On 8/19/07, Michael Beal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, that isn't what I ran into. Here's my freevo.conf: > [snip] > geometry = 1440x900 [snip] > > Note the "geometry" line. The Panorama skin, built for anamorphic > display, _should_ have displayed itself properly but it didn't.
*No*, it shouldn't. As I said before, Panorama is an example of an anamorphic skin, designed for pixels which are non-square. When viewed with square pixels everything will be squished horizontally. > Because the image widths were hard-coded into the skin, which also > contained 800x600 positioning. Had the images been allowed to float to > their intended or designed width, this skin _may_ have displayed > correctly. Again, no, it's an anamorphic skin. It will only display properly on a display where the pixels are non-square. > What I would really like to know is who on this list has a true, 100% > anamorphic display, meaning a display that is always using "non-square" > pixels _at it's native resolution_??? I'd be willing to say that no > one actually does because when your PC is displaying a static image at > it's native resolution, the pixels will always be square. Always. PC > displays are anamorphic by design meaning they will display whatever > they are sent regardless of actual size or resolution. 1280x768 will > still display on my 1600x1200 display at work. Looks weird, but it > does display. In the UK there are a wide number of 16:9 CRT TVs which have a native PAL resolution of 720x576 (often driven at 800x600 with overscan). These are anamorphic displays and *exactly* the ones for which Panorama and the anamorphic skin support was written. Similarly, for a variety of reasons I'm now driving my 1360x768 LCD TV at 800x600 full screen, giving me - again - non-square pixels (which, at the moment, is perfectly adequate). > I guess what I'm really getting at is that there is no need to have > "anamorphic" _skins_. Set up the skins module to use a broader range > of resolutions by default and build skins to fit all these resolutions. > We don't need to have a "one-size-fits-all" mentality where skins are > concerned because, for me and (as I'm seeing) several others, 800x600 > doesn't work. I bought a widescreen monitor for a reason and that is: > to watch widescreen DVDs and other widescreen formatted video. Let's > get the design of Freevo in line with the hardware, not the other way > round. I entirely agree with this, but think you're unaware of a variety of factors. It doesn't matter though, skins should have an aspect ratio, primarily 16:9 or 4:3 and be resolution independent within those ratios, scaling from 640x368 up to 1440x900 or 640x480 to 800x600 etc. Anamorphic *skins* would then be unnecessary, as the skin engine would automatically anamorphicicate (hmm, that's not a word) a 16:9 skin on a 4:3 resolution. i.e. Panorama would be a 16:9 skin displaying perfectly well on a 1360x768 display. However, when on an X at 800x600, it'd be squished horizontally at runtime so that when stretched on a non-square pixel anamorphic display, it'd look correct again. Ideally, however, the resolution-independent skins would be defined in a true resolution-independent way, i.e. SVG or similar, rather than bitmaps. How much of this is Freevo 2 going to provide, and is it worth the development effort on Freevo 1? Cheers, Andrew -- Andrew Flegg -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.bleb.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Freevo-devel mailing list Freevo-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freevo-devel
