Output video to overscanning TV with Intel graphics2019 Community Moderator ElectionHD TV and Macbook Air with Linux see each other but screen is blackBlurry image between Radeon / DVI-to-HDMI / LG LCD monitorNeed to Adjust Screen Edge of an HDMI-connected TVMulti Head monitor with Intel HD Graphics - random black screenIntel HD 4600 graphics card not supported in Linux Mint 17Intel Graphics Driver for Kubuntu 14.10?Linux Mint Intel Integrated Graphics Not WorkingHow am I supposed to arrive at the conclusion that my video driver is called “intel”?xrandr shows disconnected DisplayPort with Intel Graphicsexternal monitor not detected after login
Recursively updating the MLE as new observations stream in
Homology of the fiber
Why does Surtur say that Thor is Asgard's doom?
Should I be concerned about student access to a test bank?
CLI: Get information Ubuntu releases
Jem'Hadar, something strange about their life expectancy
Is there any common country to visit for uk and schengen visa?
PTIJ: Which Dr. Seuss books should one obtain?
Determine voltage drop over 10G resistors with cheap multimeter
Extraneous elements in "Europe countries" list
Writing in a Christian voice
Should a narrator ever describe things based on a characters view instead of fact?
Nested Dynamic SOQL Query
Why I don't get the wanted width of tcbox?
10 year ban after applying for a UK student visa
Does the Shadow Magic sorcerer's Eyes of the Dark feature work on all Darkness spells or just his/her own?
Pre-Employment Background Check With Consent For Future Checks
Is a square zero matrix positive semidefinite?
How can I create URL shortcuts/redirects for task/diff IDs in Phabricator?
Can "few" be used as a subject? If so, what is the rule?
What is the reasoning behind standardization (dividing by standard deviation)?
Do I need an EFI partition for each 18.04 ubuntu I have on my HD?
Why is indicated airspeed rather than ground speed used during the takeoff roll?
The English Debate
Output video to overscanning TV with Intel graphics
2019 Community Moderator ElectionHD TV and Macbook Air with Linux see each other but screen is blackBlurry image between Radeon / DVI-to-HDMI / LG LCD monitorNeed to Adjust Screen Edge of an HDMI-connected TVMulti Head monitor with Intel HD Graphics - random black screenIntel HD 4600 graphics card not supported in Linux Mint 17Intel Graphics Driver for Kubuntu 14.10?Linux Mint Intel Integrated Graphics Not WorkingHow am I supposed to arrive at the conclusion that my video driver is called “intel”?xrandr shows disconnected DisplayPort with Intel Graphicsexternal monitor not detected after login
I have a television which is 1366x768 resolution.
It is a JVC LT-32EM49.
When devices are connected to it, it lists the normal resolutions such as 480p, 720p, 1080p/i. But it does not list 1366x768.
The TV removes some pixels on the edges of the screen when using 720p or higher input. TVs that overscan are supposed to offer an option to disable this, but I am very confident that this TV does not allow the user to disable the overscanning. (Devices such as the PS3 seem to expect and work around this irrational behavior by not putting anything important directly on the edges of the screen. But with computers, the edges of the screen are more important.)
Now, when a computer was connected to this TV with a Radeon HD 4350 card (via DVI-HDMI adapter), Windows XP Professional SP3 listed 1366x768 as an available resolution (and it worked perfectly). I assume this was an OS-level workaround.
This same graphics card could be made to work properly (that is, having the full screen visible) with Linux via much fiddling with XRandR and --set
.
However, I now wish to attach a Dell Studio Hybrid 140G (graphics card being Intel HD graphics, the GMA X3100 specifically) to this television. (The card has DVI and HDMI outputs)
And the Intel integrated graphics cards seem to have no such option to cope with problematic televisions and their relentless overscanning.
I have Googled much on this topic, to no avail. I suspect this post will appear as on the first page of such queries in the near future. xrandr --set overscan
is not available for this graphics card, and --scale
and --transform
(the most widely touted solutions) do not fix the problem on this television.
video intel-graphics
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 11 hours ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
add a comment |
I have a television which is 1366x768 resolution.
It is a JVC LT-32EM49.
When devices are connected to it, it lists the normal resolutions such as 480p, 720p, 1080p/i. But it does not list 1366x768.
The TV removes some pixels on the edges of the screen when using 720p or higher input. TVs that overscan are supposed to offer an option to disable this, but I am very confident that this TV does not allow the user to disable the overscanning. (Devices such as the PS3 seem to expect and work around this irrational behavior by not putting anything important directly on the edges of the screen. But with computers, the edges of the screen are more important.)
Now, when a computer was connected to this TV with a Radeon HD 4350 card (via DVI-HDMI adapter), Windows XP Professional SP3 listed 1366x768 as an available resolution (and it worked perfectly). I assume this was an OS-level workaround.
This same graphics card could be made to work properly (that is, having the full screen visible) with Linux via much fiddling with XRandR and --set
.
However, I now wish to attach a Dell Studio Hybrid 140G (graphics card being Intel HD graphics, the GMA X3100 specifically) to this television. (The card has DVI and HDMI outputs)
And the Intel integrated graphics cards seem to have no such option to cope with problematic televisions and their relentless overscanning.
I have Googled much on this topic, to no avail. I suspect this post will appear as on the first page of such queries in the near future. xrandr --set overscan
is not available for this graphics card, and --scale
and --transform
(the most widely touted solutions) do not fix the problem on this television.
video intel-graphics
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 11 hours ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
I ask this question in the full knowledge that both this graphics card and this television are both probably obsolete and unsupported both by the manufacturers and by all relevant communities. Please do not recommend upgrading any hardware as a "solution" to this problem.
– JamesTheAwesomeDude
Feb 10 '15 at 0:20
add a comment |
I have a television which is 1366x768 resolution.
It is a JVC LT-32EM49.
When devices are connected to it, it lists the normal resolutions such as 480p, 720p, 1080p/i. But it does not list 1366x768.
The TV removes some pixels on the edges of the screen when using 720p or higher input. TVs that overscan are supposed to offer an option to disable this, but I am very confident that this TV does not allow the user to disable the overscanning. (Devices such as the PS3 seem to expect and work around this irrational behavior by not putting anything important directly on the edges of the screen. But with computers, the edges of the screen are more important.)
Now, when a computer was connected to this TV with a Radeon HD 4350 card (via DVI-HDMI adapter), Windows XP Professional SP3 listed 1366x768 as an available resolution (and it worked perfectly). I assume this was an OS-level workaround.
This same graphics card could be made to work properly (that is, having the full screen visible) with Linux via much fiddling with XRandR and --set
.
However, I now wish to attach a Dell Studio Hybrid 140G (graphics card being Intel HD graphics, the GMA X3100 specifically) to this television. (The card has DVI and HDMI outputs)
And the Intel integrated graphics cards seem to have no such option to cope with problematic televisions and their relentless overscanning.
I have Googled much on this topic, to no avail. I suspect this post will appear as on the first page of such queries in the near future. xrandr --set overscan
is not available for this graphics card, and --scale
and --transform
(the most widely touted solutions) do not fix the problem on this television.
video intel-graphics
I have a television which is 1366x768 resolution.
It is a JVC LT-32EM49.
When devices are connected to it, it lists the normal resolutions such as 480p, 720p, 1080p/i. But it does not list 1366x768.
The TV removes some pixels on the edges of the screen when using 720p or higher input. TVs that overscan are supposed to offer an option to disable this, but I am very confident that this TV does not allow the user to disable the overscanning. (Devices such as the PS3 seem to expect and work around this irrational behavior by not putting anything important directly on the edges of the screen. But with computers, the edges of the screen are more important.)
Now, when a computer was connected to this TV with a Radeon HD 4350 card (via DVI-HDMI adapter), Windows XP Professional SP3 listed 1366x768 as an available resolution (and it worked perfectly). I assume this was an OS-level workaround.
This same graphics card could be made to work properly (that is, having the full screen visible) with Linux via much fiddling with XRandR and --set
.
However, I now wish to attach a Dell Studio Hybrid 140G (graphics card being Intel HD graphics, the GMA X3100 specifically) to this television. (The card has DVI and HDMI outputs)
And the Intel integrated graphics cards seem to have no such option to cope with problematic televisions and their relentless overscanning.
I have Googled much on this topic, to no avail. I suspect this post will appear as on the first page of such queries in the near future. xrandr --set overscan
is not available for this graphics card, and --scale
and --transform
(the most widely touted solutions) do not fix the problem on this television.
video intel-graphics
video intel-graphics
edited Feb 10 '15 at 17:11
JamesTheAwesomeDude
asked Feb 10 '15 at 0:20
JamesTheAwesomeDudeJamesTheAwesomeDude
3222624
3222624
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 11 hours ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 11 hours ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
I ask this question in the full knowledge that both this graphics card and this television are both probably obsolete and unsupported both by the manufacturers and by all relevant communities. Please do not recommend upgrading any hardware as a "solution" to this problem.
– JamesTheAwesomeDude
Feb 10 '15 at 0:20
add a comment |
I ask this question in the full knowledge that both this graphics card and this television are both probably obsolete and unsupported both by the manufacturers and by all relevant communities. Please do not recommend upgrading any hardware as a "solution" to this problem.
– JamesTheAwesomeDude
Feb 10 '15 at 0:20
I ask this question in the full knowledge that both this graphics card and this television are both probably obsolete and unsupported both by the manufacturers and by all relevant communities. Please do not recommend upgrading any hardware as a "solution" to this problem.
– JamesTheAwesomeDude
Feb 10 '15 at 0:20
I ask this question in the full knowledge that both this graphics card and this television are both probably obsolete and unsupported both by the manufacturers and by all relevant communities. Please do not recommend upgrading any hardware as a "solution" to this problem.
– JamesTheAwesomeDude
Feb 10 '15 at 0:20
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
I feel your pain. I fought with this same issue for quite a few hours before I decided to just start plugging different values and combinations of parameters into XRandR, and suddenly I was astonished to see that one of the commands I had previously entered without success had now produced the desired result! After some further fiddling, I managed to produce a repeatable scenario, which I will share with you:
$ xrandr --output HDMI-1 --mode 1280x720 --transform 1,0,-40,0,1,-25,0,0,1 --panning 1280x720+40+20
$ xrandr --output HDMI-1 --mode 1280x720 --fb 1200x680 --transform 1,0,-40,0,1,-25,0,0,1 --panning 1280x720+40+20
These two lines are identical except that the second has the addition of the --fb 1200x680
. The second line is the desired result, but it only worked when I entered it after entering the other line first - if I used the second line when coming from a "standard" configuration, I'd still have the cut-off bottom and right edges.
The -40
and -25
in the transform
parameter pushes the entire picture down and to the right; the +40+20
on the end of the panning
parameter adds padding to the bottom and right edges, and those numbers need to equal 1/2 of the difference between mode
and fb
.
(Note that my horizontal numbers are different: I needed 25 extra pixels on the left, but only 20 on the right. Regardless of your top and left margins in transform
, you'll want to double your panning
modifiers when determining the value for fb
.)
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f183927%2foutput-video-to-overscanning-tv-with-intel-graphics%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I feel your pain. I fought with this same issue for quite a few hours before I decided to just start plugging different values and combinations of parameters into XRandR, and suddenly I was astonished to see that one of the commands I had previously entered without success had now produced the desired result! After some further fiddling, I managed to produce a repeatable scenario, which I will share with you:
$ xrandr --output HDMI-1 --mode 1280x720 --transform 1,0,-40,0,1,-25,0,0,1 --panning 1280x720+40+20
$ xrandr --output HDMI-1 --mode 1280x720 --fb 1200x680 --transform 1,0,-40,0,1,-25,0,0,1 --panning 1280x720+40+20
These two lines are identical except that the second has the addition of the --fb 1200x680
. The second line is the desired result, but it only worked when I entered it after entering the other line first - if I used the second line when coming from a "standard" configuration, I'd still have the cut-off bottom and right edges.
The -40
and -25
in the transform
parameter pushes the entire picture down and to the right; the +40+20
on the end of the panning
parameter adds padding to the bottom and right edges, and those numbers need to equal 1/2 of the difference between mode
and fb
.
(Note that my horizontal numbers are different: I needed 25 extra pixels on the left, but only 20 on the right. Regardless of your top and left margins in transform
, you'll want to double your panning
modifiers when determining the value for fb
.)
add a comment |
I feel your pain. I fought with this same issue for quite a few hours before I decided to just start plugging different values and combinations of parameters into XRandR, and suddenly I was astonished to see that one of the commands I had previously entered without success had now produced the desired result! After some further fiddling, I managed to produce a repeatable scenario, which I will share with you:
$ xrandr --output HDMI-1 --mode 1280x720 --transform 1,0,-40,0,1,-25,0,0,1 --panning 1280x720+40+20
$ xrandr --output HDMI-1 --mode 1280x720 --fb 1200x680 --transform 1,0,-40,0,1,-25,0,0,1 --panning 1280x720+40+20
These two lines are identical except that the second has the addition of the --fb 1200x680
. The second line is the desired result, but it only worked when I entered it after entering the other line first - if I used the second line when coming from a "standard" configuration, I'd still have the cut-off bottom and right edges.
The -40
and -25
in the transform
parameter pushes the entire picture down and to the right; the +40+20
on the end of the panning
parameter adds padding to the bottom and right edges, and those numbers need to equal 1/2 of the difference between mode
and fb
.
(Note that my horizontal numbers are different: I needed 25 extra pixels on the left, but only 20 on the right. Regardless of your top and left margins in transform
, you'll want to double your panning
modifiers when determining the value for fb
.)
add a comment |
I feel your pain. I fought with this same issue for quite a few hours before I decided to just start plugging different values and combinations of parameters into XRandR, and suddenly I was astonished to see that one of the commands I had previously entered without success had now produced the desired result! After some further fiddling, I managed to produce a repeatable scenario, which I will share with you:
$ xrandr --output HDMI-1 --mode 1280x720 --transform 1,0,-40,0,1,-25,0,0,1 --panning 1280x720+40+20
$ xrandr --output HDMI-1 --mode 1280x720 --fb 1200x680 --transform 1,0,-40,0,1,-25,0,0,1 --panning 1280x720+40+20
These two lines are identical except that the second has the addition of the --fb 1200x680
. The second line is the desired result, but it only worked when I entered it after entering the other line first - if I used the second line when coming from a "standard" configuration, I'd still have the cut-off bottom and right edges.
The -40
and -25
in the transform
parameter pushes the entire picture down and to the right; the +40+20
on the end of the panning
parameter adds padding to the bottom and right edges, and those numbers need to equal 1/2 of the difference between mode
and fb
.
(Note that my horizontal numbers are different: I needed 25 extra pixels on the left, but only 20 on the right. Regardless of your top and left margins in transform
, you'll want to double your panning
modifiers when determining the value for fb
.)
I feel your pain. I fought with this same issue for quite a few hours before I decided to just start plugging different values and combinations of parameters into XRandR, and suddenly I was astonished to see that one of the commands I had previously entered without success had now produced the desired result! After some further fiddling, I managed to produce a repeatable scenario, which I will share with you:
$ xrandr --output HDMI-1 --mode 1280x720 --transform 1,0,-40,0,1,-25,0,0,1 --panning 1280x720+40+20
$ xrandr --output HDMI-1 --mode 1280x720 --fb 1200x680 --transform 1,0,-40,0,1,-25,0,0,1 --panning 1280x720+40+20
These two lines are identical except that the second has the addition of the --fb 1200x680
. The second line is the desired result, but it only worked when I entered it after entering the other line first - if I used the second line when coming from a "standard" configuration, I'd still have the cut-off bottom and right edges.
The -40
and -25
in the transform
parameter pushes the entire picture down and to the right; the +40+20
on the end of the panning
parameter adds padding to the bottom and right edges, and those numbers need to equal 1/2 of the difference between mode
and fb
.
(Note that my horizontal numbers are different: I needed 25 extra pixels on the left, but only 20 on the right. Regardless of your top and left margins in transform
, you'll want to double your panning
modifiers when determining the value for fb
.)
answered Sep 26 '18 at 17:05
Dan HendersonDan Henderson
1012
1012
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f183927%2foutput-video-to-overscanning-tv-with-intel-graphics%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I ask this question in the full knowledge that both this graphics card and this television are both probably obsolete and unsupported both by the manufacturers and by all relevant communities. Please do not recommend upgrading any hardware as a "solution" to this problem.
– JamesTheAwesomeDude
Feb 10 '15 at 0:20