| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Kevin O'Gorman <kogorman@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 4:27 AM, Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> On 24 August 2010 11:23, Adam Carter <adamcarter3@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> > |
| 8 |
>> >> No. I ditched my xorg.conf completely; it had been there just because |
| 9 |
>> >> I |
| 10 |
>> >> couldn't get the Westinghouse monitor to work without it. The Xorg |
| 11 |
>> >> logs |
| 12 |
>> >> show it recognizes a boatload of |
| 13 |
>> >> modes that the monitor likes, but gives an alibi for not using the HD |
| 14 |
>> >> ones. The approach |
| 15 |
>> >> does not seem promising. |
| 16 |
>> >> |
| 17 |
>> >> /var/log/Xorg.0.log attached. I'm paying attention to lines 269 295 |
| 18 |
>> >> 327 |
| 19 |
>> >> 369 377 380 and 381 |
| 20 |
>> >> |
| 21 |
>> >> 269: (II) MACH64(0): Modeline "1920x1080"x0.0 148.50 1920 2008 2052 |
| 22 |
>> >> 2200 1080 1084 1089 1125 +hsync +vsync (67.5 kHz) |
| 23 |
>> >> 295: (II) MACH64(0): Modeline "1920x1080"x60.0 172.80 1920 2040 2248 |
| 24 |
>> >> 2576 1080 1081 1084 1118 -hsync +vsync (67.1 kHz) |
| 25 |
>> >> 327: (II) MACH64(0): Estimated virtual size for aspect ratio 1.7931 is |
| 26 |
>> >> 1920x1080 |
| 27 |
>> >> 369: (II) MACH64(0): Not using default mode "1920x1440" (insufficient |
| 28 |
>> >> memory for mode) |
| 29 |
>> >> 377: (II) MACH64(0): Not using driver mode "1920x1080" (bad mode |
| 30 |
>> >> clock/interlace/doublescan) |
| 31 |
>> >> 380: (II) MACH64(0): Not using driver mode "1920x1080" (bad mode |
| 32 |
>> >> clock/interlace/doublescan) |
| 33 |
>> >> 381: (WW) MACH64(0): Shrinking virtual size estimate from 1920x1080 to |
| 34 |
>> >> 1280x1024 |
| 35 |
>> >> |
| 36 |
>> > |
| 37 |
>> > I assume 269 and 295 are related to 377 and 380. I remember i had a lot |
| 38 |
>> > of |
| 39 |
>> > pain getting a Geforce 440MX to do 16:9, but it was all in the |
| 40 |
>> > modelines. |
| 41 |
>> > There are some modeline calculators on the web, but be warned that some |
| 42 |
>> > of |
| 43 |
>> > them produce bad output. I did eventually get it to work after a lot of |
| 44 |
>> > trial and error. |
| 45 |
>> > |
| 46 |
>> > Also because of this; |
| 47 |
>> > |
| 48 |
>> > (II) MACH64(0): <default monitor>: Using hsync range of 30.00-85.00 kHz |
| 49 |
>> > (II) MACH64(0): <default monitor>: Using vrefresh range of 55.00-75.00 |
| 50 |
>> > Hz |
| 51 |
>> > (II) MACH64(0): <default monitor>: Using maximum pixel clock of 160.00 |
| 52 |
>> > MHz |
| 53 |
>> > |
| 54 |
>> > |
| 55 |
>> > you may need to set the ranges in your xorg.conf instead. check the |
| 56 |
>> > monitors |
| 57 |
>> > specs first tho. |
| 58 |
>> |
| 59 |
>> What does xrandr -q show? |
| 60 |
>> -- |
| 61 |
>> Regards, |
| 62 |
>> Mick |
| 63 |
>> |
| 64 |
> |
| 65 |
> treat log # xrandr -q |
| 66 |
> Screen 0: minimum 320 x 240, current 1280 x 1024, maximum 1440 x 1024 |
| 67 |
> default connected 1280x1024+0+0 0mm x 0mm |
| 68 |
> 1280x1024 60.0* |
| 69 |
> 1440x900 60.0 |
| 70 |
> 1280x960 60.0 |
| 71 |
> 1152x864 75.0 |
| 72 |
> 1024x768 75.0 70.0 60.0 |
| 73 |
> 896x672 60.0 |
| 74 |
> 832x624 75.0 |
| 75 |
> 800x600 75.0 72.0 60.0 56.0 65.0 |
| 76 |
> 700x525 75.0 60.0 |
| 77 |
> 640x512 75.0 60.0 |
| 78 |
> 640x480 75.0 73.0 67.0 60.0 |
| 79 |
> 720x400 70.0 |
| 80 |
> 576x432 75.0 |
| 81 |
> 512x384 75.0 70.0 60.0 |
| 82 |
> 416x312 75.0 |
| 83 |
> 400x300 75.0 72.0 60.0 56.0 |
| 84 |
> 320x240 75.0 73.0 60.0 |
| 85 |
> treat log # |
| 86 |
|
| 87 |
Until you can replace the video card, maybe you can come up with a |
| 88 |
modeline for a lower resolution with 16:9 aspect ratio, such as: |
| 89 |
|
| 90 |
852x480 |
| 91 |
1280x720 |
| 92 |
1365x768 |
| 93 |
1600x900 |
| 94 |
|
| 95 |
It wouldn't be optimal, but at least it would fill your screen without |
| 96 |
being stretched strangely. |
Archives