Re: Debian Xconfigurator?
On Mon, Jul 26, 1999 at 10:38:45PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> > I'm surprised that even AccelX's configurator believes the myth that
> > monitors have a maximum resolution. There is no such thing--higher
> > resolution can always (within reason) be achieved by sacrificing other
> > considerations. Further, the suggested maximum input rate would be nice.
> To a limit, at some point you will have pixels smaller than the dot pitch,
> at that point you are at the limit. If you take a magnifying glass to my
> .25 17" you can see that at 1280x1024 pixels are about 2-3 dots wide on
Granted, however the dot pitch is really not information enough to determine
the highest acceptable resolution. From what I've read, the dot pitch has
different meanings with different monitor technologies, and furthermore
different manufacturers measure it differently. Even if you had a reliable
number, the minimum acceptable ratio of phosphors to pixels is somewhat
subjective. So it's really just another tradeoff.
BTW, I assume you mean that your pixels are 2-3 different colored dots each,
not 2-3 RGB triads each. Your monitor is 17" * 25.4 mm/" * 4/5 = 345.44 mm
wide (4/5 because the ratio of height to width of your monitor is 3/4, so
the width to diagonal is 4/5; PS. Why do you use a 5/4 resolution like
1280x1024? Don't you like your squares square?). Thus, each pixel is
345.44 mm / 1280 = .27 mm wide, just larger than your dot pitch.
Here's one nice reference on dot pitch:
> > <rant>
> > Why is it so hard to get one's hands on the numbers necessary to properly
> > configure a monitor? And why are video configurators (yes, including
> > Windows') so primitive and limited compared to the possibilities?
> > </rant>
> I always thought the Windows Matrox Configurator was simply excellent, you
> can tune pretty much everything if you like.
I'll have to confess to ignorance on that particular one (though I can
probably find someone with it in the office--I'll try). Some things I'd
like to see:
- a continuous range of resolutions, aspect rations (though by default, only
4/3--no silly 5/4 modes), refresh rates
- maximization of resolution at a given refresh rate and bit depth,
including minimizing the frame size (ie, the time the beam is off)
- interactive, possibly graphical, exploration of the trade-offs between
resolution, refresh rate, and bit depth
- help in evaluating display quality for text and graphics, bright images
and dark images, etc
- help in estimating the performance effects of different bit depths and
I generally consider all of these things to some extent when setting up a
new monitor and/or video card. It would be nice to have a tool to help;
I've been tempted to write one but alas have not. It would be especially
nice for non-geeks who don't waste their time understanding video hardware.
Don't forget that Linux became only possible because 20 years of OS
research was carefully studied, analyzed, discussed and thrown away.
- kernel hacker Ingo Molnar