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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Making CRT easier to read?
In message , VanguardLH
writes: [] The Microtek 815c's pixel size is 0.28 mm for an 18" monitor. For ailing eyesight, you'll want a higher resolution (and bigger) monitor with smaller pixel size or increased pixel density, I disagree: he really needs _larger_ pixel size. He'll have difficulty finding it, though, as they aren't making them (except for pitch-side and other advertising displays). and then up the DPI setting in Windows. Agreed, that's needed. Doesn't give _much_ range variation, though )-:. The larger monitor at higher resolution will make the text characters smaller in size So _isn't_ what's needed; however, is probably all that's available. , so you compensate by upping the DPI (so text uses more pixels). Indeed. Probably best worth trying - if he hasn't already - on his existing monitor. [] native resolution of the LCD monitor. Native resolution per specs for that monitor is 1280 x 1024 If you say so ... at 75 Hz. Hmm. Not sure I'd call that a resolution (-:. If you use a screen resolution higher or lower, interpolation gets used in painting the screen objects. Agreed. If you are using a higher screen resolution in Windows, going to native resolution of the monitor means the screen will get smaller, and also Will show a desktop (or whatever) with fewer items on it. I'd normally call that getting bigger (assuming the monitor's electronics autosize, which most do), but _in terms of pixel numbers only_, yes, it will get smaller. the text characters. Set Windows to use the same resolution for its screen as the native resolution of the LCD monitor I think we're all agreed on that one. , and then use DPI to up the size of the text. And that one. You can do the same if you go to a larger monitor with higher resolution. The higher resolution will actually make text get smaller (at the same DPI, the text will still use the same number of pixels or dots), so to increase the text size you would up the DPI setting in Windows. As far as you can. On this (W7) machine, the default choices are only 100% and 125%; if I click "Set custom text size (DPI)", it looks as if that adds only 150% and 200%; IIRR, XP didn't even have that option. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "He hasn't one redeeming vice." - Oscar Wilde |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Making CRT easier to read?
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , VanguardLH writes: [] The Microtek 815c's pixel size is 0.28 mm for an 18" monitor. For ailing eyesight, you'll want a higher resolution (and bigger) monitor with smaller pixel size or increased pixel density, I disagree: he really needs _larger_ pixel size. He'll have difficulty finding it, though, as they aren't making them (except for pitch-side and other advertising displays). Larger pixel size (aka pixel pitch) means more grainy painting of everything: text and graphics. His monitor has 0.28 mm. If, for example, he went to a monitor with 0.36 mm then everything would look more coarse. I remember being at some computer store with a buddy from work (we both worked in QA for hardware and software development). There was a fantastic sale price on a monitor on display, but it looked fuzzy. Both of us played with the monitor's controls to see if it had been setup incorrectly and if we could get a sharp screen. Nope, nothing we did would make the display look clearer. Then we noticed in small print on the sales flyer next to the monitor that it had 0.36 mm pixel size. Geez, no wonder it was so fuzzy. Think about: if there were only 1 pixel for the entire size of the screen, there would be nothing to see except just that one pixel. You couldn't paint any characters and the only graphic you could paint would be one large circle or rectangle. Or consider the old dot-matrix printers. At first, they had a 5x7 (width x height) dot matrix to print a character. The NLQ (Near Letter Quality) dot-matrix printers would make 2 passes. The platten moved slightly down on the reverse pass effectively doubling the number of dots used to print a character. NLQ doubled the dot density meaning you had more dots per inch. You want more pixels per inch to provide finer granularity. The larger the pixel pitch, the less of them per inch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch "Dot pitch may be measured in linear units (with smaller numbers meaning higher resolution), usually millimeters (mm), or as a rate, for example dots per inch (with a larger number meaning higher resolution)." With *smaller* pixels, you can get a higher DPI at the same character size hence a smoother character. That's for the native resolution of the monitor. Setting a higher DPI in Windows means using more dots or pixels which are fixed in size, so the character gets larger and easier to read for those having a tough time reading tiny characters. and then up the DPI setting in Windows. Agreed, that's needed. Doesn't give _much_ range variation, though )-:. I don't remember XP's settings for DPI. In Windows 7, you can select pre-defined settings, like 100% (96 DPI), 125% (120 DPI), 150% (144 DPI), or 200% (192 DPI), or you can use a slider for a variable DPI. From what I found online for DPI setting in XP: https://i-technet.sec.s-msft.com/en-...-us,VS.85).png So, you could use the presets of normal (96 DPI, or 100%) or large (120 DPI, or 125%), or set a custom DPI. When you elected custom sized, you got: https://i-technet.sec.s-msft.com/en-...-us,VS.85).png That's the same slider and drop-down list dialog that is in Windows 7. There are LOTS of settings for DPI. The larger monitor at higher resolution will make the text characters smaller in size So _isn't_ what's needed; however, is probably all that's available. If the larger monitor supports higher resolutions (which is usually the case) then more pixels are available per inch. However, fonts are defined at specific heights, and a higher resolution which means smaller pixels means the characters will be smaller. So you use MORE pixels per character by upping the DPI. native resolution of the LCD monitor. Native resolution per specs for that monitor is 1280 x 1024 If you say so ... at 75 Hz. Hmm. Not sure I'd call that a resolution (-:. That is the native screen resolution found online for the specifications of the OP's Microtek 815c LCD monitor. You can do the same if you go to a larger monitor with higher resolution. The higher resolution will actually make text get smaller (at the same DPI, the text will still use the same number of pixels or dots), so to increase the text size you would up the DPI setting in Windows. As far as you can. On this (W7) machine, the default choices are only 100% and 125%; if I click "Set custom text size (DPI)", it looks as if that adds only 150% and 200%; IIRR, XP didn't even have that option. Must be a restriction in your configuration of Windows 7 or what the monitor reports to Windows for its specs (if you're using HDMI). For Windows XP, I found pics of the dialogs at: https://i-technet.sec.s-msft.com/en-...-us,VS.85).png https://i-technet.sec.s-msft.com/en-...-us,VS.85).png For Windows 7, here are the pics for DPI settings: https://www.sevenforums.com/attachme...w7-display.jpg then click on "Set custom text size (DPI)" to see: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Fq0XS.png |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Making CRT easier to read?
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul writes: Many LCD monitors don't make it to 25000 hours, because the high voltage inverters (more than one present on the larger monitors), those fail and can no longer give the 700V to 1000VAC the lamps need. Each lamp (Is it always AC?) Absolutely. The requirements are pretty strange, in that the AC must be "pure". You can't have any DC at all in it. If it isn't pure AC, the tube will die a premature death. You only get a 25000 hour life, with high quality drive. The piezo based inverters, are resonant, and make a nice pure sine wave. The transformer based inverters, it's harder to make a nice sine on the primary. I don't know exactly how they meet the requirements with those. Presumably the transformer is resonant, or part of such a circuit, but, is that enough ? If the piezo ones become "unloaded" for a moment, the voltage spikes (4kV) and the piezo gets cracked. So if the tubes were sitting in sockets, and the socket was loose, that could destroy the inverter. Whereas the transformer ones, the insulation can always fail on those and destroy them. ******* If you take an LCD monitor (w. CCFL) apart, make *special note* of how all the foil materials are positioned. They're part of the circuit (capacitive coupling) and must be put back the way you found them. There's an entire book on the topic of care and feeding of CCFLs like that. (A guy in sci.electronics wrote that book.) Many companies have made mistakes when setting up their illumination sources, which is why the move to LED lighting is such a nice improvement. Any dope can do LED lighting (and not have it die a year later). Of course, bleed is always a problem, and the more dopey manufacturers can't even seem to get that right. The display is edge-lit and it helps to have hired someone with a background in optics. Paul |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Making CRT easier to read?
In message , VanguardLH
writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] I disagree: he really needs _larger_ pixel size. He'll have difficulty finding it, though, as they aren't making them (except for pitch-side and other advertising displays). Larger pixel size (aka pixel pitch) means more grainy painting of everything: text and graphics. His monitor has 0.28 mm. If, for example, he went to a monitor with 0.36 mm then everything would look more coarse. He wants bigger characters, so he says. He hasn't mentioned smoother characters. Obviously both would be nice, but I suspect if it came to a choice, he'd go for bigger. I remember being at some computer store with a buddy from work (we both worked in QA for hardware and software development). There was a fantastic sale price on a monitor on display, but it looked fuzzy. Both of us played with the monitor's controls to see if it had been setup incorrectly and if we could get a sharp screen. Nope, nothing we did would make the display look clearer. Then we noticed in small print on the sales flyer next to the monitor that it had 0.36 mm pixel size. Geez, no wonder it was so fuzzy. Yes, but you both had good eyesight, and were looking closely at the monitor. Think about: if there were only 1 pixel for the entire size of the screen, there would be nothing to see except just that one pixel. You couldn't paint any characters and the only graphic you could paint would be one large circle or rectangle. Think about trying to write characters that can be seen from across the room - with a ballpoint pen, and with a big marker pen. Or consider the old dot-matrix printers. At first, they had a 5x7 (width x height) dot matrix to print a character. The NLQ (Near Letter Quality) dot-matrix printers would make 2 passes. The platten moved slightly down on the reverse pass effectively doubling the number of dots used to print a character. NLQ doubled the dot density meaning you had more dots per inch. You want more pixels per inch to provide finer granularity. The larger the pixel pitch, the less of them per inch. They may be fuzzy to you, but to someone whose sight is making things look fuzzy anyway, it may matter less. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch "Dot pitch may be measured in linear units (with smaller numbers meaning higher resolution), usually millimeters (mm), or as a rate, for example dots per inch (with a larger number meaning higher resolution)." With *smaller* pixels, you can get a higher DPI at the same character size hence a smoother character. With *the same size* pixels, you can set a higher DPI and get a larger character. [] I don't remember XP's settings for DPI. In Windows 7, you can select pre-defined settings, like 100% (96 DPI), 125% (120 DPI), 150% (144 DPI), or 200% (192 DPI), or you can use a slider for a variable DPI. Hm, you're right. On my system, I could see the ruler, but no obvious slider over it; I just tried dragging the mouse along the reader, and it _did_ let me set more than 200%: up to 500%, I think. [] That's the same slider and drop-down list dialog that is in Windows 7. There are LOTS of settings for DPI. Good. The larger monitor at higher resolution will make the text characters smaller in size So _isn't_ what's needed; however, is probably all that's available. If the larger monitor supports higher resolutions (which is usually the case) then more pixels are available per inch. But not what Ken actually needs. However, as you say, it is usually the case these days. However, fonts are defined at specific heights, and a higher resolution which means smaller pixels means the characters will be smaller. So you use MORE pixels per character by upping the DPI. So Ken may have to get a finer pitch monitor, and thus use more DPI to get back the character size he had in the first place, then use even more DPI to actually make them _bigger_, which is what he asked for in the first place. native resolution of the LCD monitor. Native resolution per specs for that monitor is 1280 x 1024 That resolution actually sounds big enough, to me, for someone with failing sight (sorry, Ken, if that sounds worse than what you think); I would hope pushing the DPI using the advanced setting (i. e. to 200% or more, rather than just 125% or 150%) _might_ suffice. Certainly worth a try to start with. If you say so ... at 75 Hz. Hmm. Not sure I'd call that a resolution (-:. That is the native screen resolution found online for the specifications of the OP's Microtek 815c LCD monitor. To me, resolution is x × y; Hz is refresh rate. Which for other than CRTs doesn't have to be high to give a flicker-free image. However, that's a distraction from the current subject, which I admit I introduced. Although the lower the refresh rate, the lower the bandwidth required (analogue - like [S, X]VGA - or digital). You can do the same if you go to a larger monitor with higher resolution. The higher resolution will actually make text get smaller Exactly. _Not_ what Ken wants. (at the same DPI, the text will still use the same number of pixels or dots), so to increase the text size you would up the DPI setting in Windows. As far as you can. On this (W7) machine, the default choices are only 100% and 125%; if I click "Set custom text size (DPI)", it looks as if that adds only 150% and 200%; IIRR, XP didn't even have that option. Must be a restriction in your configuration of Windows 7 or what the monitor reports to Windows for its specs (if you're using HDMI). See above. I could only see the drop-down list; for some reason I couldn't see the slider. But when I dragged the mouse over the ruler, I _was_ able to get 500%. Oh, looking again, I see: the ruler itself changes size. I found I could also type in the 500. For Windows XP, I found pics of the dialogs at: https://i-technet.sec.s-msft.com/en-....appendix_a_1( en-us,VS.85).png https://i-technet.sec.s-msft.com/en-....appendix_a_2( en-us,VS.85).png Agreed, the second of those (presumably reached by selecting Custom from the first) does look very like the W7 one. For Windows 7, here are the pics for DPI settings: https://www.sevenforums.com/attachme...360038932-dpi- display-size-settings-change-w7-display.jpg then click on "Set custom text size (DPI)" to see: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Fq0XS.png Yes, that's what I see - you can see why I didn't realise I could go beyond 200. Ken, if you're still with us - do try this out, with your existing monitor. One thing about DPI settings: _some_ applications don't implement them properly, such that text comes out bigger, but the boxes allocated to it stay the same size, so the text overflows everywhere, or you only see one or two characters. But I'd still try it first - you may not use any such applications. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Only dirty people need wash |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Making CRT easier to read?
In message , Paul
writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Paul writes: Many LCD monitors don't make it to 25000 hours, because the high voltage inverters (more than one present on the larger monitors), those fail and can no longer give the 700V to 1000VAC the lamps need. Each lamp (Is it always AC?) Absolutely. The requirements are pretty strange, in that the AC must be "pure". You can't have any DC at all in it. If it isn't pure AC, the tube will die a premature death. Interesting. (Bit like LC displays, though for a very different reason.) [] If you take an LCD monitor (w. CCFL) apart, make *special note* of how all the foil materials are positioned. They're part of the circuit (capacitive coupling) and must be put back the way you found them. There's an entire Thanks for the tip. (The only one I ever dismantled was because the LCD part had failed (bottom two inches of display went white), no problem with backlight.) book on the topic of care and feeding of CCFLs like that. (A guy in sci.electronics wrote that book.) Many companies have made mistakes when setting up their illumination sources, which is why the move to LED lighting is such a nice improvement. Any dope can do LED lighting (and not have it die a year later). Of course, bleed is always a problem, and the more dopey manufacturers can't even seem to get that right. The display is edge-lit and it helps to have hired someone with a background in optics. Paul My last six months' employment were with a company that, among other things, repaired car dashboards. Really old ones had lots of little filament bulbs; most modern ones do indeed use lots of white LEDs. (Which are awfully bright when seen without the display housing in place!) Some - particularly Mercedes - did indeed have tube lights; had to be handled with care. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf All humanity is divided into three classes: those who are immovable, those who are movable, and those who move! - Benjamin Franklin |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Making CRT easier to read?
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , VanguardLH writes: [] The Microtek 815c's pixel size is 0.28 mm for an 18" monitor. For ailing eyesight, you'll want a higher resolution (and bigger) monitor with smaller pixel size or increased pixel density, I disagree: he really needs _larger_ pixel size. He'll have difficulty finding it, though, as they aren't making them (except for pitch-side and other advertising displays). Depending on the brand of video card, and the "vintage" of the driver, there is a "zoom" solution. Older NVidia driver kits had "NView". I don't see "NView" in my Win10 install. I do see it on my WinXP install. YMMV. https://i.postimg.cc/0yxHt0TD/nview-zoom.gif We don't know what video card brand the OP has got. I'm not enabling that on mine, not even for a look :-)) It's not that I don't like disasters or anything... But perhaps that's where pan and scan mode is hiding, albeit with a different name. "Zoom" sounds good to me. Paul |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|