On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 03:40:25PM +0100, dave cunningham wrote:
> If I'm reading the patches correctly it seems that the ATI chips can
> currently do 720x576 only, where the Intel chips can be configured for
> 1440x576 and 1600x1200 only.
for VGA2SCART (without FRC) Intel chips can be setup for 720x576i also.
The 1600x1200i is just an experimental sample resolution for use of
FRC at a DVI/HDMI port.
Why exactly 1600x1200i? I do not yet own a HDMI capable monitor. My DVI
test monitor accepts interlaced modelines at 1600x1200i only.
> The Intel driver has been patched to allow a 12MHz dot clock - is it in
> fact capable of supporting 720x576 interlaced? If so is there a hardware
> limitation preventing the FRC syncing working at this resolution?
The 1440x576i is driven at doubled dot clock. So it effectively represents
a regular 720x576i PAL timing too. The reason for 1440x576i is: the FRC
gains doubled horizontal timing resolution. As a result variable frame rate
can be controlled in finer (twice as much) increments.
With the help of some users of vdr-portal.de it turned out that even this
finer frame rate control eventually is to coarse for some particular
picky TVs. Though I myself didn't face such a TV yet.
> (I ask as I'm planning to use a Mini-ITX Atom board with a GMA950 to be
> hooked up to a standard-def TV. It would be good if I could use the
> onboard video and leave the PCI slot free.)
I just tested i915 and i945 (see ). The D945GSEJT board gives you
the smallest and most energy efficient VDR currently possible. You
can use the plain board as SCART streaming device.
vdr mailing list