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 _______________________________________________ vdr mailing list vdr@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
