Hi Hans, Well I'll confirm that tomorrow. To me it looks like 320x240 scaled with a corresponding loss of detail. I'll see if I can find a nice test image to use to show the difference clearly in comparison to the stk1160 at the same resolution. The ImpactVCB-e should be better but it isn't. The stk1160 s-video at 640x480 is much better than the ImpactVCB-e on either composite or s-video. Regards Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On 04/16/2014 07:11 PM, Steve Cookson wrote: >> Hi Guys, >> >> On 14/04/14 15:02, Hans Verkuil wrote: >> >> > I'd appreciate it if you can test this with a proper video feed. >> >> Ok, here is the first issue: >> >> 1) I have a 640x480 video feed which displays appropriately through >> stk1160, but only displays at 320x240 in ImpactVCBe. >> >> In fact this is the same issue I had last year with: >> >> echo cx23885 card=5 | sudo tee -a /etc/modules >> >> Is your card giving you 640x480? > >For no good reason AFAICT the initial resolution is set to 320x240. But >you can just set it to 640x480 (or more likely, 720x480 for NTSC or >720x576 for PAL): > >v4l2-ctl -v width=640,height=480 > >Regards, > > Hans >-- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in >the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��g����^n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
