Computing desk
< November 18	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 19

Screen magnification software wanted

My big-screen monitor just died on me, so I dragged out it's predecessor and put it back in service. It has a very sharp, high-res image, but the screen is tiny. What I would like to do is run a screen magnifier on it, which will make everything 2X the width and 2X the height, but only show 1/4 of the screen at a time, and scroll which portion of the screen is shown as I move the mouse around. I believe this is called bump scrolling. I know that the ZoomText magnifier has this capability, but it's not free and also does way more than I need, like font substitution, screen reading, color changes, etc. So, where can I get a free product that will do 2X magnification with bump scrolling, for Window 7 (both 32 bit and 64 bit) ? StuRat (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 7 has something called err... Magnifier. That might help. [1]--Aspro (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tried it. Unfortunately, it requires using the Aero themes, which I hate. StuRat (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) - most of the post below was written in response to text StuRat later retracted.

StuRat, you are probably seeing the effects of zooming ClearType, which is Microsoft's implementation of subpixel rendering. I think you will have a hard time finding built-in or third-party "magnification" utilities that re-render content; so if you use a "zoom," you will always run in to your ugly artifact problem. Those are the real pixels that are actually generated by your application; you're just seeing them at a larger size. This is not a problem with the "zooming" those pixels; nor is it "bad coding" in the implementation of the zoom. It is a generally-true mathematical fact: upsampling a small image into a larger image cannot possibly perfectly reconstruct the pixels you want to reconstruct. These types of artifacts cannot be solved with a different zoom tool. You really want a utility that will create different pixels to represent the content at a larger size. Or you can turn ClearType off.

In fact, the technical term for what you wish to do is not to zoom (upsample): you actually want to re-render text at a larger display size. The best way to do so depends on your exact needs. In Windows, it is possible on certain graphics cards, with certain display drivers, to use a virtual display resolution that is larger than the onscreen resolution (so that you can "bump-scroll", and set the pels per inch to your desired setting). I've had luck with the Nvidia ecosystem, and their control panel, on products ranging from the Ti4600 on Windows XP, through and Ti5800 series on Windows Vista and Windows 7. I don't have much experience with Windows on the post-CUDA-era cards. In all cases, the onus is on you (the customizing user) to ensure that the settings you choose for your monitor's hardware-pixels, and your graphics card's virtual pixels, and your application's abstraction of those pixels, all work together to make a nice image without ugly artifacts.

Alternately, you can leave the display resolution alone; and use system settings in Control panel to customize the font size and other UI widget sizes; and for all other content, allow the application to re-render the content (including text) at a larger size. This lets the application logic decide the best way to render at the desired output size. Some applications (like Internet Explorer) do this in a way that I would consider "correct;" when you zoom most pages, the page will reflow and most elements will increase their rendered size. Other applications (like the Image Preview built into Windows Explorer) use a somewhat more haphazard logic to "zoom" content. I have always found bilinear interpolation to be a very ugly upsampling algorithm. Nimur (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I retracted my complaint on the quality of the magnified text when I realized it really was that ugly at the original size. I wish they wouldn't use shading in text display, as that causes all sorts of problems. In addition to zooming, you also have a nightmare, say, if you try to change the background color. BTW, the ZoomText tool actually does character recognition, then re-renders the characters at a larger font, to get around this problem. But if everyone would just use monochrome text, then everything works great. It may have some jaggies when you magnify it, but I can live with that. StuRat (talk) 07:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This won't fix your font scaling issue, but seems pretty simple, and has hotkeys and edge-scrolling. [2] Back in the Windows 98 days I remember being able to run the desktop at a higher resolution than the display with edge-scrolling, but that may have been some crazy driver feature. Katie R (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list at http://www.magnifiers.org Rojomoke (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just doing a bit of Lateral thinking. In a country as wealthy and consumer orientated as yours, you must have many neighbors who have upgraded to 60 inch (or plus) screens and have yet to put their old monitors out for the trash-man to collect. Why not ask about and inquire? Matthew 7:7 ESV / 90 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. “--Aspro (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's some terrible exegesis! - Letsbefiends (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More lateral thinking: get yourself a decent size Fresnel lens? I've seen these work rather well in certain applications, e.g. this screen magnifier for iphones [3]. If your old monitor is a CRT, it should be plenty sturdy enough to support the mounting of said lens. Lenses ~7x10 inches sell for ~$7.00, so it should be relatively inexpensive, even for a much larger lens. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]