Question for Thomas I guess...
I'm in the process of setting up a PVR and just came across the FRC project which looks very interesting!
One query I have though is the re. the restriction on the resolutions available.
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.
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?
(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.)
Thanks
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.
BTW: 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 [1]). The D945GSEJT board gives you the smallest and most energy efficient VDR currently possible. You can use the plain board as SCART streaming device.
Cheers Thomas
[1] http://lowbyte.de/vga-sync-fields/vga-sync-fields/README
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 03:04:04AM +0200, Thomas Hilber wrote:
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.
Hmm.. why without? FRC doesn't work on Intel @ 720x576i ?
Just confused :)
-- Pasi
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:14:22AM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
Hmm.. why without? FRC doesn't work on Intel @ 720x576i ?
720x576i and 1440x576i are both SCART/PAL resolutions with a line frequency of 15.625kHz. VGA2SCART+FRC on Intel requires 1440x576i. VGA2SCART+FRC on ATI also runs directly with 720x576i.
- Thomas
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:53:55AM +0200, Thomas Hilber wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:14:22AM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
Hmm.. why without? FRC doesn't work on Intel @ 720x576i ?
720x576i and 1440x576i are both SCART/PAL resolutions with a line frequency of 15.625kHz. VGA2SCART+FRC on Intel requires 1440x576i. VGA2SCART+FRC on ATI also runs directly with 720x576i.
Ok, thanks.
-- Pasi
Thomas Hilber wrote:
<snip>
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.
Do standard CRTs handle this increased resolution/clock? I've never tried driving this signal into my TV.
In fact I use the cable from here http://members.optusnet.com.au/eviltim/scart.htm with the cut off circuit so I'd actually have to build a new cable to use this resolution.
Not that that's particularly difficult but do you gain any advantage using the higher resolution on the Intel cards vs standard 576i with ATI. If not then I'll probably just save the hassle and buy an ATI card of eBay instead.
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:44:59AM +0100, dave cunningham wrote:
Do standard CRTs handle this increased resolution/clock? I've never tried driving this signal into my TV.
I haven't experienced any problems even with very old TVs caused by the higher video signal bandwidth.
In fact I use the cable from here http://members.optusnet.com.au/eviltim/scart.htm with the cut off circuit so I'd actually have to build a new cable to use this resolution.
you can use any VGA2SCART cable realizing some composite sync circuitry. My favorite cable (the simplest circuit I know from) is described in my README. I don't know why most VGA2SCART cables are composed of so many parts.
Not that that's particularly difficult but do you gain any advantage using the higher resolution on the Intel cards vs standard 576i with ATI. If not then I'll probably just save the hassle and buy an ATI card of eBay instead.
ATI cards do have a major drawback compared to Intel cards: They can't scale vertically in interlaced mode because they can't scale both fields independently. So your TV must handle format adaptions.
- Thomas
In message 20090827195633.GA3425@roja.toh.cx, Thomas Hilber wrote
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:44:59AM +0100, dave cunningham wrote:
In fact I use the cable from here http://members.optusnet.com.au/eviltim/scart.htm with the cut off circuit so I'd actually have to build a new cable to use this resolution.
you can use any VGA2SCART cable realizing some composite sync circuitry. My favorite cable (the simplest circuit I know from) is described in my README. I don't know why most VGA2SCART cables are composed of so many parts.
I actually made the cable I did for the auto shutoff so as to be sure I didn't accidentally kill the TV. Also fits inside the scart shell which is nice (though I guess this isn't so difficult).
ATI cards do have a major drawback compared to Intel cards: They can't scale vertically in interlaced mode because they can't scale both fields independently. So your TV must handle format adaptions.
Guess I better break out the soldering iron again then...
Thanks for the advice!
In message 20090827195633.GA3425@roja.toh.cx, Thomas Hilber wrote
ATI cards do have a major drawback compared to Intel cards: They can't scale vertically in interlaced mode because they can't scale both fields independently. So your TV must handle format adaptions.
Looking for some help again :(
I've finally tried to get this up and running with the patched Intel xserver on a D945GCLF2 atom board (I see from your readme that you've tried this configuration so assume it should work).
(Note I'm using MPlayer right now and not xine/vdr).
The desktop's working just fine but I'm having problems with XV. When running in a window xv's fine however when I switch to full screen all I get is a blue screen + audio.
I've done a lot of googling / messing with xserver options / xv overlay ports but I'm no further forward yet!
Any ideas?
Thanks!
In message lkpgcRBORZpKFwtD@echelon.upsilon.org.uk, dave cunningham wrote
Looking for some help again :(
I've finally tried to get this up and running with the patched Intel xserver on a D945GCLF2 atom board (I see from your readme that you've tried this configuration so assume it should work).
(Note I'm using MPlayer right now and not xine/vdr).
The desktop's working just fine but I'm having problems with XV. When running in a window xv's fine however when I switch to full screen all I get is a blue screen + audio.
I've done a lot of googling / messing with xserver options / xv overlay ports but I'm no further forward yet!
An addendum...
When running in non-interlaced mode with my normal monitor (1280*1024) rather than the TV xv works fine in full screen mode. (Incidentally I note the readme for the xserver says that the driver doesn't support interlaced mode though I guess that's what patch changed).
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 12:16:30AM +0100, dave cunningham wrote:
I've finally tried to get this up and running with the patched Intel xserver on a D945GCLF2 atom board (I see from your readme that you've tried this configuration so assume it should work).
right, works very well
The desktop's working just fine but I'm having problems with XV. When running in a window xv's fine however when I switch to full screen all I get is a blue screen + audio.
probably a xorg.conf configuration issue. Did you use clone mode? That does not work with interlaced timings. Symptoms are like the ones you describe. Attached is a working sample for xorg.conf I use for my D945GCLF2.
- Thomas
In message 20090908042705.GH6318@roja.toh.cx, Thomas Hilber wrote
The desktop's working just fine but I'm having problems with XV. When running in a window xv's fine however when I switch to full screen all I get is a blue screen + audio.
probably a xorg.conf configuration issue. Did you use clone mode? That does not work with interlaced timings. Symptoms are like the ones you describe. Attached is a working sample for xorg.conf I use for my D945GCLF2.
Same behaviour with your xorg.conf unfortunately.
I get the following with "xrandr -q"
Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1440 x 576, maximum 1600 x 1600 VGA connected 1440x576+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 0mm x 0mm 1440x576_50i 25.1*+ 1600x1200_60 59.9 1368x768_60 60.0 1280x800 60.0 1280x768 60.0 1024x768 60.0 800x600 60.3 800x520_50i 25.0 720x576_50i 25.0 640x480 59.9 VGA-1 connected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 1280x800 60.0 1280x768 60.0 1024x768 60.0 800x600 60.3 640x480 59.9
Bit confused as to where VGA-1 is coming from. Presumably this could be the source of the problem?
xrandr --output VGA-1 --off
appears to have no affect.
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 11:08:39PM +0100, dave cunningham wrote:
Same behaviour with your xorg.conf unfortunately.
I've heard there are some buggy intel-DDXes floating around. I don't know which one you use. A possible workaround is do add
SubSection "Display" Virtual 3200 1200 EndSubSection
to the "Screen" section. Attached is a further 'xorg.conf' with the workaround included. Please give it a try.
- Thomas
In message 20090909185925.GA24896@roja.toh.cx, Thomas Hilber wrote
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 11:08:39PM +0100, dave cunningham wrote:
Same behaviour with your xorg.conf unfortunately.
I've heard there are some buggy intel-DDXes floating around. I don't know which one you use. A possible workaround is do add
SubSection "Display" Virtual 3200 1200 EndSubSectionto the "Screen" section. Attached is a further 'xorg.conf' with the workaround included. Please give it a try.
I added this section but it didn't make any difference.
I have now fixed it though by adding a new monitor for VGA-1 and setting "Ignore" to "true" in xorg.conf.
Thanks again for the help (wouldn't have found this if I hadn't started looking into Clone as you mentioned earlier in the thread!)
-
dave cunningham -
dave cunningham -
Pasi Kärkkäinen -
Thomas Hilber