On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Mark Vojkovich wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Paul Robertson wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Mark,
> > >
> > > OK, I'll have to live with that limit and undersample my YUV data as
> > > I copy it into the XvImage.
> > >
> > > If you are right about i810 then that could be a problem for me. We were
> > > hoping to use that GC in our system.
> > >
> > > Do you know if there is a way to determine what the XvImage limits are?
> > > My apologies if this is documented somewhere, I couldn't see it.
> >
> > xvinfo|grep "maximum XvImage size"
> >
> > My r128 2048 x 2048 and my i815 reports 720 x 576.
These are bogus values (for Rage128). In reality it should be something
like 720xXXXX. Mach64, Rage and Radeon all have limits on the image size
they can scale. Mach64 - less (even rather small with veryearly models),
Rage128 - bigger (DVD size) and Radeon - even bigger (HDTV like greather
than a 1000, don't remember exactly..). Now the trick is that all of these
can "cheat" in hardware skipping pixels.
So, we do not have any limits on height (except for video ram size) and
though there are limits on width the driver might choose not to show them.
(though the current rage128 driver does not have code to skip pixels).
Vladimir Dergachev
> >
>
> And programatically, from xc/docs/hardcopy/Xv/video
>
> There will be a port encoding with the name "XV_IMAGE". The
> width and height of that encoding will indicate the maximum
> source image size.
>
> Which is what xvinfo will check for.
>
> Mark.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xpert mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xpert
>
_______________________________________________
Xpert mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xpert
