form fold mirror is interposed between the projector and the display screen. The free-form mirror includes a first curved portion and a first flat portion. For one implementation the first curved portion is positioned to affect an edge or boundary portion of an image projected by the projector.
For one implementation, in addition to the first curved portion, the free-form mirror includes a second curved portion spaced from the first curved portion. In this arrangement, the first flat portion is between the first curved portion and the second curved portion. Additional curved portions can be added as desired or necessary, however, a flat portion need not be between two curved portions, whereby two or more curved portions are immediately adjacent without a flat portion there between.
For one implementation, the first curved portion has a concave cross-sectional shape with respect to the display screen and the projector. The second curved portion has a convex cross-sectional shape with respect to the display screen and the projector.
The projector in the system is configured to project a high definition image. For example, the high definition image can be a 1920×1080 pixel array. Arrays of higher or lower pixel counts are also used.
For one implementation of the technology the display screen of the system is curved. Typically, the convex side receives the projected image and the user is on the concave side of the screen. In some instances, flat screens can be used.
In accordance with another aspect of the invention, a display system is provided. The display system comprises a projector for projecting images and a screen for receiving images from the projector. A free-form fold mirror is interposed between the projector and the screen. The free-form fold mirror has a centrally positioned first flat portion, a first curved portion adjacent a top edge of the first flat portion and a second curved portion adjacent a bottom edge of the first flat portion.
For one implementation, the first curved portion is formed to have a concave cross-sectional shape with respect to a rear surface of the screen. The second curved portion is formed to have a convex cross-sectional shape with respect to the rear surface of the screen.
For one implementation, the free-form fold mirror can further include a second flat portion where the first curved portion is between the first flat portion and the second flat portion. Additionally, the free-form fold mirror can further include a third flat portion where the second curved portion is between the first flat portion and the third flat portion.
The system can further include a support frame. The support frame can be connected to each of the projector, the screen and the free-form fold mirror.
One objective Free Form Mirror technology is to equalize the size and spacing of projector pixels to create uniform resolution so the appearance of the image is consistently sharp. Any geometric corrections, such as pre-distorting a square to have a “barrel” shape so that it looks square to the observer instead of having the corners look elongated, will be done by the Image Generator creating the image, and not by the mirror. Prior technologies have not addressed uniform resolution. Another objective of the technology is to provide a fold mirror that creates a uniform pixel density (therefore uniform resolution & more uniform brightness) on any screen surface.
One methodology to achieve this mapping technology is accomplished using “constraints” set up in the SolidWorks CAD model. For example, the light rays expand from a single point inside the projector, and are constrained to land on the convex screen surface (for example) 0.10″ apart after reflecting off of a surface. For this to occur the reflecting surface must be angled to have a “normal” (perpendicular) ray that bisects the incoming ray from the projector and the outgoing ray that must fall on a particular spot on the screen. Once the model has computed a large number of surfaces they are merged to create the free-form mirror shape. This modeling technique is one of several methodologies utilized for accomplishing the technology as disclosed and claimed herein.
For one implementation by way of illustration, the constraints of 0.10″ between pixels, for example, is determined by the calculations for the pixel density required for the observer to see & measure a certain resolution. The requirement for a resolution of, for example, 10.52 arcminutes per optical line pair of pixels, results in a particular angular measurement from the observer's eye point and translates to a 0.10″ distance between pixels on the screen surface if the dome has a 65″ radius. The technology as disclosed and claimed herein addresses having a uniform resolution distribution, which will result in a more uniform luminance distribution, which also depends on the gain characteristics of the diffusion coating applied to the inside of the dome.
Other features and advantages of the invention will be apparent from the following specification taken in conjunction with the following Figures and Attachments.
To understand the present invention, it will now be described by way of example, with reference to the accompanying drawings and attachments in which:
While the technology as disclosed is susceptible to various modifications and alternative forms, specific implementations thereof are shown by way of example in the drawings and will herein be described in detail. It should be understood, however, that the drawings and detailed description presented herein are not intended to limit the disclosure to the particular implementations as disclosed, but on the contrary, the intention is to cover all modifications, equivalents, and alternatives falling within the scope of the present technology as disclosed and as defined by the appended claims.
According to the implementation(s) of the present technology as disclosed, various views are illustrated in
The present invention provides an improved simulator display system. The system provides for a more uniform resolution of the images projected onto a simulator display, as well as a more uniform image luminance since brightness tends to increase when pixels of an image are close together. A more uniform resolution and brightness should also reduce the workload on any automatic alignment system associated with the simulator display system. The present system may also be used to further reduce the footprint and/or ceiling height of a rear projected visual display.
Referring to the left side of
In order to shorten the footprint of the system, some systems have utilized a flat fold mirror 22 interposed between the projector 10 and the screen 12 as illustrated on the right side of
Certain resolution and brightness issues arise with use of a flat fold mirror. Specifically, the expanding light cone 20 from the projector 10 spreads the light rays away from the center of the image on the back of the screen 12. This is especially problematic when the screen 16 is curved as in a rear projected dome of a flight simulator as illustrated in
There is a similar reduction in image brightness due to the spreading light rays which results in a non-uniform image luminance. This effect is more pronounced toward the edges of the image.
Focusing on the top image generated by the projector 10 in
As shown in more detail in
To illustrate the differences between a flat fold mirror 22 and a free-form fold mirror 30, a simulator display system having both mirrors 22, 30 is shown in
The free-form fold mirror 30 of the present invention is a departure from the typical flat, planar mirror, and will have a more complex shape than the flat mirror. In some instances, the free-form fold mirror may be one or more mirror components connected or placed adjacent to each other.
While the free-form fold mirror 30 is shown in the Figures having two curved portions 32, 42, it can have fewer or more curved portions as necessary to provide any desired effects to the projected image. Moreover, the position and shape of the screen can affect the amount and positioning of any curved portions of such a mirror.
Many modifications and variations of the present invention are possible in light of the above teachings. It is, therefore, to be understood within the scope of the appended claims the invention may be protected otherwise than as specifically described.
The various implementations and examples shown above illustrate a method and system for a rear projection system with a freeform fold mirror. A user of the present method and system may choose any of the above implementations, or an equivalent thereof, depending upon the desired application. In this regard, it is recognized that various forms of the subject freeform fold mirror method and system could be utilized without departing from the scope of the present technology and various implementations as disclosed.
As is evident from the foregoing description, certain aspects of the present implementation are not limited by the particular details of the examples illustrated herein, and it is therefore contemplated that other modifications and applications, or equivalents thereof, will occur to those skilled in the art. It is accordingly intended that the claims shall cover all such modifications and applications that do not depart from the and scope of the present implementation(s). Accordingly, the specification and drawings are to be regarded in an illustrative rather than a restrictive sense.
Certain systems, apparatus, applications or processes are described herein as including a number of modules. A module may be a unit of distinct functionality that may be presented in software, hardware, or combinations thereof. When the functionality of a module is performed in any part through software, the module includes a computer-readable medium. The modules may be regarded as being communicatively coupled. The inventive subject matter may be represented in a variety of different implementations of which there are many possible permutations.
The methods described herein do not have to be executed in the order described, or in any particular order. Moreover, various activities described with respect to the methods identified herein can be executed in serial or parallel fashion. In the foregoing Detailed Description, it can be seen that various features are grouped together in a single embodiment for the purpose of streamlining the disclosure. This method of disclosure is not to be interpreted as reflecting an intention that the claimed embodiments require more features than are expressly recited in each claim. Rather, as the following claims reflect, inventive subject matter may lie in less than all features of a single disclosed embodiment. Thus, the following claims are hereby incorporated into the Detailed Description, with each claim standing on its own as a separate embodiment.
In an example implementation, the machine operates as a standalone device or may be connected (e.g., networked) to other machines. In a networked deployment, the machine may operate in the capacity of a server or a client machine in server-client network environment, or as a peer machine in a peer-to-peer (or distributed) network environment. The machine may be a server computer, a client computer, a personal computer (PC), a tablet PC, a set-top box (STB), a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), a cellular telephone, a web appliance, a network router, switch or bridge, or any machine capable of executing a set of instructions (sequential or otherwise) that specify actions to be taken by that machine or computing device. Further, while only a single machine is illustrated, the term “machine” shall also be taken to include any collection of machines that individually or jointly execute a set (or multiple sets) of instructions to perform any one or more of the methodologies discussed herein. By way of illustration, for one implementation of designing manufacturing and providing for a freeform mirror, a ray trace optimizer that includes a computer based software tool for modeling the ray traces and ultimately the free form shape of the fold mirror is utilized. The freeform mirror could be pre manufactured utilizing such a computer based tool. However, for one implementation, the free form mirror is dynamically adjusted with a mechanical push/pull system that mechanically deforms the reflective surface of the mirror to the appropriate curvature. For one implementation, the push/pull mechanism is computer controlled to adjust the curvature of the mirror based on other system parameters in order to reduce aberrations and improve resolution.
The example computer system and client computers can include a processor (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU) a graphics processing unit (GPU) or both), a main memory and a static memory, which communicate with each other via a bus. The computer system may further include a video/graphical display unit (e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD) or a cathode ray tube (CRT)). The computer system and client computing devices can also include an alphanumeric input device (e.g., a keyboard), a cursor control device (e.g., a mouse), a drive unit, a signal generation device (e.g., a speaker) and a network interface device.
The drive unit includes a computer-readable medium on which is stored one or more sets of instructions (e.g., software) embodying any one or more of the methodologies or systems described herein. The software may also reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory and/or within the processor during execution thereof by the computer system, the main memory and the processor also constituting computer-readable media. The software may further be transmitted or received over a network via the network interface device.
The term “computer-readable medium” should be taken to include a single medium or multiple media (e.g., a centralized or distributed database, and/or associated caches and servers) that store the one or more sets of instructions. The term “computer-readable medium” shall also be taken to include any medium that is capable of storing or encoding a set of instructions for execution by the machine and that cause the machine to perform any one or more of the methodologies of the present implementation. The term “computer-readable medium” shall accordingly be taken to include, but not be limited to, solid-state memories, and optical media, and magnetic media.
The various freeform fold mirror rear projection examples shown above illustrate a method and system for a rear projection system. A user of the present technology as disclosed may choose any of the above implementations, or an equivalent thereof, depending upon the desired application. In this regard, it is recognized that various forms of the subject technology could be utilized without departing from the scope of the present invention.
As is evident from the foregoing description, certain aspects of the present technology as disclosed are not limited by the particular details of the examples illustrated herein, and it is therefore contemplated that other modifications and applications, or equivalents thereof, will occur to those skilled in the art. It is accordingly intended that the claims shall cover all such modifications and applications that do not depart from the scope of the present technology as disclosed and claimed.
Other aspects, objects and advantages of the present technology as disclosed can be obtained from a study of the drawings, the disclosure and the appended claims.
The present invention claims priority to and the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/769,667 filed Nov. 20, 2018, the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
12003 | Shirley | Nov 1854 | A |
2482115 | Laird, Jr. | Sep 1949 | A |
2731883 | Köhler et al. | Jan 1956 | A |
4129365 | Aversano | Dec 1978 | A |
4234891 | Beck | Nov 1980 | A |
4773748 | Shih | Sep 1988 | A |
4964718 | Van Hoogstrate | Oct 1990 | A |
4971436 | Aoki | Nov 1990 | A |
5762413 | Colucci | Jun 1998 | A |
6042238 | Blackham | Mar 2000 | A |
6231189 | Colucci | May 2001 | B1 |
6530667 | Idaszak | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6590606 | Hiller | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6610974 | Hunt | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6631842 | Tsikos | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6848792 | De Meerleer | Feb 2005 | B1 |
7009782 | Sekiyama | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7012669 | Streid | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7347567 | Deter | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7535648 | Yoshikawa | May 2009 | B2 |
7755842 | Rutzen | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7766483 | Balu | Aug 2010 | B2 |
8194193 | Streid | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8587497 | Streid et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
9110358 | Vorst | Aug 2015 | B1 |
9188850 | Turner | Nov 2015 | B2 |
9229300 | Hellin | Jan 2016 | B2 |
9436068 | Hauquitz | Sep 2016 | B2 |
9788388 | Ooghe | Oct 2017 | B2 |
9933697 | Lambot | Apr 2018 | B2 |
20030147057 | Idaszak et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030194683 | Vorst | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20040141157 | Ramachandran | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040212582 | Thielemans | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20050030267 | Tanghe et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050099608 | Matthys et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050117121 | De Meerleer | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050134525 | Tanghe et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050157275 | Colpaert | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050185143 | Van Den Bossche et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050185145 | Halsberghe et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20060132403 | Maximus et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060132910 | Defever et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060227416 | Balu et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20070120763 | De Paepe et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070126657 | Kimpe | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070165162 | Meersman et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070229394 | Ishikawa et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20080123062 | Morikuni | May 2008 | A1 |
20080186415 | Boud et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080284988 | Kobayashi | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20090040133 | Clodfelter | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090066919 | Fujita | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090102915 | Arsenich | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090153808 | Benitez | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090266958 | Meersman et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20100182769 | Meersman | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100202047 | Maximus et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100277816 | Kweon et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110242074 | Bert et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20130070339 | Pretorius | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130120720 | Hellin et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20140118818 | Nishina | May 2014 | A1 |
20140354957 | Vermeirsch | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20150049310 | Vermeirsch et al. | Feb 2015 | A1 |
20150138514 | Tsuchiya | May 2015 | A1 |
20150219500 | Maes | Aug 2015 | A1 |
20160104460 | Kiichle-Gross et al. | Apr 2016 | A1 |
20160253935 | Gerets et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160299417 | QD | Oct 2016 | A1 |
20160357094 | Ishii | Dec 2016 | A1 |
20170059971 | Takano | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170200386 | Smith | Jul 2017 | A1 |
20170235138 | Morohashi | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170261846 | Maes et al. | Sep 2017 | A1 |
20170262020 | Patel | Sep 2017 | A1 |
20170287112 | Stafford | Oct 2017 | A1 |
20180113663 | Jain | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180192017 | Vandemaele et al. | Jul 2018 | A1 |
20190081281 | Chesterman et al. | Mar 2019 | A1 |
20190235369 | Janssens et al. | Aug 2019 | A1 |
20200177850 | Emig et al. | Jun 2020 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
103080832 | May 2013 | CN |
105005174 | Oct 2015 | CN |
19809711 | Mar 1998 | DE |
1414239 | Apr 2004 | EP |
1434433 | Jun 2004 | EP |
1450568 | Aug 2004 | EP |
1471746 | Oct 2004 | EP |
1473687 | Nov 2004 | EP |
1505565 | Feb 2005 | EP |
1513060 | Mar 2005 | EP |
1536399 | Jun 2005 | EP |
1548573 | Jun 2005 | EP |
1558042 | Jul 2005 | EP |
1569463 | Aug 2005 | EP |
1569464 | Aug 2005 | EP |
1613072 | Jan 2006 | EP |
1687793 | Aug 2006 | EP |
1808840 | Jul 2007 | EP |
1952382 | Aug 2008 | EP |
2159783 | Mar 2010 | EP |
2597515 | May 2013 | EP |
2837968 | Feb 2015 | EP |
2807520 | May 2016 | EP |
3024176 | May 2016 | EP |
3043342 | Jul 2016 | EP |
3343547 | Jul 2018 | EP |
3454390 | Mar 2019 | EP |
3599495 | Jan 2020 | EP |
2486921 | Jul 2012 | GB |
2496534 | Oct 2013 | GB |
10-2004-0093437 | Nov 2004 | KR |
10-2005-0016195 | Feb 2005 | KR |
10-2005-0025918 | Mar 2005 | KR |
10-2005-0065396 | Jun 2005 | KR |
10-2006-0123755 | Dec 2006 | KR |
101121268 | Mar 2012 | KR |
WO 2005052902 | Jun 2005 | WO |
WO 2007059965 | May 2007 | WO |
WO 2008155366 | Dec 2008 | WO |
WO 2009010500 | Jan 2009 | WO |
WO 2010023270 | Mar 2010 | WO |
WO 2012013675 | Feb 2012 | WO |
WO 2012089849 | Jul 2012 | WO |
WO 2013104430 | Jul 2013 | WO |
WO 2013164015 | Nov 2013 | WO |
WO 2014041464 | Mar 2014 | WO |
WO 2015063273 | May 2015 | WO |
WO 2015082529 | Jun 2015 | WO |
WO 2015149877 | Oct 2015 | WO |
WO 2016061174 | Apr 2016 | WO |
WO 2016166183 | Oct 2016 | WO |
WO 2017178519 | Oct 2017 | WO |
WO 2018011059 | Jan 2018 | WO |
WO 2018019369 | Feb 2018 | WO |
WO 2018020035 | Feb 2018 | WO |
WO 2018122300 | Jul 2018 | WO |
WO 2018141407 | Aug 2018 | WO |
WO 2019020725 | Jan 2019 | WO |
WO 2019185949 | Oct 2019 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Sieler M. et al, Microoptical array projectors for free-form screen applications, Optical Society of America,, Nov. 18, 2013 | vol. 21, No. 23, 9 pages (Year: 2013). |
M Sieler et al, Microoptical array projectors for free-form screen applications, Optical Society of America—OSA, vol. 21 No. 23, Nov. 14, 2014, 9 pages (Year: 2014). |
U.S. International Searching Authority, PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion; dated Feb. 7, 2020, pp. 1-12. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/037,008, filed Oct. 23, 2007, Colpaert et al. |
“Constant Resolution Visual System Family of Products,” The Boeing Company, Date Unknown, retrieved from https://www.boeing.com/defense/support/training/constant-resolution-visual-system/, 3 pages. |
“The Reality of Virtual Training,” The Boeing Company, Aug. 10, 2015, retrieved from https://www.boeing.com/features/2015/08/bds-crvs-08-15.page, 4 pages. |
“Who's Afraid of Freeform Optics,” Uploaded to YouTube by Zemax LLC, Jan. 18, 2018, retrieved from https://youtu.be/9nb_B7-U16g, 2 pages. |
Brix et al., “Designing Illumination Lenses and Mirrors by the Numerical Solution of Monge-Ampere Equations,” arXiv, No. 1506.07670v2, dated Dec. 5, 2015, 16 pages. |
Cayrel, “E-ELT Optomechanics: Overview,” Proc. SPIE c84444, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes IV, 84441X, Sep. 17, 2012, 18 pages. |
Vorst et al., “Constant Resolution: A Disruptive Technology for Simulator Visual System Design,” Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC), Paper No. 12030, 2012, 6 pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Internationai (PCT) Patent Application No. PCT/US2019/062273, dated Feb. 3, 2020, 31 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20200159104 A1 | May 2020 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62769667 | Nov 2018 | US |