Monitor scaling

Name SAMSUNG on Intel HD Graphics
Current Resolution 1097x617 pixels
Work Resolution 1097x617 pixels
State Enabled, Primary, Output devices support
Monitor Width 1920
Monitor Height 1080
Monitor BPP 32 bits per pixel
Monitor Frequency 59 Hz
Device \\.\DISPLAY1\Monitor0

I use a 32" Samsung TV as monitor, and Windows shows under Display
Settings that it's set to the recommended 1920x1080; and I have Scaling
set to 175%.
And (100/175) x 1920 gives you 1097.

It's a very good quality for viewing, but I'd prefer full HD.
Can this be achieved while retaining the scaling factor?

Ed

"Ed Cryer" wrote

| I use a 32" Samsung TV as monitor, and Windows shows under Display
| Settings that it's set to the recommended 1920x1080; and I have Scaling
| set to 175%.
| And (100/175) x 1920 gives you 1097.
|
| It's a very good quality for viewing, but I'd prefer full HD.
| Can this be achieved while retaining the scaling factor?
|

Short answer: No. "Full HD" in this case means 1080px
vertical. You've just changed that to about 617. You can't
get 1080vertical pixels at 617 vertical pixel display setting.

I have two Samsungs that were once HD. They're
1280 x 720. Now that's no longer thought of as HD. So HD
is a confusing term. It's marketing, not a spec. Do you know
whether your TV is 720 or 1080 vertical pixels? That matters.

Since my TVs are 720 vertical pixels, I set the display size
to that. It works pretty well, as I'm using them to stream
movies from a computer and a Raspberry Pi, and I'm maybe
8' away. So I can see desktop items OK on the screen and
I can use a wireless mouse/keyboard. Ideally you want your
display resolution at "native", to align with actual pixel display
of the device. But of course, it also needs to be a size that
is comfortable for you to look at. Those two needs don't always
align.

There's an article here. Not terribly informative, but it
partially explains the details of Windows scaling:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/arc...-in-windows-10

They're saying that the scaling quality depends on the window.
Standard compiled software that's not scaling-aware and
newer Metro apps that are all have to be dealt with. It sounds
like it's similar to Aero on Win7 and the default UI on XP, where
elements get painted dynamically onscreen. Some programs
handle their own sizing and some apparently get resized by
Windows. The article isn't specific about that. It sounds like
Windows is just offering dynamic resizing, but that some
built-in items and some software can do a kind of "smart resizing"
for a better result.

But however you figure it, a screen has a set number of display
pixels. Your selected resolution is overlaid on that. It won't be as
crisp if you split display pixels across device pixels. You're doing
that by scaling 1920w down to 1080w. And you can't scale down
to 1080w but still have 1920 ("HD") resolution. The 1080 is the
resolution. You can "smart resize" by using some vector images
and high quality raster image resizing, but enlarging a raster
image doesn't add data. It just adds anti-aliased pixels.

Say you have an image displayed full size and it's 1200px x 700px.
At the 1920w resolution that will fill about 2/3 of the screen width. With
your scaling it will overflow the screen width. The picture
gets bigger. But the image is still 1,200 px wide. You're not changing
the data in the image. What you've done with scaling is essentially
the same as setting your monitor to lower resolution. You're
just enlarging the image. It might be more sophisticated in some
scenarios, handling an anti-aliased resizing with some windows to
make it look better, but as with any raster image, you can't add
details by enlarging the image. The image itself is a grid of color
dots. When you enlarge it you just enlarge the dots.

So, long story short, you have to consider the display device
and the display image. If it's vector data it doesn't matter. But
most of what you see onscreen is raster images. Dot grids.

Imagine your TV is "full HD" at 1080 vertical pixels. Then you
play a DVD and project it onto that screen. If you play a normal
DVD it will enlarge to fit the screen. If you play Blu-ray it will
fit the screen. If you play the newer "4K" disc it will be resized
down to fit the screen. No matter what the content, the display
resolution will be according to the screen. You can't get "4K"
resolution on a 1080 vertical pixel screen. If you have a 4K
screen then you can get all the detail. But if you then scaled that
to 1080 it would no longer be a 4K display.

So if you have a movie with, say, amazing mountain scenery,
and you want to see that realistic, what you *can* get will
be the lowest common denominator between screen and video.
On a 1080v TV you can get 1080v detail *if* the source video
is recorded at that resolution or better.

In article , says...

Name SAMSUNG on Intel HD Graphics
Current Resolution 1097x617 pixels
Work Resolution 1097x617 pixels
State Enabled, Primary, Output devices support
Monitor Width 1920
Monitor Height 1080
Monitor BPP 32 bits per pixel
Monitor Frequency 59 Hz
Device \\.\DISPLAY1\Monitor0

I use a 32" Samsung TV as monitor, and Windows shows under Display
Settings that it's set to the recommended 1920x1080; and I have Scaling
set to 175%.
And (100/175) x 1920 gives you 1097.

It's a very good quality for viewing, but I'd prefer full HD.
Can this be achieved while retaining the scaling factor?

Ed

I have 3 pcs hooked up to 3 different tvs. In all cases I set the pc's
display resolution to the monitors "suggested" default. In my case a
40" & a 32" both "like" 1920x1024 with the 3rd tv liking 1400x900 (or
something like that).

I use Windows built-in features to get things larger so I can view them
from the couch etc. There's Windows scaling to 125% & 150% and as well
you can change font size on many of the text and 3d items using the
Adavanced Settings dilogue box that's harder to find under Win7.

Mayayana wrote:
"Ed Cryer" wrote

| I use a 32" Samsung TV as monitor, and Windows shows under Display
| Settings that it's set to the recommended 1920x1080; and I have Scaling
| set to 175%.
| And (100/175) x 1920 gives you 1097.
|
| It's a very good quality for viewing, but I'd prefer full HD.
| Can this be achieved while retaining the scaling factor?
|

Short answer: No. "Full HD" in this case means 1080px
vertical. You've just changed that to about 617. You can't
get 1080vertical pixels at 617 vertical pixel display setting.

I have two Samsungs that were once HD. They're
1280 x 720. Now that's no longer thought of as HD. So HD
is a confusing term. It's marketing, not a spec. Do you know
whether your TV is 720 or 1080 vertical pixels? That matters.

Since my TVs are 720 vertical pixels, I set the display size
to that. It works pretty well, as I'm using them to stream
movies from a computer and a Raspberry Pi, and I'm maybe
8' away. So I can see desktop items OK on the screen and
I can use a wireless mouse/keyboard. Ideally you want your
display resolution at "native", to align with actual pixel display
of the device. But of course, it also needs to be a size that
is comfortable for you to look at. Those two needs don't always
align.

There's an article here. Not terribly informative, but it
partially explains the details of Windows scaling:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/arc...-in-windows-10

They're saying that the scaling quality depends on the window.
Standard compiled software that's not scaling-aware and
newer Metro apps that are all have to be dealt with. It sounds
like it's similar to Aero on Win7 and the default UI on XP, where
elements get painted dynamically onscreen. Some programs
handle their own sizing and some apparently get resized by
Windows. The article isn't specific about that. It sounds like
Windows is just offering dynamic resizing, but that some
built-in items and some software can do a kind of "smart resizing"
for a better result.

But however you figure it, a screen has a set number of display
pixels. Your selected resolution is overlaid on that. It won't be as
crisp if you split display pixels across device pixels. You're doing
that by scaling 1920w down to 1080w. And you can't scale down
to 1080w but still have 1920 ("HD") resolution. The 1080 is the
resolution. You can "smart resize" by using some vector images
and high quality raster image resizing, but enlarging a raster
image doesn't add data. It just adds anti-aliased pixels.

Say you have an image displayed full size and it's 1200px x 700px.
At the 1920w resolution that will fill about 2/3 of the screen width. With
your scaling it will overflow the screen width. The picture
gets bigger. But the image is still 1,200 px wide. You're not changing
the data in the image. What you've done with scaling is essentially
the same as setting your monitor to lower resolution. You're
just enlarging the image. It might be more sophisticated in some
scenarios, handling an anti-aliased resizing with some windows to
make it look better, but as with any raster image, you can't add
details by enlarging the image. The image itself is a grid of color
dots. When you enlarge it you just enlarge the dots.

So, long story short, you have to consider the display device
and the display image. If it's vector data it doesn't matter. But
most of what you see onscreen is raster images. Dot grids.

Imagine your TV is "full HD" at 1080 vertical pixels. Then you
play a DVD and project it onto that screen. If you play a normal
DVD it will enlarge to fit the screen. If you play Blu-ray it will
fit the screen. If you play the newer "4K" disc it will be resized
down to fit the screen. No matter what the content, the display
resolution will be according to the screen. You can't get "4K"
resolution on a 1080 vertical pixel screen. If you have a 4K
screen then you can get all the detail. But if you then scaled that
to 1080 it would no longer be a 4K display.

So if you have a movie with, say, amazing mountain scenery,
and you want to see that realistic, what you *can* get will
be the lowest common denominator between screen and video.
On a 1080v TV you can get 1080v detail *if* the source video
is recorded at that resolution or better.



Thanks for a very committed and detailed reply. I knew I'd get good help
here, even when it's not quite OT:Win10.

Yes, my TV is 1080 vertical axis.
Here in the UK "HD" did (and still does, as far as I can make out) mean
1920x1080 pixels.

I think I'm being overly fussy here; maybe Lockdown's getting to me. The
video quality provided by the settings I'm using is excellent by the
standard of my ageing eyes.
It's just that some programs (such as Samsung's SSD Magician and
Malwarebytes) have GUIs that extend off the screen; for which I have to
change display settings, usually just cutting the scaling down to 100%
or so).
And that takes less than 10 seconds.

See you,

Ed

"Ed Cryer" wrote

|
| I think I'm being overly fussy here; maybe Lockdown's getting to me. The
| video quality provided by the settings I'm using is excellent by the
| standard of my ageing eyes.

I know what you mean. We had a 25" CRT until recently.
I thought that was amazing. I replaced it with a 32" 720p
for only $100. I feel like I could walk into the picture. So
why pay $250 for 1080p or $2,000 for 4K?

| It's just that some programs (such as Samsung's SSD Magician and
| Malwarebytes) have GUIs that extend off the screen; for which I have to
| change display settings, usually just cutting the scaling down to 100%
| or so).
| And that takes less than 10 seconds.
|
I'm guessing that problem is probably the issue
of compiled software that MS is talking about. I
don't know exactly how the scaling works. The
webpage I found doesn't actually explain it. But
it sounds like it's similar to the old large fonts
settings: It's up to software makers to find a
way to accommodate it -- or not.

Mayayana wrote:
"Ed Cryer" wrote

|
| I think I'm being overly fussy here; maybe Lockdown's getting to me. The
| video quality provided by the settings I'm using is excellent by the
| standard of my ageing eyes.

I know what you mean. We had a 25" CRT until recently.
I thought that was amazing. I replaced it with a 32" 720p
for only $100. I feel like I could walk into the picture. So
why pay $250 for 1080p or $2,000 for 4K?

| It's just that some programs (such as Samsung's SSD Magician and
| Malwarebytes) have GUIs that extend off the screen; for which I have to
| change display settings, usually just cutting the scaling down to 100%
| or so).
| And that takes less than 10 seconds.
|
I'm guessing that problem is probably the issue
of compiled software that MS is talking about. I
don't know exactly how the scaling works. The
webpage I found doesn't actually explain it. But
it sounds like it's similar to the old large fonts
settings: It's up to software makers to find a
way to accommodate it -- or not.

It could be some sort of "lack of HiDPI support" in
the application doing that. Maybe using a traditional
Win32 API does that, if you don't have the right libs
included or something. You would think a Universal App
would have such support - but then it would be
Vista+ or so, or maybe Win7+.

Paul

"Paul" wrote

| It could be some sort of "lack of HiDPI support" in
| the application doing that. Maybe using a traditional
| Win32 API does that, if you don't have the right libs
| included or something. You would think a Universal App
| would have such support - but then it would be
| Vista+ or so, or maybe Win7+.
|

Universal is UWP AKA Metro? I can't keep track
of all the name changes. Their webpage seems to
say those programs are auto-sized by Windows,
whereas "classic" AKA real software AKA compiled
software is not auto-sized. From their description
I'm guessing that it's possible to support scaling
but may involve a lot of jumping through hoops.
(Based on their statement that the "majority
of classic apps" don't support scaling.)

I'm surprised they haven't done this in Windows.
If they think it's worthwhile to provide such a service
it seems to make sense to just resize the desktop
bitmap altogether, each time it updates, or each
time a clipping region updates. Instead they're depending
on each program to be checking the size and updating
its own display.

Mayayana wrote:
"Paul" wrote

| It could be some sort of "lack of HiDPI support" in
| the application doing that. Maybe using a traditional
| Win32 API does that, if you don't have the right libs
| included or something. You would think a Universal App
| would have such support - but then it would be
| Vista+ or so, or maybe Win7+.
|

Universal is UWP AKA Metro? I can't keep track
of all the name changes. Their webpage seems to
say those programs are auto-sized by Windows,
whereas "classic" AKA real software AKA compiled
software is not auto-sized. From their description
I'm guessing that it's possible to support scaling
but may involve a lot of jumping through hoops.
(Based on their statement that the "majority
of classic apps" don't support scaling.)

I'm surprised they haven't done this in Windows.
If they think it's worthwhile to provide such a service
it seems to make sense to just resize the desktop
bitmap altogether, each time it updates, or each
time a clipping region updates. Instead they're depending
on each program to be checking the size and updating
its own display.

Signs of a Universal App (as far as I know):

1) Ends in EXE.
2) When run in Windows 7 without the addition of
api-* files by blobby Windows Update patches, will
say "Not a Win32 application", due to api-* DLL files
being missing to support launch. WinXP would say the
same thing, except there'd be no remedy for the error
on WinXP.
3) When run on an OS equipped with those files, opens
like any other Win32 application would.

Then the question would be, what magic is in app-* with
regard to HiDPI displays ? I don't follow this stuff
particularly either - I haven't attempted to download
any Visual Studio Community Editions that make such things,
to test it out. The last one I downloaded was a 2015, so
I could do the odd C compile, or do a Firefox build.

Paul

"Paul" wrote

| Signs of a Universal App (as far as I know):
|
| 1) Ends in EXE.
| 2) When run in Windows 7 without the addition of
| api-* files by blobby Windows Update patches, will
| say "Not a Win32 application", due to api-* DLL files
| being missing to support launch. WinXP would say the
| same thing, except there'd be no remedy for the error
| on WinXP.
| 3) When run on an OS equipped with those files, opens
| like any other Win32 application would.
|
Well, I guess one of us had to look it up.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...platform-guide

Runs on all devices. Can be written with C++, javascript,
or just about anything else, but will eventually be
converted to something like an HTA with jazzed-up
GUI. That description sounds indistinguishable to
me from Metro, whicvh then became WinRT. Then
I lost track. Trinket apps made from glorified script,
bought in the Windows Store. So I guess it's not surprising
that they scale. Windows is probably handling all of
that.

| Then the question would be, what magic is in app-* with
| regard to HiDPI displays ? I don't follow this stuff
| particularly either - I haven't attempted to download
| any Visual Studio Community Editions that make such things,
| to test it out. The last one I downloaded was a 2015, so
| I could do the odd C compile, or do a Firefox build.
|
| Paul