A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Making CRT easier to read?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old March 28th 19, 08:20 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,564
Default 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)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"He hasn't one redeeming vice." - Oscar Wilde
Ads
  #17  
Old March 28th 19, 09:00 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,978
Default 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  
Old March 28th 19, 11:03 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,758
Default 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  
Old March 28th 19, 11:09 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,564
Default 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)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Only dirty people need wash
  #20  
Old March 28th 19, 11:19 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,564
Default 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)[email protected]+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  
Old March 28th 19, 11:52 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,758
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.