Keith Packard wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 16:51 +0300, Vasily Khoruzhick wrote:
>
>> Btw, still without DRI if I understand correctly
>
> You get DRI, it just doesn't work with targets larger than 2048. So,
> with DRI2, if your window is no bigger than 2048, it will actually work
> fine.
Now
Vasily Khoruzhick wrote:
> Btw, it's impossible to use virtual resolution larger than 2048x2048 on
> pre-965 hardware with DRI enabled:
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10479
According to my reading of
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21190
it's going to be possible soo
Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>>> Not true if you can scale the fields independently
...
> Sounds like you're thinking of bob deinterlacing which this is not. The
> output will still be interlaced with black scanlines and all.
True, but even if you're scaling output to a truly interlaced display,
scaling a
Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 08:08:38PM +0200, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
>> Thomas Hilber writes:
>> Come on, playback of interlaced video only makes sense with vertically
>> unscaled display.
>
> Not true if you can scale the fields independently.
Even with scaling, it's not a g
Maarten Maathuis wrote:
> And what size limitations are listed for the overlay?
1920x1088. My test video is 480x270.
Perhaps we should take further discussion to
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21820
--Ben
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Maarten Maathuis wrote:
>>From mplayer man page (lot's of cutting for space reasons ofcource)
>
> Available video output drivers are:
> xv (X11 only)
>
> adaptor=
> Select a specific XVideo adaptor (check xvinfo results).
> port=
> Select a specific XVideo port.
>
> You can use "xvinfo" to check
Maarten Maathuis wrote:
> There is probably also a textured Xv adapter, have you double checked
> which one you are using?
I don't know what this means. Could you elaborate or point to documentation?
--Ben
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__
Carl Worth wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 00:12 -0400, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote:
>> Carl Worth wrote:
>>> * Fix crash with XV with large virtual display (> 2049). [Albert
>>> Damen ]
>> It's not what I would call "fixed". With 2.6.
Carl Worth wrote:
> * Fix crash with XV with large virtual display (> 2049). [Albert
> Damen ]
It's not what I would call "fixed". With 2.6.*, XV with large virtual
display would crash the server. With 2.7.1, it just gives "BadAlloc"
errors and shows nothing.
That's still pretty far fr
Smith, Richard G wrote:
> Is it possible to forward a single display
> to more than one destination, one being the master with control, and the
> other a slave (display-only) display?
I have been considering a similar problem. In my case, the easiest
solution appears to be VNC:
http://www.karlru
Hey all,
I have an intel 945gm (thinkpad x60s), which I run in dual-head mode with
xrandr. The resulting display is 1024 + 1440 = 2464 pixels across. If I
run without a xorg.conf, xrandr fails, because the maximum width is not
wide enough. If I run _with_ a xorg.conf (attached), xrandr works fi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Eric Anholt wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 23:57 +, James Legg wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have an Asus X58L laptop, which has Intel GM965 graphics. The
>> framebuffer configurations reported by glxinfo all have 8 bits for each
>> of the colour channe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is Xrandr supposed to allow me to alter the nominal DPI and physical
screen size (mm) of a running X server? I tried to do
xrandr --dpi 200
and the windows repainted themselves but nothing changed. I tried --fbmm
too. Either way, xrandr didn't rep
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 12:13:47PM -0600, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
>> I don't see lbxproxy listed in the X.org 7.4 release. But it is in 7.3.
>> What is its status?
>
> It is dead.
>
>> Any alternatives?
>
> NBX
Maybe you
14 matches
Mail list logo
