SamK,
Is this any better?
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://www.screencast.com/users/anticapitalista/folders/antiX-13/media/8f7637af-6572-4ef6-bee5-0da3606f09d1"
linktext was:"http://www.screencast.com/users/anticap ... a3606f09d1"
====================================
topic title: screencast
-
anticapitalista
Posts: 5,956
- Site Admin
- Joined: 11 Sep 2007
-
Posts: 765
- Joined: 27 Dec 2011
#17
That works fine here, nice and big, and easy to see.
It is actually so big, I can only see 3/4 of it... but that is not your fault.
It is actually so big, I can only see 3/4 of it... but that is not your fault.
-
Posts: 1,028
- Joined: 21 Aug 2011
#18
@rust collector
Sounds as though we are seeing similar results.
It seems very similar to the previous one. A further screen-shot (#2) is attached to show the difference in minimal.anticapitalista wrote:Is this any better?
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://www.screencast.com/users/anticapitalista/folders/antiX-13/media/8f7637af-6572-4ef6-bee5-0da3606f09d1"
linktext was:"http://www.screencast.com/users/anticap ... a3606f09d1"
====================================
@rust collector
Sounds as though we are seeing similar results.
-
anticapitalista
Posts: 5,956
- Site Admin
- Joined: 11 Sep 2007
#19
SamK - that screenshot is of an older screencast. The latest is called test and it was taken with 1024x768 resolution, whereas the previous were with 1280x1024.
What resolution do you use?
What resolution do you use?
-
Posts: 609
- Joined: 02 Jun 2008
#20
it looks good now, but it took quite a long time to start the video.
flash is messed up and with no update to it it's annoying.
flash is messed up and with no update to it it's annoying.
-
Posts: 1,028
- Joined: 21 Aug 2011
#21
OK here is screen-shot #3 of the latest test. It seems to get most of the screen width, but misses about 25% of the screen height.anticapitalista wrote:SamK - that screenshot is of an older screencast. The latest is called test and it was taken with 1024x768 resolution, whereas the previous were with 1280x1024.
On this current systemanticapitalista wrote:What resolution do you use?
Code: Select all
################### PC INFORMATION - graphics #####################
#################### Press CTRL + C to exit ######################
Graphics: Card: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] 65x/M650/740 PCI/AGP VGA Display Adapter
X.Org: 1.12.4 drivers: sis (unloaded: fbdev,vesa) Resolution: 1024x768@60.0hz
GLX Renderer: N/A GLX Version: N/A
-
anticapitalista
Posts: 5,956
- Site Admin
- Joined: 11 Sep 2007
#22
Click avove the video so it is small size.
(It will actually seem like it is labelled as full size)
(It will actually seem like it is labelled as full size)
-
Posts: 1,028
- Joined: 21 Aug 2011
#23
That shows the entire source screen but it occupies only a portion of the local screen. Consequently the detail cannot be discerned.anticapitalista wrote:Click avove the video so it is small size.
(It will actually seem like it is labelled as full size)