5 ms·
Do you think such a setup would be helpful for an elderly relative whose eyesight is getting worse? Even with glasses, the relative has trouble with a 27-inch d
by computator 5y ago
Do you think such a setup would be helpful for an elderly relative whose eyesight is getting worse? Even with glasses, the relative has trouble with a 27-inch desktop monitor with 2560 x 1440 pixels. Specifically, I was thinking of using an Ultra High Definition TV (49-inch with 3840 x 2160 pixels) but setting the resolution at 2560 x 1440. So it would be the same resolution but everything would be bigger. Would it help?
- layer8 5y agoIt depends on the distance they can best focus on. Then choose the display size accordingly. I.e. a huge display won’t work if they are near-sighted.
- haunter 5y agoIt can help for sure. The longer focal length itself is a huge difference but I'd test it out somehow (renting, borrowing etc.) before investing into something like this >I was thinking of using an Ultra High Definition TV (49-inch with 3840 x 2160 pixels) but setting the resolution at 2560 x 1440. So it would be the same resolution but everything would be bigger. I'd rather use OS level UI scaling you will have sharper and better picture
- computator 5y ago> I'd rather use OS level UI scaling you will have sharper and better picture I tried various OS scaling methods. The problem with "magnify or zoom in on the whole screen" is that it's very cumbersome for an elderly person, easily getting lost on where you are on the screen. The problem with an OS configuration to make all text and icons bigger is that it doesn't do it for everything — many text labels, buttons, menus, etc., remain at a small font. That's why I'm hoping a hardware-level solution (a much bigger display) is the answer.
- ______-_-______ 5y agoCouldn't you get an equivalent focal length by wearing reading glasses?
- trashtester 5y agoOnly to a limited degree. The problem is that the eye becomes inflexible with age, lowering the ability to modify it's "lens power". Lens power is defined as the inverse of the focal length. Lets say you have glasses that, when combined with you eyes, create perfect focus at a range of 5m. If you look at something 10m away, you need to add (or subtract) the difference by modifying your built-in lense. The lens stength adjustment for your eye needed for that, is dP = 1/10m - 1/5m = -0.1m^-1. This is not much, and even old eyes can do this easily. Also, even if the eye is not able to do so, the image is going to be pretty sharp at 10m or any greater distance away, or even at distances of about 3-5m. Now consider having your lenses adjusted to be perfect at 0.5m away. If you move the object you look at to 1m away, you get: dP=1/1m - 1/0.5m = -1m^-1 This is still easy for a young person, but for someone older, this can be straining, or even impossible. Also, even slightly away from the perfect distance, perceived blurriness will be significant if not able to adjust. Furthermore, to look at something much further away, eyes must be ajusted by dP=-2m^-1. This is doable for a young person, but an older will move around in the fog. In other words, a screen that is 3m+ away from you requires a lot less lens compensation from the eye (and thus far less strain) than a screen 50cm away, even with perfect glasses, as long as you are not sitting perfectly still at that distance. Even variation in distance between the center of the screen and the edge of the screen may be enough to cause problems.
- ______-_-______ 5y agoThanks for taking the time to write this. I learned a lot.
- yummypaint 5y agoNo. If their eyes are unable to resolve the smaller pixels it will offer no benefit. Would be better to get a large standard resolution screen. However, i would avoid smart TVs as they are extremely consumer hostile and may blare ads over your relative's attempts to use the computer. A 27"+ monitor made ~10 years ago would be ideal.
- computator 5y ago> If their eyes are unable to resolve the smaller pixels it will offer no benefit. Sorry, I don't understand. The pixels would be bigger in the idea I'm proposing. > A 27"+ monitor made ~10 years ago would be ideal. That's exactly what they have now. I'm suggesting replacing it with a 49-inch monitor (a Ultra HD TV) set to the same resolution. The pixels would therefore be bigger.
- tossoutijsbshsu 5y agoMy grandmother used to have difficulty reading her email, even with double font size, low res, etc. Over the summer, I replaced her monitor with a 32-inch 1080p TV that I had lying around, and it makes a big difference. I think your idea would definitely help.
- goosedragons 5y agoHow big is the monitor? A 27" 1440p monitor is about 130ppi, a 32" is about 90.
- chiph 5y agoI used to work with a guy that was very visually impaired and he used a 40" monitor set to VGA resolution. He would still have to crane his head to the left & right sometimes to follow the mouse on screen. Going to something like a 49 or 55" television could work but you need to check the field of view at the distance they'll have it set up. Get a piece of cardboard at your largest anticipated screen dimensions, prop it up at their normal viewing distance, then put some high contrast marks on the edges & in the corners and see if they can make them out without too much head rotation. If they can't then cut the cardboard down to the next smaller TV size and try again. Once you have bought the right sized TV, then adjust the resolution so they can make out screen elements (the window close button is a good one to test against). Then adjust the mouse size, browser zoom, etc.
- Jaruzel 5y agoWhy not just set the desktop resolution to 1280x720?, as it's exactly 1/2 that of QHD, so everything will be twice as large, at perfect 2x pixel scaling. For the 4K screen, 1920x1080 is 1/2 4K so same point applies.