On 9/5/07, Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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)?
Yes, but not all monitors have good scaling, and not everyone wants to use it. Yes, we can certainly do 640x400 or 720x400 or whatever and let the monitor do the scaling. But we have the ability to do something different, as a side-effect of our attempt to make a VGA core that is less invasive. -- Timothy Normand Miller http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~millerti Open Graphics Project _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
