Solaris 10 X Windows colormaps vs hardware - Solaris

This is a discussion on Solaris 10 X Windows colormaps vs hardware - Solaris ; I am porting an X application from Solaris2.6/Sparc to Solaris 10/x86. The display application requires multiple (hardware) colormaps to correctly display images without "flashing". Does anyone have a Solaris 10 x86 installation with a PCI (or PMC) graphics card interface ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Solaris 10 X Windows colormaps vs hardware

  1. Solaris 10 X Windows colormaps vs hardware

    I am porting an X application from Solaris2.6/Sparc to Solaris 10/x86. The
    display application requires multiple (hardware) colormaps to correctly
    display images without "flashing".

    Does anyone have a Solaris 10 x86 installation with a PCI (or PMC) graphics
    card interface that supports more than 1 hardware colormap? The command:

    xdpyinfo | grep colormaps

    will show you how many maps your hardware supports. I would be grateful to
    learn of any Solaris 10 x86 PCI (or PMC) graphics hardware that supports at
    least 2 maps.

    This gets a bit more away from a platform question, and into an X question,
    but:

    How does the Xserver determine how many hardware colormaps are available?
    My X server says that my ATI Radeon 7000 hardware only supports 1 hardware
    colormap - could it be mistaken/"fibbing" about this capability? Perhaps
    just 1 colormap is a fallback default and can be changed?

  2. Re: Solaris 10 X Windows colormaps vs hardware

    lslomer writes in alt.solaris.x86:
    |I am porting an X application from Solaris2.6/Sparc to Solaris 10/x86. The
    |display application requires multiple (hardware) colormaps to correctly
    |display images without "flashing".

    Sounds like an application written for 8-bit graphics. Most video cards
    today have a single 24-bit colormap, which also prevents flashing by
    just always making all possible colors available to all applications.
    You lose the ability to play tricks with the colormap, but gain much
    simplicity and the ability to use many more colors in your applications.

    Have you tried simply making it use 24-bit TrueColor instead of 8-bit
    PsuedoColor?

    --
    Alan Coopersmith * alanc@alum.calberkeley.org * Alan.Coopersmith@Sun.COM
    http://blogs.sun.com/alanc/ * http://people.freedesktop.org/~alanc/
    http://del.icio.us/alanc/ * http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~alanc/
    Working for, but definitely not speaking for, Sun Microsystems, Inc.

  3. Re: Solaris 10 X Windows colormaps vs hardware

    Alan Coopersmith wrote in
    news:dqe2kd$6j7$1@agate.berkeley.edu:

    > lslomer writes in alt.solaris.x86:
    >|I am porting an X application from Solaris2.6/Sparc to Solaris 10/x86.
    >|The display application requires multiple (hardware) colormaps to
    >|correctly display images without "flashing".
    >
    > Sounds like an application written for 8-bit graphics. Most video
    > cards today have a single 24-bit colormap, which also prevents
    > flashing by just always making all possible colors available to all
    > applications. You lose the ability to play tricks with the colormap,
    > but gain much simplicity and the ability to use many more colors in
    > your applications.
    >
    > Have you tried simply making it use 24-bit TrueColor instead of 8-bit
    > PsuedoColor?
    >


    Hmmm... I mis-spoke: the app actually uses 24-bit DirectColor, not
    PsuedoColor, visuals. Apologies...

    The application as written actually uses two 24-bit DirectColor
    visuals, each with its own unique colormap, and manipulates each
    colormap in real-time in order to re-stretch the contrast of the
    displayed images. This is an old application and at the time it
    was probably the quickest way to re-strech an image in real-time
    (as opposed to re-calculating and re-writing the image data itself).

    While rewriting that part of the app is possible, I thought I'd
    see what hardware was out there first - and explore whether the
    X server might be "fibbing" about my hardware's capability.

+ Reply to Thread