If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
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) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Blank screen with full screen dos window | SlackerAPM | General | 5 | August 7th 06 10:30 PM |
Changing windows Start Screen and Shut Down Screen | Javad | Monitors & Displays | 4 | November 27th 04 04:36 PM |
Changing windows Start Screen and Shut Down Screen | Javad | General | 4 | November 27th 04 04:36 PM |
Computer gets to logo screen & then blank screen with blinking cursor | Bill Hopkins | General | 0 | September 2nd 04 09:05 PM |
restore files question and AVERT question | Zavia | Software & Applications | 1 | August 19th 04 04:23 PM |