Am Montag, den 04.05.2009, 14:13 +0200 schrieb Nicolas Huillard:
> Rolf Ahrenberg a écrit :
> > On Sun, 3 May 2009, Tomas Berglund wrote:
> >
> >> Do you mean aspect ratio 2.21:1 ?
> >>
> >> +const char *VideoAspectString[] = { "4:3",
> >> + "16:9",
> >> + "2.21:9"
> >> + };
> >
> > Besides of that typo, there're plenty of video aspect ratios missing:
> > 1:1, 12:11, 10:11, 16:11, 40:33, 24:11, 20:11, 32:11, 80:33, 18:11,
> > 15:11, 64:33, 160:99, 3:2, 2:1.
>
> 16:10 is also a common device aspect ratio these days ;-)
It may be a common aspect ratio for display devices, but not for video
material. Movies and TV shows are mostly produced in 4:3, 16:9 or
2.21:1.
The OSD should adopt to the size of the video material. If that is
scaled to some non TV screen size, the OSD is scaled by the same factor.
>
> > Anyway, I'm not very fond of this new interface addition. After a little
> > playing with xineliboutput plugin in the past, the OSD scaling to video
> > size is a total mess and hence the HUD mode was developed, where the
> > OSD resolution is the same as the output resolution and the video is
> > scaled to that resolution. I'd strongly suggest to implement
> > "cDevice::GetOSDSize()", so the output plugins can correctly set their
> > OSD resolution with minimal scaling artefacts.
>
> I strongly second that. Add the fact that some (most ?) of the channels
> here mess / cheat with aspect ratio / resolution, and I currently (VDR
> 1.6, SDTV, xineliboutput) have a unextricable aspect/resolution/OSD
> problem. I'm not even trying to solve it...
>
> I'd also suggest the maximum OSD size is 1920x1200 instead of 1920x1080,
> as this 16:10 resolution is very common in computer land. That's also
> the maximum a DVI single link can output.
>
--
Falk
_______________________________________________
vdr mailing list
vdr@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
