On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 07:40:12PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> Every monitor has a characteristic color response curve; that's one
> thing one can compensate for using xgamma. You can't expect the same
> values to produce the same result on different monitors.
Okay, I'm getting frustrated with y
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 07:40:12PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> Every monitor has a characteristic color response curve; that's one
> thing one can compensate for using xgamma. You can't expect the same
> values to produce the same result on different monitors.
Okay, I'm getting frustrated with y
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 07:07:15PM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
> I always had the problem with my G450 and later with my G550 that X
> wouldn't set the gamma the same on both heads, although it claimed that it
> was according to the log. The monitors were the same make and model, and
> the differenc
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 07:07:15PM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
> I always had the problem with my G450 and later with my G550 that X
> wouldn't set the gamma the same on both heads, although it claimed that it
> was according to the log. The monitors were the same make and model, and
> the differenc
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 06:10:23PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I added a:
> Gamma 1.8
> to my XF86Config-4 file and upon restart it was obvious that my primary
> monitor had it's gamma set to 1.8, but the secondary one was still set
> to 1.0 even though the X log and xgamma claimed it w
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 06:10:23PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I added a:
> Gamma 1.8
> to my XF86Config-4 file and upon restart it was obvious that my primary
> monitor had it's gamma set to 1.8, but the secondary one was still set
> to 1.0 even though the X log and xgamma claimed it w
6 matches
Mail list logo
