For people who have eye sight problem, can higher resolution makes a big difference?

Happy Hopping

Happy Hopping

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
7,837
I know some1 who has eye problem, he uses a magnifying software on a 30" 2560 x 1600 screen. And it works quite nicely for him.

But what if the resolution is 31.5" Asus at 3840 x 2160 IGZO Display, would that be even better for people who has eye sight problem?

As he is wondering if an upgrade to 3840 x 2160 would be better for his eyes.

Also, does any1 knows any good magnifying software w/ or w/o audio? Money is not a problem, all they want is a good software.
 
All matte 30" monitors except for the Dell 3014 & Lenovo LT3053p (unconfirmed but likely) use grainy matte coatings which are known to cause some users issues such as eye strain. Before your friend spends 3,000$ he should try using a glossy or matte monitor with a lighter coating. It is probably wise to avoid displays which use LED PWM Dimming (read about PWM here) like the Asus 4k monitor.
 
Last edited:
but I thought w/ the bigger screen, that he can see the same images in the enlarge mode, but much sharper image
 
maybe I'm wrong -- but increasing the resolution of the hardware isn't going to help him. If he's already having to use a magnifier to see things, that extra crispness probably won't mean much to a person who has trouble seeing in the first place.

Maybe I'm assuming a certain type of trouble seeing but increasing the resolution only makes everything overall smaller, unless you run the actual output from the video card at a much smaller resolution. For someone who's has trouble seeing -- I'd figure if you got them a regular 46" 1080p display and set your computer to output to it in 1280X720. That way everything they see will be fisher price size huge and easy for them to see without a magnifying app.
 
Contrast helps eyesight more than size. So VA panels have distinct advantages over IPS adn TN for productivity purposes, especially if visual acuity is below 20/20
 
As stated, I'm not so sure higher res will help a whole lot. To be honest, I think it'd make things even worse. My vision is very so-so, and the higher the res, the more difficult it is to read the tiny, tiny text. Of course we can crank up DPI settings, but not every piece of software plays nice with DPI settings. I find Photoshop sometimes annoying to use, for instance, as the menus/options can be a bit tiny for me, and I'm just using a 1200p monitor.

Rather than use magnifying software, either have him increase DPI, or probably better, just reduce the resolution to exactly half -- 1280x800. If that makes things too large for him, he alternatively could get a 27" 1440p with a light coating, and reduce that by half. Collegeboy above has the right idea, but 1280x720 on a 1080p display may not be as crisp as exactly half resolution.

If using half res, the screen will look pretty much the same at native (usually), at least based on what I have read.
 
Last edited:
Resolution wont help him, its already pretty high.
Screen size and contrast will help more.

A 42" or bigger TV is more what I would be looking at.
Consider a projector if you can find a way of demoing one for him.
 
Yes, a bigger screen would be more helpful to him. For years now my eye sight has slowly gotten worse. Normal aging the doc says. I've got glasses now to bring it up but I have been buying larger screens over the years and its definitely helpful. That's why I dont get all excited about these new high res monitors coming out. I'm better off getting a larger screen but keeping the res the same.

Just my 2 coppers :D
 
Some options:
-If your OS has good zoom scaling, maybe then you could run at native res. XP doesn't; I'm not sure about Win8.
-Set the 30" to 1280x800 to make everything bigger (and still native-LCD).
-Use a 37" 1080p.
-Make your web browser scale everything. I use Firefox add-on Default Full Zoom Level, to scale text-only to 110%. You can also set it to scale everything, and with a maximized 30" window and it set to 240%, that works very well.
 
The answer is not so simple. as Namelessme has said, a higher resolution will make things smaller. I have just built a computer for a grandfather. I used a 1080p 22" screen. This of course made everything to small. However windows has a setting "make text and other items larger or smaller". With that set to 150% it works well. The image is crisp and clear and he can edit his book on it.
 
have a look at Panasonic plasma monitors, the contrast will help more than anything and they have aspect and zoom controls right on the remote which allow you to zoom into any portion of the screen

you hit the zoom button and a 5x5 grid appears and you select the amount of zoom 1x,2x,3x etc

hope that helps
 
you know, that PQ321 driver is apck w/ bugs anyway, so I'll drop the idea for now.
 
Happy Hopping said:
you know, that PQ321 driver is apck w/ bugs anyway, so I'll drop the idea for now.
Click to expand...

I like my PQ321, even with the buggy drivers. If I had a good 30" screen to compare against, I might not have upgraded though. I've yet to see a decent 30" offering, LED backlit and without super heavy AG matte applied to the screen. The only other screen I know of would be the Dell u3014, but it has far worse issues that can't be fixed with a new driver release, so I passed on that.
 
I chat w/ her about the screen, and she said a screen with good brightness is what she really want to upgrade to

I found HP ZR30W that has a 370 cd/m on brgihtness

http://shopping1.hp.com/is-bin/INTE...ple&WFSimpleSearch_NameOrID=zr30w&findSimple=

and I'm surprise that the high end Viewsonic 27" only has a brightness of 300 cd/m

http://www.viewsonic.com/us/monitors/vp2770-led.html

although their contrast ratio is much higher at :

Contrast Ratio
1000:1 (typ.); 20M:1 (Dynamic)

for people who have the eye issue that wants a brighter screen, would you recommend the 370 cd/m is more important or the contrast ratio is more important?
 
Unless in an extremely bright environment keeping the brightness under 200cdm/2 is ideal. Often eyestrain is caused by keeping the brightness at the default, maximum setting.

The HP ZR30W is one of the WORST monitors one can buy if they want something easier on the eyes since it uses a grainy matte coating. Dynamic contrast ratios are bogus.

This is a compilation of macro pictures taken by =DEAD= (overclock.ru reviewer) shows how different kinds of coatings on affect displays pixels. Notice how unclear the 305Q Pro/3020MDP/SH30QDHM's pixels look compared to most other monitors. All matte 30" monitors except for the Dell 3014 (same coating as the U2713H) and Lenvo LT305P use the same grainy coating.
 
Last edited:
As NCX just mentioned, a bright screen typically causes eye strain, not the reverse. I would say one exception could be if your friend has an eye disorder/disease where a bright screen is a necessity, although I am not sure what disorders would require such.

If you kept a monitor at 300 cd/m or higher, it'd feel like your retinas were burning out. Most here probably keep it at half that, or less.

The Viewsonic 2770 at exactly half res may work out. I know someone here tried half resolution with his Eizo 2736 and stated that it looked nice and crisp, just like native.
 
ppi = pixels per inch (AKA DPI or dots per inch). With no zooming and OS set to standard 100% DPI scaling, higher ppi = smaller text, lower ppi = larger text (50 ppi has text twice as large as 100 ppi).

Pixel doubling: setting the monitor to exactly half of its native resolution. Result: each pixel on the screen is represented by exactly four of the native pixels, resulting in a completely sharp image that is four times as large, with none of the fuzziness caused by using non-native resolutions on an LCD monitor.

30" 2560x1600 monitor set to 2560x1600 = 100.63 ppi
30" 2560x1600 monitor pixel-doubled to 1280x800 = 50.31 ppi

31.5" 3840x2160 monitor set to 3840x2160 = 139.87 ppi (tiny, tiny text!)
31.5" 3840x2160 monitor pixel-doubled to 1920x1080 = 69.93 ppi
31.5" 3840x2160 monitor pixel-quadrupled to 960x540 = 34.97 ppi

960x540 is probably not supported very well by many apps. I think the OP's friend is better off sticking with the 2560x1600 and pixel-doubling it.

Seiki has some 4K HDTVs at 39" and 50" but I don't know if you can do pixel-doubling with them:

39" 3840x2160 monitor pixel-doubled to 1920x1080 = 112.97 ppi
50" 3840x2160 monitor pixel-doubled to 1920x1080 = 88.12 ppi

but pixel-doubling the 30" 2560x1600 still does better.

Edit:
27" 2560x1440 monitor set to 2560x1440 = 108.79 ppi
27" 2560x1440 monitor pixel-doubled to 1280x720 = 54.39 ppi
 
I can't even begin to tell you how many times I'll come over to a friends house and mess around on their PC only to find the monitor brightness at "Sun" level brightness. Just because your LCD monitor can get very bright only really matters if its in direct sun light , otherwise it'll just produce lots of eye strain.

One of the best ways to ease eye strain is properly calibrate your monitor and consider using http://justgetflux.com/ , this program will actually change the color temp during evening to dusk time frame and it helps ease your eye strain quite effectively. It also helps you retain your proper sleep system by reducing higher color temps to produce a natural color temp which encourages the proper sleep/wake cycle. If you sit in front of your PC all day , that little program can really help. Its also referred to as "Light Therapy". Look it up if you find it of interest.

Personally it wasn't until I started to use this therapy to help cure my insomnia (seriously) and it works. I have far less eye strain , I wake rested without feeling lousy and I feel like my cognitive has improved overall. Before hand I often head tons of headaches to deal with and overall I felt cloudy mentally.
 
Why not just get a 40" or larger 1080 screen? Plasma for the good black levels. Cant imagine he would need magnifying stuff then.
 
Namelessme said:
As NCX just mentioned, a bright screen typically causes eye strain, not the reverse. I would say one exception could be if your friend has an eye disorder/disease where a bright screen is a necessity, although I am not sure what disorders would require such.

If you kept a monitor at 300 cd/m or higher, it'd feel like your retinas were burning out. Most here probably keep it at half that, or less.
Click to expand...

Okay, the reason I mentioned it, is on her current screen, a All-In_One PC from Gateway, with touch screen, in which the touch screen itself is from Acer. What I believe to be either this machine or a machine in this series:

http://www.hardwaresphere.com/2010/05/21/acer-gateway-zx6900-touchscreen-all-in-one-pc/

that she complain the screen is NOT bright enough. At the time, it is already set at maximum, which is 300 cd/m2

So with her being a senior, maybe you are right, that she does need a bright screen to compensate whatever eye problem she has
 
Godmachine said:
One of the best ways to ease eye strain is properly calibrate your monitor and consider using http://justgetflux.com/ , this program will actually change the color temp during evening to dusk time frame and it helps ease your eye strain quite effectively. It also helps you retain your proper sleep system by reducing higher color temps to produce a natural color temp which encourages the proper sleep/wake cycle..
Click to expand...

you really think this will work for her? And when I try to download it, there are 2 ver.:

flux-setup3, 490,352 bytes

and flux-setup.exe, 559,424 bytes

then in that link, http://justgetflux.com/

there is those blur chat of this program is detected as a virus

Also, I don't like those giant 40" screen. They are not really computer screen, they are really TV screen. The screen is loose so it's like a really bad interlace screen

I'm more leaning on a LED LCD screen for the contrast
 
Last edited:
Does this person have flood lights pointed at their monitor or live in a glass house? There's no way a display with 250-300cdm/2 brightness is too dim unless the monitor is in an extremely bright environment or there are other eye health related issues at play.
 
A 2010 display will be CCFL, which loses brightness over time. If used regularly it could easily be at 30% of original brightness by now. You're now forced to run it at 100% brightness on the display, which results in washed out colours and a lack of contrast. As someone with poor eyesight I can tell you this makes for very uncomfortable viewing.

It also appears that PWM LED flicker affects people with poor eyesight more, so if buying a new display I would advise looking for one that is PWM free.
 
NCX said:
This is a compilation of macro pictures taken by =DEAD= (overclock.ru reviewer) shows how different kinds of coatings on affect displays pixels. Notice how unclear the 305Q Pro/3020MDP/SH30QDHM's pixels look compared to most other monitors. All matte 30" monitors except for the Dell 3014 (same coating as the U2713H) and Lenvo LT305P use the same grainy coating.
Click to expand...

it's hard to use that chart to determine the overall performance of a screen. In that chart, it shows the Acer S275HL Bmii has very sharp image. But Acer is well known to be poor quality, I lost count how many Acer I've seen fails

=================

EvilSofa, thanks for the explanation

=============================

What do you people think of the NEC:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824002807

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824002640

she's currently using that touch screen Acer that is only LCD, either a 23" or 27"

http://www.frontierpc.com/computers...desktop-computer-pw-gaf02-002-1017901134.html

So for her to ditch that old technology LCD, I am thinking of NEC 29" or 30". I don't know why that NEC 30" is so much $. As Dell 30" U3014 is only $1.2K. I think NEC is just over price.
 
NCX said:
Does this person have flood lights pointed at their monitor or live in a glass house? There's no way a display with 250-300cdm/2 brightness is too dim unless the monitor is in an extremely bright environment or there are other eye health related issues at play.
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no doubt that she does have eye health issue. So the question is, what should she do? As a 40" resolution is too low
 
sadbuttrue said:
A 2010 display will be CCFL, which loses brightness over time. If used regularly it could easily be at 30% of original brightness by now. You're now forced to run it at 100% brightness on the display, which results in washed out colours and a lack of contrast. As someone with poor eyesight I can tell you this makes for very uncomfortable viewing.

It also appears that PWM LED flicker affects people with poor eyesight more, so if buying a new display I would advise looking for one that is PWM free.
Click to expand...

This is the only series I know who's PWM free: Do you know any other brand?

http://www.eizo.com/global/products/flexscan/flexscan_ev.html
 
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/flicker_free_database.htm

If it was me, I'd figure out some things first before a purchase. First off, what dpi does she require for comfortable viewing? You can increase dpi in the OS or change screen res temporally, just to figure out how large text needs to be.

Then choose a monitor based on the size/res she needs, and if a brightness issue does come into play.

I think for most people with vision issues, a Viewsonic 2770 or Eizo 2736, run at 1280x720, would be fine, and require no extra magnification or dpi changes. But you (or your friend) can sort of test that before a purchase.

Edit: I also remembered that Win 8 doesn't like to play nice with 720p, so if she happens to be running Win 8, I guess that resolution may not be a great option.
 
Last edited:
I find ambibright or any light sensors, annoying myself. So you will be sitting there, a cloud passes by the window and you monitor seemingly randomly changes brightness on you. Then changes again when the cloud passes. For myself, I always turn that stuff off.

PWM free is more important for most people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top