On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Julie Marchant onpon4@riseup.net wrote:
On 01/13/2017 12:30 PM, dumblob wrote:
Also, if all the housings must support the rates of 1366x768, then I would say it's too much.
I think it's obvious that's not what the standard says. It says that the *card* must support 1366x768. That's very different from requiring the *display* to support 1366x768. The only thing the display is required to do is support a resolution within the range the cards are required to support, so you can't have a type II housing that is only capable of displaying at 1920x1080. But having a type II housing that is only capable of displaying at 800x480 would be perfectly fine.
*thinks*.... yes that's all completely correct.
so. version 1 of the standard says, housings can go *up* to 1366x768.
version 2 (yet to be written up) says, if housings *WANT* to go over 1366x768, they MUST be prepared to provide hardware-level scaling so that CARDS which only support up to 1366x768 may say to the Housing: "yep, i only do 1366x768: your responsibility to deal with that".
if you plug in an HDMI monitor (which has auto-scaling) it's fine: a version 1 Card can go "i'll take native 1366x768 over upscaled 1366x768-1920x1080, thank you" but for something like a laptop or all-in-one PC where the LCD has a fixed resolution of say 1600x900 or 1920x1080, that's where hardware-level scaling would kick in.
l.