PDA

View Full Version : Scrolling animation with SqueezeboxG.



Phillip Kerman
2004-08-31, 21:24
> I think I notice that the animation is still the old, small character
> resolution, based style on the SqueezeboxG. Assuming this is true, it
> does seem that this makes the larger fonts, I believe because of
> their greater fill factor, more blurred when scrolling (as compared
> to the smaller fonts or the large line fonts on the original
> Squeezebox). Now assuming I am correct and that others are noticing
> it as well; how hard would it be to move to a pixel column resolution
> for scrolling movement? This might greatly enhance the legibility of
> large scrolling on the SqueezeboxG. OTOH there might be too large a
> hit on responsiveness or backwards compatibility issues.
>
> --

I don't know the technical answers but I can vouch for the fact the current
state of the new fonts and animations has lots of room for improvement. I
have one each (SB and SBG) and in many ways the old display is clearer/more
legible. I think it's a fair assumption these issues will be addressed.

Thanks,
Phillip

dean
2004-08-31, 22:26
Phillip:
I'd like to understand the issues you guys are talking about. Can you
be more specific about how the old display is more legible than the new
one?

Daryl:
Are you suggesting that the scrolling animation frames move fewer
pixels at a time? That's certainly possible...

-dean


On Aug 31, 2004, at 9:24 PM, Phillip Kerman wrote:

>> I think I notice that the animation is still the old, small character
>> resolution, based style on the SqueezeboxG. Assuming this is true, it
>> does seem that this makes the larger fonts, I believe because of
>> their greater fill factor, more blurred when scrolling (as compared
>> to the smaller fonts or the large line fonts on the original
>> Squeezebox). Now assuming I am correct and that others are noticing
>> it as well; how hard would it be to move to a pixel column resolution
>> for scrolling movement? This might greatly enhance the legibility of
>> large scrolling on the SqueezeboxG. OTOH there might be too large a
>> hit on responsiveness or backwards compatibility issues.
>>
>> --
>
> I don't know the technical answers but I can vouch for the fact the
> current
> state of the new fonts and animations has lots of room for
> improvement. I
> have one each (SB and SBG) and in many ways the old display is
> clearer/more
> legible. I think it's a fair assumption these issues will be
> addressed.
>
> Thanks,
> Phillip
>
>

Daryle A. Tilroe
2004-09-01, 06:53
dean blackketter wrote:

> Phillip:
> I'd like to understand the issues you guys are talking about. Can you
> be more specific about how the old display is more legible than the new
> one?

I would say that statically the new display is obviously much better. For
me I think that scrolling, particularly at higher speeds with the larger
fonts may be worse or at least not much better. To be specific I am
talking about the two largest fonts at the 'Double-Size Scroll Rate' of (HEY!
what happened to that setting in the latest nightly? Can someone look
into that; anyhow from my prefs file) 0.05. At distances of say 12' or
less it looks rather blurred due to the fairly large block of visible
persistence on the VFD. After that distance the ratio of the persistence
to active seems a little less but there is still the burring. Now I
realize that there will be some maximum speed after which the entire
screen is a blur of glowing fluorescence but I think there may be some
improvements to be made.


> Daryl:
> Are you suggesting that the scrolling animation frames move fewer pixels
> at a time? That's certainly possible...

I would suggest it might be something to try. I suspect given the VFD
persistence it might lead to a lower effective character width. Another
idea would be to make the fonts a little thinner to compensate for the
persistence blur when scrolling.


--
Daryle A. Tilroe

kdf
2004-09-01, 09:34
Quoting "Daryle A. Tilroe" <daryle (AT) micralyne (DOT) com>:

(HEY!
> what happened to that setting in the latest nightly? Can someone look
> into that; anyhow from my prefs file)
yes, sir ;)

it still works, of coruse, but the setting is overlapped due to the addition of
the text size settings added a few days ago. I'll reorganise the grouping
which should help to avoid overwriting other stuff later.
-kdf

Daryle A. Tilroe
2004-09-02, 16:07
Dean:

So it appears that fonts are probably easy (given the recent
postings) and all in the server. Scrolling pixel wise
is likely somewhat more difficult and may require firmware.
Should I open an enhancement request? The only reason
I hesitate is that I don't know how hard this change
would be and can only speculate as to the improvement.
Perhaps yourself, Sean, or kdf can make offer some
insight just to wrap this up by either forgetting about
it or opening a bug.

--
Daryle A. Tilroe

seanadams
2004-09-02, 16:11
Scrolling the entire screen client-side is easy and I plan to add that.
Scrolling the bottom-line only is trickier but doable.


On Sep 2, 2004, at 4:07 PM, Daryle A. Tilroe wrote:

> Dean:
>
> So it appears that fonts are probably easy (given the recent
> postings) and all in the server. Scrolling pixel wise
> is likely somewhat more difficult and may require firmware.
> Should I open an enhancement request? The only reason
> I hesitate is that I don't know how hard this change
> would be and can only speculate as to the improvement.
> Perhaps yourself, Sean, or kdf can make offer some
> insight just to wrap this up by either forgetting about
> it or opening a bug.
>
> --
> Daryle A. Tilroe
>
>

Daryle A. Tilroe
2004-09-02, 19:58
Sean Adams wrote:

> Scrolling the entire screen client-side is easy and I plan to add that.

Well then, if it's easy ;-)

http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532

--
Daryle A. Tilroe