On 9/10/19 9:32 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Springer
wrote:

snip

The number of aspect ratios I've found is 57. Some are really strange,
and I've no idea where they are used. One works out to be 683:384.

which one is that, where the resolution is not an even number?

Aw, crap. That should be screen resolutions is 57, and one of the
resolutions works out to be an aspect ratio of 683:386. But I see Paul
apparently figured out my mistake.

When I first started this investigation into making the screen easier to
read, I was expecting to find some monitors to have a different sizes
for the individual pixel. But apparently they don't, so I quit looking
at that spec.

pixels do have different sizes, and by quite a bit, with hidpi displays
having the smallest.

It may be I gave up too soon.

snip

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.

No distortion is one of my "specs". You want a square to be displayed
as a square, not a rectangle.

all lcds do that.

As long as the screen resolution in use has an aspect ratio that is
correct for the monitor in use.




--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.5
Firefox 67.0.4
Thunderbird 60.7
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"