[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian Xconfigurator?

Andrew Pimlott <andrew@pimlott.ne.mediaone.net> writes:

> 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
> > average.

> 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:
> http://www.csf.org.uk/csf/dot-pitch/dotpit.htm

> > > <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
>   resolutions

I'm not particularly fond of the status quo - too many non-standard
resolutions/timings included by default.  I want an easy way to say my
display can do xx frequency range, show me the standard video modes,
and let me choose.

Also, I believe that while multisync monitors can do a range of
frequencies, there are certain frequencies that it is better tuned for
(but I don't have documentation to back this up).  Likewise, many
non-Sony tubes have weird moire effects at the wrong resolution.  I
would prefer sticking to standard timings for most users (adding some
sensible 1152x900 timings), and have options for weird timings for
power users.  (Doesn't specifically effect me either way - I always
use the same 1152x900x66 timing on every machine I use - but it's
kinda annoying to have to delete 100 Modelines from the config file,
most of which are rather bizarre.)

Finally, our setup for laptops is pretty poor.  E.g., I've found that
in practice nearly every 800x600 mode on a laptop uses the same
timing, but you end up having to edit the XF86Config file on Debian to
get it to actually use that timing.


Reply to: