Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
>On Fri, 31 May 2002, Doug McClendon wrot
>
>I'd say you do want interlacing.
>Use 1920x1080i at 120 fields/sec = 60 frames/sec.
>At 120 fields/sec, flicker wont be a problem, the pixels will be squarish,
>and the interlacing will give you analog hardware anti-aliasing
>(in the monitor, not the card!).
>
>
Uhh... Yeah, interlacing at 120 fields (60 real frames) would of course
be nice. Unfortunately what prompted all this was HDTV's, as they are
on the market in the US today. Which is why the limiting factor is
1080i@60fields/30real-frames, or alternately 540p@60real-frames. I
didn't mean to suggest that interlacing was a blanket bad thing, just
that it is for static text/windows at 60fields/30real-frames per second.
>OpenGL based 3D window / desktop managers have been around for
>several years. I don't have any names, but they do what you want,
>plus allow windows to exist at an angle to the screen
>(tilt it away, so that you can still get an overview of what is going
>on, but take up very little width or height...).
>
>
I'll have to check out the enlightenment version that someone else
suggested then.
>5Kx5K ? I believe that they allow the windows to exist in a 3D volume
>with floating point coordinates (might even get around the limit (16bits?
>on coordinates on an X screen).
>
>
The 5Kx5K was just a random thought / quick hack idea. I'll have to
check out what enlightenment
is doing.
-dmc
_______________________________________________
Xpert mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xpert
