Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: RandR 1.3 Explained, Demonstrated

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,622

    Default RandR 1.3 Explained, Demonstrated

    Phoronix: RandR 1.3 Explained, Demonstrated

    The first X.Org talk at FOSDEM 2009 was on version 1.3 of the Resize and Rotate extension. Matthias Hopf talked about RandR 1.3 and then Keith Packard demonstrated the transformations and panning operations using this soon-to-be-released version of RandR. Among the features for RandR 1.3 are querying state without output probing, multi-monitor panning, display transformations (translation, scaling, rotation, projection), and support for standard outputs.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=13472

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Does anybody have any details on the problems with the planned GPU-Object support? Aka how far along is it, what major problems did they run into that made them not include it in 1.3. Do we need a whole new protocol and major release to include this (and hence many months) or is this something that may be available in a month or two.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zgold550 View Post
    Does anybody have any details on the problems with the planned GPU-Object support? Aka how far along is it, what major problems did they run into that made them not include it in 1.3. Do we need a whole new protocol and major release to include this (and hence many months) or is this something that may be available in a month or two.
    It hasn't been coded yet.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    4

    Default

    So what happened in between a couple months ago when it was still in the plan for 1.3 and now? Any major technical issue which made x devs realize that it would take longer than planned, or it was just lower in the priority list and they didn't get to it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,434

    Default

    My understanding (which could be wrong) was that in order to fit multiple GPUs into the RandR model you needed something like "shatter" to split drawing commands across GPUs. At XDC last April I think GPU objects were already pretty much out of 1.3.

  6. #6

    Default

    It would be great to have a link to the video as an ogg file (or even a mpg or something)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,613

    Default

    Well you could convert that flv to mp3, basically you would only need the left channel as you see nothing on the video and sound is only from left

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    54

    Default These videos not very good

    Hi there, I'm sorry if I offend anyone, that is not my intention. But I have to say that this video and some others I have seen on phoronix are not very good at all.

    In this one the only thing I can see is a table and an unreadable projection screen. Partly because the table is in the way and partly because it is too bright and too little contrast.
    Why do you not point the camera to the speaker at least?
    Is it possible to choose a better position to shoot the video, like a seat at the front right before the prejection screen?

    Also the audio is pretty noisy and I can hardly hear what is being said.

    I love the fact that you make videos of these interesting talks, but with this level of quality there is not much point to it.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bucharest, Romania
    Posts
    71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by perpetualrabbit View Post
    Hi there, I'm sorry if I offend anyone, that is not my intention. But I have to say that this video and some others I have seen on phoronix are not very good at all.
    I was just about to post the same, all (at least the ones I looked at) the latest FOSDEM videos seem like this: a table, noisy/poor sound, sometimes a hand waving, and a white place where supposedly something is being projected. Couple that with the terrible accent some of the speakers have and you get a useless waste of bandwidth!

    Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't appreciate the effort, however since the "video" is basically a static uninteresting picture, why not save the effort and simply present an audio recording together with some pics? Really now... just so you can say you've got "videos"? Dissapointing! Make it ogg/mp3 and that's it.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    117

    Default

    I wasn't that thrilled with the video, or the audio track. To turn this into a positive suggestion: I would prefer a transcript over the poorly-miked audio, and if the speakers had any presentations (PowerPoint of OO Impress) that would be more useful than the current video.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •