I'm trying to grasp programming graphics with Xlib and OpenGL. I can create windows etc., but I stuck at changing display modes.
I can list available video modes with Xrandr functions (XRRSizes, XRRRates, XRRGetScreenInfo, XRRConfigSizes), check which one is currently set (XRRConfigCurrentConfiguration), and change the resolution (XRRSetScreenConfig).
I can list available bit depths (a.k.a. color depths, that is, bits per pixel) with XListDepths.
What I don't know is how to change the bit depth for a given screen.
I couldn't find any suitable function for setting bit depths along with screen sizes in Xrandr. It seems to be totally ignorant about bit depths, which is really weird. I couldn't find any suitable function in the Xlib documentation either.
So my question is:
How to chhange the resolution and bit depth programatically under Linux?
Are there any functions in the Xlib library or somewhere else?
I know that there are full-blown libraries for graphics, such as SDL, but I don't want to use them as a dependency just for changing display modes, since I'm attempting to write a minimal graphics library myself, for learning purposes.
Edit:
What I want to achieve doesn't have to be done particularly with Xlib or X, but it has to cooperate with X gracefully. E.g. I don't want to get rid of X altogether ─ It is still useful for displaying graphics in windowed mode. But i also need some way for switching to fullscreen mode where I need full control over the video mode: resolutions, color depths, refresh rates, and direct access to the actual pixels in the frame buffer, not some "emulation". I assume that there is some way to do it, since there are video games who can do it on Linux.
Related
I have a stream of YUV data (from a video file) that I want to stream to a screen in real time. (Basically, I want to write a program that plays the video in real time.)
As such, I am looking for a portable way to send YUV data to the screen. I would ideally like to use something portable so I don't have to reimplement it for every major platform.
I have found a few options, but all of them seem to have significant issues. They are:
Use OpenGL directly, converting the YUV data to RGB. (And using the single quad for the whole screen trick.)
This obviously won't work because converting RGB to YUV on the CPU is going to be too slow for displaying images in real time.
Use OpenGL, but use a shader to convert the YUV stream to RGB.
This option is a bit better. Although the problem here is that (afaict), this will involve making two streams and splicing them together. It might work, but may have issues with larger resolutions.
Instead use SDL, which has the option of creating a YUV context directly.
The problem with this is I already am using a cross platform widget library for other aspects of my program (such as playback controls). As far as I can tell, SDL only opens up in its on (possibly borderless) window. I would ideally like my controls and drawing context to be in the same window. Which I can do with opengl, but not SDL.
Use SDL, and also use something like Qt for the on screen widgets, use a message passing protocol to communicate between the two libraries. Have the (borderless) SDL window constantly move itself on top of the opengl window.
While this approach is clever, it seems like the two windows could get out of sink easily making the user experience sub-optimal.
Forget a cross platform library, do thinks OS specific, making use of hardware acceleration if present.
This is a fine solution although its not cross platform.
As such, is there any good way to draw YUV data to a screen that ideally is:
Portable (at least to the major platforms).
Fast enough to be real time.
Allows other widgets in the same window.
Use the option number 2. There's no problem in doing the YUV to RGB conversion in the shader. There's no such other "portable" way to do that.
Think like this: no matter "how big or small" your video is, the fragment shaders (where the conversion is done) will execute per pixel at the moment of the display, so you can have either a small video in full screen or big one, the computation (for the shaders) is the same, because they are displaying the same number of pixels.
Any video card in normal conditions will be able to run this kind of shader without any problem.
I am drawing something on screen using XWindow Drawable, Pixmap, and XRender. I can see that sometimes there is flicker. Is there a way to wait for VBLANK? I googled a lot already, feels like looking for a coin in a forest.
There is NO OpenGL involved. It is Linux (Ubuntu).
I could use (nano)sleep(), but need to know when the time to draw has come some how.
I find the by far most simple solution is using GLX because of its excellent high level interface towards synchronization and double buffering. Please note GLX is not OpenGL, it is an X extension. You need a dummy OpenGL context as SwapBuffers (for some odd reason) demands it but that´s about it.
If you want to do it without GLX for any reason, you can do it by creating double buffers through X Double Buffer Extension (DBE) and syncronize manually towards display using the X Syncronization Extension. I have not done so myself but you should be able to find something to your liking calling XSyncListSystemCounters (after proper initialization!):
XSyncListSystemCounters returns a pointer to an array of system counters supported by the display
Can´t find much more myself about the hard way though. Good Luck.
How can I draw a pixel array very fast in c++?
I've seen many questions like this on stackoverflow,
they are all answered with:
use gdi (windows)
use opengl
...
but there must be a way, how opengl is doing it!
I'm writing a little raytracer and need to draw every pixel
many times per second.
opengl is able to do it, platform independent and fast,
so how can i achieve that without opengl?
And "without opengl" dos not mean
use sdl (slow)
use this / that library
Please only suggest the platform native methods
or the library closest to that.
If it is possible (i know it is)
how can I do this?
platform independent solutions are preferred.
Drawing graphics on Linux you either have to use X11, or OpenGL. (And in the near future Wayland may be another option). In Linux there is no "native" way of doing graphics, because the Linux kernel doesn't care about graphics APIs. It provides a interfaces (DRM) using which graphics systems are then implemented in user space. If you just want to splat pixels on the screen, without caring about windows then you could also mmap /dev/fbdev – but you normally don't want that, because nobody wants his screen being clobbered by some program he can't move or hide.
Drawing single points is inefficient, no matter which API being uses, due to the protocol overhead.
So X11 it is. So the best bet is to use the MIT-SHM extension which you use to alter pixels in a buffer, which is then blitted in whole by the X11 server. Of course doing this using the pure X11 Xlib functions is annoyingly cumbersome. So this is what SDL effectively nicely wraps up for you.
The other option is OpenGL. OpenGL is not a library! It's a system level API, that gives you almost direct access to the GPU. And it integrates nicely with X11. Yes, the API is provided through a library that's being loaded, but technically that library is just a "wrapper" or "interface" to the actual driver. Drawing single points with OpenGL makes no sense. But you can "batch up" several points into a list (using a vertex array) and then process that list. So the idea is to collect all the incoming points between two display refresh intervals and draw them in one single batch.
platform independent solutions are preferred.
Why are you asking about native APIs then? By definition there can be no plattform independent native API. Either you're native, or you're plattform independent.
And in your particular scenario I think SDL would be the best solution, because it offers just the right kind of abstraction and program side interface for a raytracer. Just FYI: Virtual Machines like QEmu use SDL.
Or you use OpenGL which is a real plattform neutral API widely supported.
Drawing graphics on Linux you either have to use X11, or OpenGL.
This is absolutely false! Counterexample: there's platforms that don't run X11, yet they display pixels (eg. fonts).
Sidenote. OpenGL usually depends on X11 (it's possible, albeit hard, to run OpenGL without X11).
As #datenwork says, there's at least 2 other ways to draw pixels:
The framebuffer device (fbdev), an abstraction to interface with graphics hardware. Very old, designed by Martin Schaller, see the kernel docs. Source code is here. Also see here. Here's the simplest possible framebuffer driver.
The Direct Rendering Manager (DRM), a kernel subsystem that provides an API for userland apps to send commands/data directly to the GPU. (Seems suspiciously similar to what OpenGL does, but idk!). Source code is here. Here's a DRM example that inititializes a simple display pipeline.
Both of these are part of the kernel, so they're lower-level than X11, which is not part of the kernel. Both can draw arbitrary pixels (eg. penguins). I'd guess both of these are platform-independent (like OpenGL).
See this for more on how to draw stuff on Linux.
Well, I want to know.. maybe others too.
Is it possible to control each pixel separately on a screen by programming, especially C or C++?
Do you need special control over the drivers for the current screen? Are there operating systems which allow you to change pixels (for example draw a message/overlay on top of everything)?
Or does windows support this maybe in it's WinApi?
Edit:
I am asking this question because I want to make my computer warn me when I'm gaming and my processor gets too hot. I mainly use Windows but I have a dual boot ubuntu distro.
The lower you go, the more hassle you'll run into.
If you want raw pixel manipulation you might check out http://www.libsdl.org/ which helps you mitigate the hassle of creating surfaces/windows and that kind of stuff.
Linux has a few means to get you even lower if you want (ie without "windows" or "xwindows" or anything of the sort, just the raw screen), look in to the Linux Frame Buffer if you're interested in that.
Delving even lower (such as doing things with your own OS), the BIOS will let you go into certain video modes, this is what OS installers tend to use (at least they used to, some of the fancier ones don't anymore). This isn't the fastest way of doing things, but can get you into the realm of showing pixels in a few assembly instructions.
And of course if you wanted to do your own OS and take advantage of the video card (bypass the BIOS), you're then talking about writing video drivers and such, which is obviously a substantial amount of work :)
Re overlay messages ontop of the screen and that sort of thing, windows does support that sort of thing, so I'm sure you can do it with the WinAPI, although there are likely libraries that would make that easier. I do know you don't need to delve too deep to do that sort of thing though.
Let's look at each bit at a time:
Is it possible to control each pixel separately on a screen by
programming, especially C or C++?
Possibly. It really depends on the graphics architecture, and in many modern systems, the actual screen surface (that is "the bunch of pixels appearing on the screen") is not directly under software control - at least not from "usermode" (that is, from an application that you or I can write - you need to write driver code, and you need to co-operate sufficiently with the existing graphics driver).
It is generally accepted that drawing the data into an off-screen buffer and using a BitBlt [BitBlockTransfer] function to copy the content onto the screen is the prefferred way to do this sort of thing.
So, in reality, you probably can't manipulate each pixel ON the screen - but you may be able to appear like you do.
Do you need special control over the drivers for the current screen?
Assuming you could get direct access to the screen memory, your code certainly will have to have cooperation with the driver - otherwise, who's to say that what you want to appear on the screen doesn't get overwritten by something else [e.g. you want full screen access, and the clock-updater updates the time on screen every once a minute on top of what you draw, etc].
You may be able to set the driver into a mode where you have a "hole" that allows you to access the screen memory as a big "framebuffer". I don't think there's an easy way to do this in Windows. I don't remember one from back in 2003-2005 when I wrote graphics drivers for a living.
Are there operating systems which allow you to change pixels (for
example draw a message/overlay on top of everything)?
It is absolutely possible to create an overlay layer in the hardware of modern graphics cards. That's generally how video playback works - the video is played into a piece of framebuffer memory that is overlaid on top of the other graphics. You need help from the driver, and this is definitely available in the Windows API, via DirectX as far as I remember.
Or does windows support this maybe in it's WinApi?
Probably, but to answer precisely, we need to understand better what you are looking to do.
Edit: In your particular use-case, I would have thought that making sounds or ejecting the CD/DVD drive may be a more suitable opton. It can be hard to overlay something on top of the graphics drawn by a game, because games often try to use as much as possible of the available graphics resource, and you will probably have a hard time finding a way that works even for the most simple use-cases - never mind something that works for multiple different categories of games using different drawing/engine/graphics libraries. I'm also not entirely sure it's anything to worry overly about, since modern CPU's are pretty tolerant to overheating, so the CPU will just slow down, possibly grind to a halt, but it will not break - even if you take the heatsink off, it won't go wrong [no, I don't suggest you try this!]
Every platform supports efficient raw pixel block transfer "aka BitBlt()", so if you really want to go to frame buffer level you can allocate a bitmap and use pointers to set its contents directly then with one line of code efficiently flip this memory chunk into video ram buffer. Of course it is not as efficient as working with PCI framebuffers directly, but on the other hand this approach (BitBlt) was fast enough even in Win95 days to port Wolfenstein 3d on Pentium CPU WITHOUT the use of WinG.
HOWEVER, a care must be taken while creating this bitmap to match its format (i.e. RGB 16 bits, or 32 bits etc...) with actual mode that device is in, otherwise the graphics sub-system will do a lengthy recoding/dithering which will completely kill your speed.
So depending on your goals, If you want a 3d game your performance will suck with this approach. If you want just to render some shapes and dont need more than 10-15fps - this will work without diving into any device-driver levels.
Here is a few tips for overlaying in Windows:
hdc = GetDC(0);//returns hdc for the whole screen and is VERY fast
You can take HDC for screen and do a BItBlt(hdc, ..... SRCCOPY) to flip blocks of raster efficiently. There are also pre-defined Windows Handles for desktop but I dont recall the exact mechanics but if you are on multiple monitors you can get HDC for each desktop, look at "GetDesktopWindow", "GetDC" and the like...
I need to control the individual pixels of a projector (an Infocus IN3104) whose native resolution is 1024x768. I would like to know which subset of functions in C or an APL to do this either by:
Functions that control the individual pixels of the adapter (not the pixels of a window).
A pixel-perfect, 1:1 map from an image file (1024x728) to the adaptor set at the native resolution of the projector.
In a related question ([How can I edit individual pixels in a window?][1]) the answerer Caladain states "Things have come a bit from the old days of direct memory manipulation.". I feel I need to go back to that to achieve my goal.
I don't know enough of the "graphic pipeline" to know what API or software tool to use. I'm overwhelmed by the number of technologies when I search this topic. I program in R, which easily interfaces to C, but would welcome suggestions of subsets of functions in OpenGL or C++ or ..... any other technology?
Or even an full blown application (rendering) which will map without applying a transformation.
For example even MS paint has the >VIEW>Bitmap but I get some transformation applied and I don't get pixel perfect rendering. This projector has DisplayLink digital input and I've also tried to tweek the timing parameters when using the VESA inputs and I don't think the transformation happens in the projector. In any case, using MS paint would not be flexible enough for me.
Platform: Linux or Windows.
I don't see a reason why a full-screen window, e.g. using SDL, wouldn't work. Normal bitmapped graphics is always 1:1, there shouldn't be any weird scaling going on behind your back for a full-screen:ed window.
Since SDL is portable, you should be able to run the same code in Windows or Linux (or any other supported platform).
The usual approach to this problem on current systems is:
Set graphics card to desired resolution
Create borderless full screen window
Draw whatever you want
There's really not much to gain from a "low level access", although it were certainly possible.