On 01/24/2012 07:12 AM, Tim wrote:
On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 11:58 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
I've always considered them the video equivalent of the audiophule,
Was that a mispelling of audiofile, or a joke of audio+fool? ;-)
It's a term I've seen a number of times over the years on UseNet to
On Wed, 2012-01-25 at 01:42 +1030, Tim wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 11:58 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
> > Motion Pictures are shown at 32 fps and nobody complains about
> > flickering
>
> Not quite. Films are usually shot at 24 frames per second, and shown
> back at a multiple of that. i.e. Each f
On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 11:58 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
> Motion Pictures are shown at 32 fps and nobody complains about
> flickering
Not quite. Films are usually shot at 24 frames per second, and shown
back at a multiple of that. i.e. Each frame is usually strobed two or
three times, so that you se
On Tuesday 24 January 2012 01:12 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On Monday 23 January 2012 15:43:38 Jatin K wrote:
On Monday 23 January 2012 03:22 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
Nothing seems to be wrong with your X setup, AFAICS. What problem are
you
experiencing?
There is no issue... I was just compa
On Monday 23 January 2012 14:47:44 Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> > That is, assuming one can
> > actually trust the glxgears output numbers.
>
> Marko, please educate yourself.
>
> http://wiki.cchtml.com/index.php/Glxgears_is_not_a_Benchmark
>
> If you start typing a repl
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 11:58:31 -0800
Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 01/23/2012 11:42 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> > I always found the output of glxgears quite confusing, to say the least. If
> > you think logically --- your screen displays a picture 60 times in one
> > second,
> > and some graphics cards (
Marko Vojinovic wrote:
That is, assuming one can
actually trust the glxgears output numbers.
Marko, please educate yourself.
http://wiki.cchtml.com/index.php/Glxgears_is_not_a_Benchmark
If you start typing a reply back with "yeah I've seen that" then you
need to read it again.
--
users mail
Once upon a time, Joe Zeff said:
> Motion Pictures are shown at 32 fps and nobody complains about
> flickering,
Nope, 24 fps. Also, the technology is different; reflected light on a
screen vs. direct view has different effects on the eye.
In general, you can't see more than about 20-24 fps, so
On 01/23/2012 12:08 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
On 1/23/2012 11:58 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
Motion Pictures are shown at 32 fps [...]
35mm is 24fps or multiples thereof ... what is shown at 32fps?
I sit corrected. However, 24 fps makes my point even better.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.f
On 1/23/2012 11:58 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
Motion Pictures are shown at 32 fps [...]
35mm is 24fps or multiples thereof ... what is shown at 32fps?
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/u
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 01/23/2012 11:42 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
>>
>> I always found the output of glxgears quite confusing, to say the least.
>> If
>> you think logically --- your screen displays a picture 60 times in one
>> second,
>> and some graphics cards (li
On 01/23/2012 11:42 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
I always found the output of glxgears quite confusing, to say the least. If
you think logically --- your screen displays a picture 60 times in one second,
and some graphics cards (like Intel) render the frames in the same rythm, to
display the images
On Monday 23 January 2012 15:43:38 Jatin K wrote:
> On Monday 23 January 2012 03:22 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> > Nothing seems to be wrong with your X setup, AFAICS. What problem are
> > you
> > experiencing?
>
> There is no issue... I was just comparing my two laptop's performance both
> are De
On Monday 23 January 2012 03:22 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
what should I look for ??? I've reinstalled the X server but the
situation is the same
can you spotlight on the issue ? here[1] the Xorg.0.log
Nothing seems to be wrong with your X setup, AFAICS. What problem are you
experiencing?
The
On Monday 23 January 2012 14:45:28 Jatin K wrote:
> On Sunday 22 January 2012 12:38 AM, Mark LaPierre wrote:
> > On 01/21/2012 04:30 AM, Markku Kolkka wrote:
> > Check your X server log files for more clues about synchronization
> > issues.
>
> what should I look for ??? I've reinstalled the X se
On Sunday 22 January 2012 12:38 AM, Mark LaPierre wrote:
On 01/21/2012 04:30 AM, Markku Kolkka wrote:
21.1.2012 10:08, Jatin K kirjoitti:
I've Dell Latitiude E5620 Laptop with intel HD 3000 graphics card [1],
Right. You want it to look more like this:
[mlapier@mushroom ~]$ glxgears
20670 fr
On 01/21/2012 02:18 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 21.01.2012 20:08, schrieb Mark LaPierre:
On 01/21/2012 04:30 AM, Markku Kolkka wrote:
21.1.2012 10:08, Jatin K kirjoitti:
I've Dell Latitiude E5620 Laptop with intel HD 3000 graphics card [1],
According glxinfo [2] that direct rendering is enabl
Am 21.01.2012 20:08, schrieb Mark LaPierre:
> On 01/21/2012 04:30 AM, Markku Kolkka wrote:
>> 21.1.2012 10:08, Jatin K kirjoitti:
>>> I've Dell Latitiude E5620 Laptop with intel HD 3000 graphics card [1],
>>> According glxinfo [2] that direct rendering is enabled but glxgear[3]
>>> output shows v
On 01/21/2012 04:30 AM, Markku Kolkka wrote:
21.1.2012 10:08, Jatin K kirjoitti:
I've Dell Latitiude E5620 Laptop with intel HD 3000 graphics card [1],
According glxinfo [2] that direct rendering is enabled but glxgear[3]
output shows very low FPS
The answer is included in the glxinfo output:
21.1.2012 10:08, Jatin K kirjoitti:
> I've Dell Latitiude E5620 Laptop with intel HD 3000 graphics card [1],
> According glxinfo [2] that direct rendering is enabled but glxgear[3]
> output shows very low FPS
The answer is included in the glxinfo output:
> [3]-- glxgears
>
> Running synchron
On Saturday 21 January 2012 01:42 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Jatin K wrote:
Dear All
I've Dell Latitiude E5620 Laptop with intel HD 3000 graphics card [1],
According glxinfo [2] that direct rendering is enabled but glxgear[3] output
shows very low FPS
glxge
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Jatin K wrote:
> Dear All
>
> I've Dell Latitiude E5620 Laptop with intel HD 3000 graphics card [1],
> According glxinfo [2] that direct rendering is enabled but glxgear[3] output
> shows very low FPS
>
> is there anything wrong with Xorg configuration on my laptop
Dear All
I've Dell Latitiude E5620 Laptop with intel HD 3000 graphics card [1],
According glxinfo [2] that direct rendering is enabled but glxgear[3]
output shows very low FPS
is there anything wrong with Xorg configuration on my laptop ??? if
direct rendering is enabled then FPS should (mu
23 matches
Mail list logo
