A screen question.

On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 17:43:25 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , SC Tom writes:


"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
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?

What a fascinating question, and excellent lateral thinking on your part!

I thought I knew what astigmatism was, and just checked with
[]
Unfortunately, unless your astigmatism is equal in both eyes, and your
vision is equal in both eyes as well, there's not much you can do to
adjust a monitor for that. As one who has 20/200 vision in one eye,
20/400 in the other, and moderately bad astigmatism in only one eye (my
"good" one, of course), I can absolutely state that there is nothing
that can be done to a monitor that would help me see anything clearer
without my specs :-)

The original poster Peter Jason didn't say he only had it in one eye.

I you're still reading, Peter - what _is_ the nature of your
astigmatism: is it different _gain_ in the X and Y directions (making
circles look oval), different _focus_ (as described by Johnny and
Wikipedia), or something else? And _are_ your eyes different (to each
other)?

Here are the current facts....
https://postimg.cc/QKKrrdpx
Of course I have the latest progressive lenses which work very well.
Adjustable eyeglasses can work but not too well at my level of
corrections.

Looking down onto the desk while writing & then up to look at the
screen might require a set of "inverse" progressives such as billiard
players use, and this might be the solution in my case.

On 9/8/2019 2:26 PM, Big Bad Bob wrote:
On 2019-09-08 03:08, 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?

What a fascinating question, and excellent lateral thinking on your part!

I thought I knew what astigmatism was, and just checked with wikipedia,
and it's a lot more complicated than I thought

based on what optometrists do with glasses to correct for it,
astigmatisms are more than likely inconsistent focusing across various
parts of the eye. So whereas glasses correct for it, maybe you need
different prescriptions for close work than for "general vision"

some form of "computer only" glasses, seem to be the way to go.
Bifocals only work when you look down, and nobody does that with their
monitors [maybe phones/slabs but not desktops]

I have two pair of bifocal eye glasses. One pair is for general use,
with distance-viewing lenses on top and reading lenses on the bottom. I
use these for driving, around the house, viewing TV, and anything else
NOT involving a computer. The other pair is for computer use, with the
top lenses for sharp viewing at a distance of 1-3 arm-lengths (even a
bit more with some strain) and the same reading lenses on the bottom as
I have with my general pair.

I do not use a touch-screen computer. As I type this, I am sitting
about 2 arms-lengths from my monitor, slightly tilted back in my office
chair, and with my feet up on a footstool that is under my computer
desk. That is why the top lenses of my computer bifocals focus at 1-3
arm-lengths.

When I go to a museum, I bring my computer glasses with me. With them,
I do not need to stand real close (making the guards nervous) or far
away (where I cannot see details) to view an exhibit or piece of art.

For several years now, my ophthalmologist has said I am five years away
from needing cataract surgery. When I finally have it done, I will
request lens implants for distance and get new computer glasses. I will
also pay the difference between what Medicare pays so that the implants
correct for my astigmatism. I will then not require glasses except for
reading and using my computer.

--
David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/

Immigration authorities arrested 680 undocumented aliens in meat
processing facilities in Mississippi. Employing someone who is not
legally in the U.S. is also illegal. How many of the EMPLOYERS are
being criminally charged? If none, why not?

On 08/09/2019 12.08, 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?

What a fascinating question, and excellent lateral thinking on your part!

(wikipedia is currently not working on my side, connection times out)


I thought I knew what astigmatism was, and just checked with wikipedia,
and it's a lot more complicated than I thought - so I'll go with my
original thought, that it means the lenses in your eyes mean you see the
world as either stretched or compressed vertically - circles appear as
ovals, and people appear either tall and thin or short and fat - and
your glasses correct for this. And you were wondering if it's possible
to find a monitor you can use without wearing your glasses.

This might be corrected by software designed to deform the display, yes.
But the deformation in the eye also means, I understand, that the focus
changes, and that can not be corrected in the display.

You'd have to ask optics experts first. If they say that a deformation
of the display could compensate for astigmatism, then start looking for
software to achieve that.

Methinks that the user would get a headache that way: part of the visual
field corrected and part not.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Peter Jason wrote:
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?

The market has spoken, and glasses are the answer :-)

What's that, you don't like your eye care specialist ?

Well, neither do I :-)

*******

Here is a teaser. A Maxwellian View system modified to
actually be almost useful.

"Flexible retinal image formation by
holographic Maxwellian-view display
YASUHIRO TAKAKI* AND NAOHIRO FUJIMOTO"

https://www.osapublishing.org/Direct...eq=0&mobile=no

"Specifically, people usually wearing eyeglasses in their
daily lives could see the reconstructed images generated
by the experimental system without wearing their glasses."

"The proposed system was demonstrated to effectively
correct severe and irregular astigmatism."

But you'll notice the test image was monochromatic and
illuminated with a narrow red light source.

Just two more colors and the job is done :-)

You can't move your head around all that much though.
I think it's a "chin rest" quality solution. You can't
squirm around a lot while using it.

The first Maxwellian View systems, require a "bite plate".
That means the victim (patient) needs to bite a dental
plate, to ensure a precise pupillary focus. The above paper
is relaxed a bit.

It might be possible, some day, to implement a solution
within VR glasses. One article I was looking at, had
the (usual) suggestion of a deformable lens, and
some sort of feedback system for automatically
adjusting the VR head gear for that user. But
I doubt you'd want to wear a gadget like that
for an entire 8 hour work day. I wouldn't
want to do that. A half hour is about my limit
for head mounted gear.

Paul

(Removed microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion due to to many xpost groups)

Peter,

Looking down onto the desk while writing & then up to look at
the screen might require a set of "inverse" progressives such as
billiard players use, and this might be the solution in my case.

I've got glasses which try to correct my astigmatism, and have a focus
gradient* vertically, exactly for that reason. Nowerdays I do not even
notice it anymore when I tilt my head slightly back/forward to find the
right focus distance for the job.

*a gradient, as I feared that glasses with "reading moons" in the lower half
would just cause problems for focus ranges in between. I think I made the
right choice.

But there is another possibility: You can try out so-called "reader glasses"
(just the lower half of normal glasses) and put them over your normal ones.
They can be cheap as they do not need astigmatism correction, as that is
handled by the normal ones behind it. IMHO not really a long-term
solution, but you might get a feel for how bi-focals work for you.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

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!"

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)

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer

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 ...

That's probably IPS, which stands for In Plane Switching

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPS_panel

In the panels, they have used different pixel layouts,
and that could account for some colored line issues.

I picked this example, merely because the OLPC_XO screen
was known for having a unique layout (compared to other
monitors you might have used.

On the left is OLPC screen, on the right a "regular" LCD panel.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...n_01_Pengo.jpg

When they mess around like that, it could have some
impact on how lines appear on the screen.

Paul

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.

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 04:50:03 -0400, Paul
wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer

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 ...

That's probably IPS, which stands for In Plane Switching

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPS_panel

In the panels, they have used different pixel layouts,
and that could account for some colored line issues.

I picked this example, merely because the OLPC_XO screen
was known for having a unique layout (compared to other
monitors you might have used.

On the left is OLPC screen, on the right a "regular" LCD panel.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...n_01_Pengo.jpg

When they mess around like that, it could have some
impact on how lines appear on the screen.

Paul

Photoshop preferences has a provision for specifying odd pixel shapes
and sizes. Presumably it must do some correction in software.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

On 9/10/19 2:50 AM, Paul wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer

snip

On the left is OLPC screen, on the right a "regular" LCD panel.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...n_01_Pengo.jpg

When they mess around like that, it could have some
impact on how lines appear on the screen.

The OLPC reminds me of dot pitch in CRTs. LOL


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

On 9/10/19 2:11 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
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.)

It's interesting how language changes. When I was growing up, the "@"
was also used to mean "about". I wonder if that has to do with the
capabilties, or lack of, of typewriters.

For the common computer monitor aspect ratios, don't forget 5:4. I
actually have a monitor with that ratio. 1280 X 1024, SXGA. I found
one other screen resolution with this ratio, 2560 X2048, QSHGA. When
using the occasional laptop, I'll drag my 5:4 monitor out and use it.

The number of aspect ratios I've found is 57. Some are really strange,
and I've no idea where they are used. One works out to be 683:384.

When I first started this investigation into making the screen easier to
read, I was expecting to find some monitors to have a different sizes
for the individual pixel. But apparently they don't, so I quit looking
at that spec.

[]
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 discovered all of this on websites, not with any programming on my part.

And the width may not be of importance. There's an online maintenance
management software called Podio. The program, when I was using it,
used one of those light greys as a background. But they did not put any
kind of border around the fields you needed to fill in. The monitor
displayed the background as white, and the fill color of the fields
was... you guessed it, white. LOL Made it hard to determine where the
input field was! LOL

One day, out of curiosity, I tilted the monitor top edge away from me to
about a 40-45Ëš angle, and there was the grey background. Not a
practical solution, though. VBG

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 ...

Paul and nospam are correct, it should be IPS. Muscle memory, I guess,
but at the same time, I don't see some letters that are "right in front
of me". And in this case, spell checking may be useless.

For instance, at the native resolution, maybe I don't see the letters
"abcd". But if if I go to the next lower resolution with the same
aspect ratio, it may be the only letters that are missing are "cd" due
to the magnification effect.

When I look at a vertical straight line, this is what I see:

|
\
|
|
/
|

More or less. LOL

I experimented with the options of increasing the text size by 125% or
150%. Bit this does not change the size of the text in menus in the
windows. And, if the situation is right, dialog boxes may have the
buttons you need to click on off the screen to the bottom, and you can't
get to them!

All of this is just part of the reason I won't be using W10, and will
stick to W7 when I use Windows. W7 gives me more options for correcting
the screen display so I can see it.

I don't think MS gives a damn.

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.

It took me a while to get past that mental impediment. But it's now my
"new normal", and I don't even notice it unless I think about it. I
think it helped when I viewed the situation as just looking at a smaller
monitor through a full screen magnifying glass.

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!).

The mind does do funny things, doesn't it?

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.

But the integral resolution may not exist. For instance, I've not found
an example of 320 X 240.

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.

I wonder if those aren't the resolutions you see that are greyed out,
when you move the slider in the resolution display.

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.

No distortion is one of my "specs". You want a square to be displayed
as a square, not a rectangle.

[]
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 just remembered this today:

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...act=mrc&uact=8

This is before I became a Mac user.

This Pro-Art rotates 90Ëš and is 16:10.

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.)

Even side by side isn't as good, especially for page layout in
newspapers, or editing a widescreen photo where the camera has been
turned 90Ëš to portrait orientation.

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 found it amazing how much that extra vertical unit affects my
enjoyment of what I'm doing. Now, when I use a 16:9 screen, I find it
feels "cramped".

I immediately became a convert to the idea of "the more screen real
estate, the better" when I went from a 14" to a 17" CRT monitor. I had
a 19" Atari branded Moniterm B&W monitor attached to a TT030 computer,
and simply loved it!! Gave the system away, and have regretted it ever
since.

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.

My "main" systems are in computer desks with this design style:

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=is...mg.3jCItgMUz-E

Mine are much smaller in width that those shown. In one, 24" diagonal
is all that will fit. In the other , 27" diagonal *might* fit, but I'm
sure the physical vertical dimension would be an issue. But an IPS
monitor seemed to be nonexistent in that size.

And with anything wall mounted, what happens if you are renting an
apartment, or selling your house? G


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

In article , Ken Springer
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.)

It's interesting how language changes. When I was growing up, the "@"
was also used to mean "about". I wonder if that has to do with the
capabilties, or lack of, of typewriters.

For the common computer monitor aspect ratios, don't forget 5:4. I
actually have a monitor with that ratio. 1280 X 1024, SXGA. I found
one other screen resolution with this ratio, 2560 X2048, QSHGA. When
using the occasional laptop, I'll drag my 5:4 monitor out and use it.

The number of aspect ratios I've found is 57. Some are really strange,
and I've no idea where they are used. One works out to be 683:384.

which one is that, where the resolution is not an even number?

When I first started this investigation into making the screen easier to
read, I was expecting to find some monitors to have a different sizes
for the individual pixel. But apparently they don't, so I quit looking
at that spec.

pixels do have different sizes, and by quite a bit, with hidpi displays
having the smallest.

https://www.sven.de/dpi/



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.

But the integral resolution may not exist. For instance, I've not found
an example of 320 X 240.

not for a computer, you won't, since that's far too small to be usable.
even 800x600 is too small these days.

something that low would be suitable for a status display or perhaps on
the back of a cheap camera.

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.

No distortion is one of my "specs". You want a square to be displayed
as a square, not a rectangle.

all lcds do that.



I just remembered this today:


https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl....com%2F d%2Fl
400%2Fpict%2F123519789112_%2FRARE-VINTAGE-Apple-Quadra-700-kit-with-Radius.jpg
&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fpicclick.com%2FRARE-VINTAGE-Apple-Quadra-700-kit-with-
Radius-123519789112.html&docid=dh6W7UdnqnEM5M&tbnid=LLDNl Xsb-vBhzM%3A&vet=10ah
UKEwi2naCewsbkAhVhneAKHRM_BRgQMwhgKA0wDQ..i&w=400& h=365&bih=919&biw=1432&q=rad
ius%20monitor&ved=0ahUKEwi2naCewsbkAhVhneAKHRM_BRg QMwhgKA0wDQ&iact=mrc&uact=8

the actual image url is:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...gU-lI_eK2OV4Gz
Fkt9oWTfdL0sHR3DqUQ0Ti8p8u9mmDK-D

that's the radius pivot, which not only physically rotated, but the
desktop would redraw with the new aspect ratio when it was rotated.

https://uploads.ifdesign.de/award_im...electro_180.jp
g

now, the real fun is using an ultrawide display in portrait mode

landscape:
https://cdn.macrumors.com/article-ne...de1-800x450.jp
g
portrait:
https://cdn.macrumors.com/article-ne...de2-800x450.jp
g

nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Springer
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.)
It's interesting how language changes. When I was growing up, the "@"
was also used to mean "about". I wonder if that has to do with the
capabilties, or lack of, of typewriters.

For the common computer monitor aspect ratios, don't forget 5:4. I
actually have a monitor with that ratio. 1280 X 1024, SXGA. I found
one other screen resolution with this ratio, 2560 X2048, QSHGA. When
using the occasional laptop, I'll drag my 5:4 monitor out and use it.

The number of aspect ratios I've found is 57. Some are really strange,
and I've no idea where they are used. One works out to be 683:384.

which one is that, where the resolution is not an even number?

That's 1366x768. Which as far as I know, is not a "VESA" choice.
A number of TV sets used that, and it seems to be related to
doing something between HD and SD, from a pixel perspective.
There has to be some reason they selected that, like maybe
"easy scaling" or something. After a while, the better
manufacturers started delivering 1920x1080 sets, instead
of doing trash like that.

And it's not a real resolution, since "horizontal divisible by 8"
has not been met.

It is possible to have horizontal resolution steps of 1 (on the graphics
card side), using an outboard Silicon Image converter. So it's not
necessarily a limit on the transmitting side.

But "convention" from long ago brought us divisible-by-8. So the
display device has to do either 1368 or 1360 or the like.

Horizontal divisible by 8 was related to the transition from
character generators to general purpose graphics.

Vertical divisible by 2, is related to progressive versus interleaved
and the desire at one time, to support both. If some device sent
interleaved (because it was one of the defined choices), then you
were ready for it.

But the brain dead 1366 choice, I've never been able to find
a story for that one.

Paul

In article , Paul
wrote:

The number of aspect ratios I've found is 57. Some are really strange,
and I've no idea where they are used. One works out to be 683:384.

which one is that, where the resolution is not an even number?

That's 1366x768. Which as far as I know, is not a "VESA" choice.

only if you divide, which serves no purpose.

there is no such display with 683x384.

A number of TV sets used that, and it seems to be related to
doing something between HD and SD, from a pixel perspective.
There has to be some reason they selected that, like maybe
"easy scaling" or something. After a while, the better
manufacturers started delivering 1920x1080 sets, instead
of doing trash like that.

1080p costs more.

And it's not a real resolution, since "horizontal divisible by 8"
has not been met.

it's a real resolution, commonly found on ultrabooks and 720p tvs.

It is possible to have horizontal resolution steps of 1 (on the graphics
card side), using an outboard Silicon Image converter. So it's not
necessarily a limit on the transmitting side.

possible, perhaps, but not desirable.

But "convention" from long ago brought us divisible-by-8. So the
display device has to do either 1368 or 1360 or the like.

Horizontal divisible by 8 was related to the transition from
character generators to general purpose graphics.

it was because the graphics code could greatly optimized.

Vertical divisible by 2, is related to progressive versus interleaved
and the desire at one time, to support both. If some device sent
interleaved (because it was one of the defined choices), then you
were ready for it.

computer displays haven't been interleaved in decades, certainly not
lcds.

But the brain dead 1366 choice, I've never been able to find
a story for that one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphi...#WXGA_.281366x
768_and_similar.29
€ The basis for this otherwise odd seeming resolution is similar to
that of other ³wide² standards * the line scan (refresh) rate of the
well-established ³XGA² standard (1024?768 pixels, 4:3 aspect) was
extended to give square pixels on the increasingly popular 16:9
widescreen display ratio without having to effect major signalling
changes other than a faster pixel clock, or manufacturing changes
other than extending panel width by one third. As 768 does not divide
exactly into the ³9² size, the aspect ratio is not quite 16:9 * this
would require a horizontal width of 1365.33 pixels. However, at only
0.05%, the resulting error is insignificant.

In 2006, 1366x768 was the most popular resolution for liquid crystal
display televisions (versus XGA for Plasma TVs flat panel
displays); by 2013, even this was relegated to only being used in
smaller or cheaper displays (e.g. "bedroom" LCD TVs, or low-cost,
large-format plasmas), cheaper laptop and mobile tablet computers,
and midrange home cinema projectors, having otherwise been overtaken
by higher "full HD" resolutions such as 1920x1080.


https://www.quora.com/Why-did-1366-x...mmon-laptop-sc
reen-resolution
In the early days of LCD panel production, 1024 x 768 panels
seemed to be the sweet spot for price to resolution value,
representing a good tradeoff between profit and risk of possible
manufacturing defects ruining the screen. As a bonus, just about all
modern-at-that-time video hardware would support that resolution.

When you expand a 768 pixel tall screen to be a 16:9 widescreen, it
becomes 1366 x 768.

So my theory is that when a lot of LCD manufacturers needed to
produce TV screens for a wide aspect ratio, they drew on the
experience chain of the 1024 x 768 PC market since the 768-pixel
tall form factor was the one with the most installed base.

Since 1366 x 768 displays widescreen video content well, those
panels are heavily produced since video watching is an important PC
use case...