In message , Ken Springer
writes:
On 9/8/19 4:08 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Peter Jason
writes:
Hi, I wear glasses for astigmatism etc and I wonder if it's possible
to buy a monitor whose screen can be adjusted for this & similar
conditions?

Taking this _just_ as astigmatism-meaning-wrong-aspect-ratio, which it
has become clear is far from the whole story ...

snip

An alternative would be to deliberately set your graphics card
(including the in-built one if it's a laptop) to a resolution that's the
wrong aspect ratio for your monitor. I've seen people do this often
enough in practice, by mistake (most commonly feeding a widescreen
monitor with a 4:3 signal); it had never occurred to me that it might
actually be useful!

Now... Add in some macular degeneration. That would be me. VBG

You may remember the thread I started where I asked about computing the
aspect ratio of a monitor based on screen resolution. I've found @50
different resolutions you may come across, depending on hardware.

(I assume you meant "~50".) Assuming you mean native resolution of the
monitor, I'm surprised there are _that_ many. I'd have expected 5 to 10:
4:3, 16:9, 16:10, and one or two others. (Twice as many if you include
them rotated, i. e. 3:4 etcetera.)
[]
I'd already learned some monitors cannot display light greys, light
blues, and thin lines. Although the line issue may be tied to the
color of the line. I don't know.

I'd be surprised if any monitor _used at its native resolution_ can't
display a one-pixel-wide line, unless as you say it's unable to
distinguish the colour of the line from the surrounding area (in which
case the thickness of the line wouldn't have much effect).

I learned the best LCD panel for display of colors is an ISP type
panel. So, that's what I bought.

The best interpretation of that (to me it's "internet service
provider"!) is "image signal processor". I'm dubious, but if that's what
you've found ...

And boy, am I glad I did. I learned some monitors also cannot display
light yellows!

0. With any monitor that has a "native resolution", i. e. pixels, which
means any modern flat-screen monitor, using it at other than its native
resolution (or an integral fraction thereof) will result in _some_
blurring. This may still be acceptable as the cost for not wearing your
glasses. (It won't apply to a CRT monitor!)

Correct on the blurring, but depending on what you buy for an monitor,
and the settins you use, blurring may not be noticeable, although the
extent of failure of your eyesight may come into play.

Agreed. Though intuitively using the wrong resolution seems very wrong,
the blurring _can_ be not very noticeable - and, as you say, if you have
some eyesight conditions it may be not noticeable at all.

I'd rather be able to read the screen with barely noticeable blurring,
than fight with the recommended resolution to figure out what is on the
screen.

I find native resolution the best, if only for psychological reasons (if
I "know" there's blurring due to using the wrong one, then I think I'll
see it even if I can't really!).

With my situation, the blurring of the screen is not noticeable. More
than likely, that's the result of a combo of factors, it's not a
cheapie monitor, It's a monitor and not a TV, the chosen alternative
resolution has the same aspect ratio as the native resolution.

The right aspect ratio won't _necessarily_ avoid blurring due to wrong
resolution - for example, 640×480 and 800×600 are both 4:3, but not in
integral ratio. The "everything bigger" effect may more than compensate
for that for people with poor sight though.

1. Some modern monitors and graphics cards talk to each other, which
might mean that the graphics card knows what shape the monitor is, and
may refuse to offer "incorrect" resolutions.

What's your definition of "incorrect" resolutions?

Not mine, the hardware/firmware! I haven't really looked into it as I
tend to use native anyway, but I have encountered cases where I know the
graphics card can offer some resolutions that Windows is not listing
because it knows they don't suit a particular monitor - either because
the user has told Windows what monitor they're using, or because the
monitor has "told" Windows something about itself over plug-and-play.

If magnification is something you need, you will want an alternative
resolution that has the same aspect ratio as the native resolution.
With the Windows units I've tested, dragging the resolution slider up
and down will show multiple options, but only those resolutions that
are listed when you are not dragging the slider have the same aspect ratio.

Magnification _without_ *blurring* would need integral ratios. It is
_possible_ that the integer could be different in the two dimensions,
though I suspect the right ratios for that don't exist in practice. It's
more likely, if you need magnification, that you won't see the blurring
caused by a non-integral ratio, and as you say in that situation
ensuring the same aspect ratio will give you magnification without
*distortion*, which is probably more important.
[]
If you're using a laptop, need magnification, and are unwilling to buy
an external monitor, I'd recommend giving up now. SVGA (800X600) just
won't display enough data on the screen to be useful, IMO.

Certainly, a lot of modern software - especially web page design - is no
friend of the visually impaired, in many ways. (Many web designers
assume far too big a screen even for the rest of us, but that's a
different subject!) But you are right. I do have an interest in access
for the VH/VI, so I attend the odd show on the matter. For those for
whom magnification does work - i. e. they do have some sight - blowing
up just part of the screen seems to be the preferred option, rather than
using SVGA or less.

2. The range of ratio "corrections" (distortions) available will be
limited - possibly only to the difference between 16:9 and 4:3. You can
expand the range somewhat by turning your monitor sideways: modern OSs
(I think XP on, possibly earlier) have the ability to turn the picture
sideways, though how to invoke it isn't widely known. (Sometimes it's as
simple as the arrow keys with other keys.)

I think the need for rotating the monitor is generally limited. You're
not going to gain anything visually from what I can see with my testing
on this monitor. Instead of having 1920 X 1200, you have 1200 X 1920.

If you have the form of astigmatism that _just_ makes you see the world
with the wrong aspect ratio, it _could_ help. Depends on whether your
distortion matches (in the other direction) one of the distortions
available by playing with resolution settings, monitor rotation, and so
on. I agree, though, monitor rotation is less used these days; it first
became a fad with word processing where it matches paper shape better,
but these days people tend to use multiple side-by-side windows on a big
monitor. (And often multiple monitors too.)

There are utilities that can force your graphics card to output
non-standard resolutions; I imagine how well these work varies from card
to card. (Note that in extreme cases this _could_ damage the monitor,
though I think only for very old CRT ones - modern ones, including later
CRT ones, usually detect "out-of-range" feeds, and pop up a notice to
that effect on screen, or at least just go blank, or display an unlocked
picture.)
I'd say it's definitely worth investigating these avenues -
conventional
monitors (of the two shapes) used with unorthodox resolution settings,
and the possibility of using them sideways.

Agreed, check all avenues before choosing.

I purchased a 24" Asus Pro-Art monitor. $369, shipped and sold by
Amazon, for the Mac Mini. On my W7, W8, W10, Linux mint (KVM switched)
is a Dell U2412M. Both are IPS panels, although I didn't know anything
about the panel types when bought the Dell. Not quite as good, but it
was cheaper.

Input is display port, and based on limited options for testing HDMI
input, I'd avoid that option if possible. VGA was OK, but I had no
means to check DVI.

Both have an aspect ration of 16:10. After 10+ years of the iMac with
16:10, I just don't want 16:9.

Interesting.

I wanted to go 27", but but couldn't find anything that fit my specs.

32" is what I really would have liked, but physical, available space
prevented that.


Could you rearrange your working environment so you could use
wall-mounting (or on a pivot arm)? Assuming you can find an 8:5 32",
that is.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

`Where a calculator on the Eniac is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs
30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and perhaps
weigh 1.5 tons.' Popular Mechanics, March 1949 (quoted in Computing 1999-12-16)