I think what is being asked for is that the OSD always displays at the
screens full physical extent even if the TV channel being watched is only
4:3 in the centre for example.
Andrew
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Joachim Wilke wrote:
> 2009/5/4 Nicolas Huillard :
> > Matthias Becker a écrit :
>
On Mon, 04 May 2009 19:30:36 +0200
Nicolas Huillard wrote:
> With today's pixel-displays, we'd like to avoid all scaling, stretching,
> etc. done by the panel itself. ie. like Rolf said, always output from
> the computer at panel resolution, with 1:1 pixel mapping.
> Video would be scaled, but
2009/5/4 Nicolas Huillard :
> Matthias Becker a écrit :
>> Did you get the point? It's somehow difficult to describe this topic for me.
>
> With today's pixel-displays, we'd like to avoid all scaling, stretching,
> etc. done by the panel itself. ie. like Rolf said, always output from
> the computer
I agree that OSD should be set to the output of the device's resolution. Not
the video content it self. Would really love to see that change happen.
On 04/05/2009, Nicolas Huillard wrote:
> Matthias Becker a écrit :
>
> > and what about anamorphic material?
> > A 16:9 SD broadcast in fact still
I keep seeing mention of people using computer monitors and that VDR
should be designed to accommodate their aspect ratios. I'd like to
point out that plenty of users don't use VDR with a computer monitor
at all. Like many others, I have an hdtv (60" in my case) and would
love to have an osd that
Matthias Becker a écrit :
> and what about anamorphic material?
> A 16:9 SD broadcast in fact still is 4:3 but is streached by the TV to
> 16:9 to look ok (no egg-heads).
> Wouldn't it be correct also to draw the OSD anamorphic so that is not
> screached by the TV?
>
> Did you get the point? It's
On 04.05.2009 08:00, Rolf Ahrenberg wrote:
> On Sun, 3 May 2009, Tomas Berglund wrote:
>
>> Do you mean aspect ratio 2.21:1 ?
>>
>> +const char *VideoAspectString[] = { "4:3",
>> +"16:9",
>> +"2.21:9"
>> +
and what about anamorphic material?
A 16:9 SD broadcast in fact still is 4:3 but is streached by the TV to
16:9 to look ok (no egg-heads).
Wouldn't it be correct also to draw the OSD anamorphic so that is not
screached by the TV?
Did you get the point? It's somehow difficult to describe this topi
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Falk Spitzberg wrote:
> The OSD should adopt to the size of the video material. If that is
> scaled to some non TV screen size, the OSD is scaled by the same factor.
I still disagree. If you scale down your OSD to video resolution (i.e.
544x576) and afterwards scale up the bo
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Nicolas Huillard wrote:
> Rolf Ahrenberg a écrit :
>> On Sun, 3 May 2009, Tomas Berglund wrote:
>>
>>> Do you mean aspect ratio 2.21:1 ?
>>>
>>> +const char *VideoAspectString[] = { "4:3",
>>> +"16:9",
>>> +
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Falk Spitzberg wrote:
>
> The OSD should adopt to the size of the video material. If that is
> scaled to some non TV screen size, the OSD is scaled by the same factor.
>
Isn't that precisely what people would like to avoid? Since most of
the material being broadcas
Am Montag, den 04.05.2009, 14:13 +0200 schrieb Nicolas Huillard:
> Rolf Ahrenberg a écrit :
> > On Sun, 3 May 2009, Tomas Berglund wrote:
> >
> >> Do you mean aspect ratio 2.21:1 ?
> >>
> >> +const char *VideoAspectString[] = { "4:3",
> >> +"16:9",
> >> +
Rolf Ahrenberg a écrit :
> On Sun, 3 May 2009, Tomas Berglund wrote:
>
>> Do you mean aspect ratio 2.21:1 ?
>>
>> +const char *VideoAspectString[] = { "4:3",
>> +"16:9",
>> +"2.21:9"
>> + };
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
