Timothy Normand Miller wrote:
On 9/5/07, Dieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
AT 1024x768, we could do an integer 1.5 scaling. Heck, we could even
do a smooth scaling where a 2x2 set of pixels from the font are scaled
in the nanocontroller to 3x3. That would bring us up to 960x600,
which wouldn't look too bad centered.
For 1280x1024, a simple 2x scaling to 1280x800 would look just fine.
For 1600x1200, I would suggest a 2x scaling. 2.5 would look a little
better but the computation cost would be too high if we did it
smoothly. We'd have to see how it looked if we did an integer
scaling, where alternate columns/rows are scaled 2x and 3x. We might
scale vertically by 3x or 2.5x. I'm trying to avoid using the GPU
here, in part because it would be best if we had VGA done BEFORE the
GPU was finished.
For 1920x1200, it's a simple 3x scaling to 1920x1200. For 1920x1080,
we'd have to do 3x horizontally and 2x or 2.5x vertically.
I sort of assumed (perhaps naively) that this kind of scaling was taken
care of by the monitor. I mean, isn't it just receiving a stream of
pixel data along with Hsync & Vsync that correspond to 720x400x60Hz (or
whatever)?
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
