(Mail direct to you bounced. My copy of your original mail
has invalid characters in the local part of your address).
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Henry Berg =?iso-8859-1?q? wrote:
Interlace:
First field contains 1,3,5,7,9525 scanlines in the frame. Second
field contains 2,4,6,8,10524 scanlines in the frame.
Concatenate:
First field contains 1,2,3,4,5 263 scanlines in the frame. Second
field contains 264,265,266,267,268526 scanlines in the frame. First
field will contain the top half of the screen and the second field
will contain the bottom half of the screen.
That would give you a bigger problem than flicker: the top and
bottom half of the screen will alternately fill the whole screen,
at 50 or 60 Hz.
With this Modeline the picture is Ok and no flicker, but it has too
few scanlines.
13331000 640 656 712 848 240 240 241 262
This has no flicker becuase each line appears in both fields.
You would be able to approach the effect of having more resolution
without the flicker by averaging pairs of framebuffer rows into one
displayed row - sort of the the reverse of DoubleScan, or antialiasing
rows together.
With a fixed frequency monitor (your TV) the only way I can see to
do this would be if you can have your X framebuffer in offscreen memory,
which blitted and *down*scaled this to appear on the screen.
You might be able to do this blit with the texture unit or the
video unit of your graphics chip (although on many chips the video unit
used by the XVideo extension only does *up*scaling).
This would give you more lines, but the detail would be lost (that is
the price of losing the flicker).
It is also possible that the blits would tear with the interlacing,
causing flicker when the image changed.
--
Andrew C. Aitchison Cambridge
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel