[Mplayer-dev-eng] Matrox dualhead and syncfb.

[German Gomez Garcia]

On Tue, 1 May 2001, Felix Buenemann wrote:

> On Dienstag,  1. Mai 2001 15:54 you wrote:
> > On Dienstag,  1. Mai 2001 13:45 you wrote:
> > > On Tue, 1 May 2001, Felix Buenemann wrote:
> > > > On Dienstag,  1. Mai 2001 12:23 you wrote:
> > > > > raw support in order to make it seek correctly. I think that some
> > > > > kind of list with the timetable of each chapter would be enough. I've
> > > > > also make some changes to vo_mga and vo_xv, so you can specify
> > > > > anamorphic format with -16:9 that will scale the image width by 4/3.
> > > >
> > > > Think an -aspect x:y option that changes image size before vo plugins
> > > > would be a much cleaner solution (would only have to modify d_height
> > > > and d_width).
> > >
> > > 	The only problem is that I think that this aspect resizing should
> > > be vo-pluing dependant, that is, it should be enable only on plugins that
> > > could do it fast. And you need someway to get the screen dimensions in
> > > order to do the right thing while resizing. Although I suppose we can
> > > assume a 4:3 aspect ratio of the screen, and let people decide if the
> > > plugin is fast enough for them.
> >
> > It's left to the plugin to decide wether it uses d_width and d_height or
> > only uses height and width values! You should take look at the libvo API.
> > -aspect only needs to set -x and -y values (passed to vo plugin as d_width
> > and d_height) and the rest is done by the plugin.
> >
> I've now added needed code to mplayer.c, but I won't commit until Arpi tells 
> me, or I might have to drink 10l Cola =)
> I've attached modified mplayer.c and cfg-mplayer.h (replacements for current 
> cvs ver), so you can test it, ie. use -aspect 1.85 for Anamorphic dvd in 
> 1.85:1 format, or 4:3 or 16:9 or whatever (note most dvds say 16:9 widescreen 
> and at the same time 1:1.85 where in fact it should be named 1.85:1 cause 
> image is wider then high (leaving away 1: and only typing -aspect 1,85 (same 
> as 1.85) will asume you mean 1.85:1).

	Uhmm, I think I don't understand correctly what aspect does. What
I was thinking was that when you set aspect to 16:9 you will get wider
images, that is a 720x576 original will be converted to a 960x576, so you
don't get this "everybody-is-taller" effect, but your modification seems
to do the other way, when I set aspect to 16:9 I get even taller people. I
suppose that it is just a question of what the aspect is, the monitor
aspect or the original image aspect, anyway I still think that monitor
aspect should be determined automatically whenever possible (framebuffer,
mga, xv, etc.).

	Regards,

	- german

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
German Gomez Garcia         | "This isn't right.  This isn't even wrong."
<german at piraos.com>         |                         -- Wolfgang Pauli


_______________________________________________
Mplayer-dev-eng mailing list
Mplayer-dev-eng at lists.sourceforge.net
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mplayer-dev-eng