In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote:


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.)

aspect ratio is not the same as resolution.

50 different resolutions seems high, but there's definitely more than
5-10, from 640x480 (they do still exist) all the way up to 8k displays,
in various sizes and aspect ratios, and even more if you count mobile
devices.



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 ...

it's obviously a typo for ips, in plane switching.


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.

with modern hidpi displays, where individual pixels are smaller than
what the eye can resolve, there is no perceptible blur.


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.

see above. it does not.

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.

changing the aspect ratio will normally letterbox.



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.

that's not what astigmatism does.

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.)

it was never a fad and is still often used, usually with multiple
displays, one of which is in portrait orientation.