This thread has been locked.
If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.
Part Number: DLPLCR4500EVM
In our application we control the projector via the C/C++ API shipped with the GUI. We use the projector in pattern display mode only and build up a pattern lookup table (PLUT) with N patterns. The patterns are either single bit or 8 bit planes. The bit planes are stored within M images in the image lookup table. All patterns have the same exposure.
The PLUT with N entries may look like: #Pattern Index //further parameters as needed by DLPC350_AddToPatLut012345...N
The projector is triggered via a hardware trigger signal. As far as I understand the projector maintains a pointer into the pattern lookup table and the pointer is incremented after each new trigger signal. Once the projector received the Nth trigger signal the pointer is reset to the first entry of the pattern lookup table when using the repeat option...
In our application we would like to define "sub pattern lookup tables" (sub PLUTs) which are defined by an offset into the pattern lookup table + a length parameter which defines the number of patterns in the sub PLUT.For example: subPLUT(offset=2,length=4) would configure the projector such that a new trigger signal projects pattern 2, then 3, 4 and 5. Then the pointer would be reset to pattern 2 (=defined offset).
While we could just define and upload a new pattern lookup table to the projector which represents a sub PLUT, we would also need to validate the lookup table which causes a 200-300 msec penalty in total (incl. upload), which we can not afford in our application.
I see the need for validating the PLUT when we define/upload a new one, as exposure times, bit planes etc. could have changed. However, we would define/upload the PLUT only once and in order to trigger a sub PLUT only the pointer into the PLUT would need to be changed.
This is quite similar to the request in e2e.ti.com/.../2264454 but AFAIK the latest lightcrafter api (3.1.0) dates back before this request.
Do you see a possibility to implement/use the sub PLUTs already with the current api? Is it possible to control the pointer into the PLUT from outside without an additional validation command? If so, we could implement the subPlut functionality on our own...
Thank you in advanceJohn
We are glad that we were able to resolve this issue, and will now proceed to close this thread.
If you have further questions related to this thread, you may click "Ask a related question" below. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.
In reply to Kyle Rakos:
If a post answers your question, please click on "Verify Answer" button
All content and materials on this site are provided "as is". TI and its respective suppliers and providers of content make no representations about the suitability of these materials for any purpose and disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to these materials, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement of any third party intellectual property right. No license, either express or implied, by estoppel or otherwise, is granted by TI. Use of the information on this site may require a license from a third party, or a license from TI.
TI is a global semiconductor design and manufacturing company. Innovate with 100,000+ analog ICs andembedded processors, along with software, tools and the industry’s largest sales/support staff.