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?

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 bought a new Mac Mini to replace an aging iMac. I bought the iMac due
to the visual quality of the display. So I wanted a monitor with the
best video I could afford. So I went on a research trip.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

My Mac Mini only offers resolutions that are the correct aspect ratio.
And, they are same as what is offered by Windows, as far as I can tell.

To get round this, you
might have to do one or more of the following: select "generic" rather
than specific monitor; use analogue (SVGA) rather than anything more
recent (IMO, the difference is far less than claimed in most cases - not
visible to me); even with SVGA, you might have to cut a wire/pin.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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