On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:05:07PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 21:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > * If someone has a Matrox card that *can* set the gamma on the second
> > > head, file a separate report.
> > >
> > > Brett has a Matrox MGA G400 AGP rev 130. That is
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:05:07PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 21:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > * If someone has a Matrox card that *can* set the gamma on the second
> > > head, file a separate report.
> > >
> > > Brett has a Matrox MGA G400 AGP rev 130. That is
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 21:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > * If someone has a Matrox card that *can* set the gamma on the second
> > head, file a separate report.
> >
> > Brett has a Matrox MGA G400 AGP rev 130. That is the only model of card
> > that matters for this report.
>
> Umm, actuall
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 02:53:35PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 02:53:35PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Okay, I'm getting frustrated with you Matrox guys.
Hopefully this message will clear the air.
> Brett Carter says:
> "After a quick reboot to windows, looks like the results are the same
> there - you can't set the gamma on th
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 21:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > * If someone has a Matrox card that *can* set the gamma on the second
> > head, file a separate report.
> >
> > Brett has a Matrox MGA G400 AGP rev 130. That is the only model of card
> > that matters for this report.
>
> Umm, actuall
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 02:53:35PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 02:53:35PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Okay, I'm getting frustrated with you Matrox guys.
Hopefully this message will clear the air.
> Brett Carter says:
> "After a quick reboot to windows, looks like the results are the same
> there - you can't set the gamma on th
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 17:55, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 11:14:37PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 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 bo
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 16:12, Jeffrey Baker wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 12:31:40PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 04:07, Marc Wilson wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 07:25:51PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > 2) It is possible that this is a hardware limitatio
> I dual-boot to windows on this same box, I'll see if gamma on the second
> monitor is supported there. Also, I don't have Matrox's hal loaded, I
> wonder if that would make a difference?
>
> -Brett Carter
After a quick reboot to windows, looks like the results are the same
there - you can't se
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 07:25:51PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I knew I forgot something. My log and XF86Config are attached.
> 1) Please include the information described in XF86Config(7):
>
>When reporting bugs to the Debian Bug Tracking System in
>xserver-x
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 17:55, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 11:14:37PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 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 bo
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 11:14:37PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 16:12, Jeffrey Baker wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 12:31:40PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 04:07, Marc Wilson wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 07:25:51PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > 2) It is possible that this is a hardware limitatio
> I dual-boot to windows on this same box, I'll see if gamma on the second
> monitor is supported there. Also, I don't have Matrox's hal loaded, I
> wonder if that would make a difference?
>
> -Brett Carter
After a quick reboot to windows, looks like the results are the same
there - you can't se
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 12:31:40PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 04:07, Marc Wilson wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 07:25:51PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > 2) It is possible that this is a hardware limitation. Multiple-output
> > > video cards often don't support
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 07:25:51PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I knew I forgot something. My log and XF86Config are attached.
> 1) Please include the information described in XF86Config(7):
>
>When reporting bugs to the Debian Bug Tracking System in
>xserver-x
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 11:14:37PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 12:31:40PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 04:07, Marc Wilson wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 07:25:51PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > 2) It is possible that this is a hardware limitation. Multiple-output
> > > video cards often don't support
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 04:07, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 07:25:51PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 2) It is possible that this is a hardware limitation. Multiple-output
> > video cards often don't support all features on secondary "heads".
>
> I always had the problem with m
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 04:07, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 07:25:51PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 2) It is possible that this is a hardware limitation. Multiple-output
> > video cards often don't support all features on secondary "heads".
>
> I always had the problem with m
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 07:25:51PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 2) It is possible that this is a hardware limitation. Multiple-output
> video cards often don't support all features on secondary "heads".
I always had the problem with my G450 and later with my G550 that X
wouldn't set the gamm
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 Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 07:25:51PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 2) It is possible that this is a hardware limitation. Multiple-output
> video cards often don't support all features on secondary "heads".
I always had the problem with my G450 and later with my G550 that X
wouldn't set the gamm
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
Package: xserver-xfree86
Version: 4.2.1-3
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 was set at 1.8
Setting any gamma wi
Package: xserver-xfree86
Version: 4.2.1-3
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 was set at 1.8
Setting any gamma wi
32 matches
Mail list logo
