maxtherabbit wrote on 2022-04-06, 19:59:

Blur belongs in the toilet

Is that an oblique reference to Trainspotting ? 😉

leileilol wrote on 2022-04-07, 04:12:

sli's interlaced though and you're better off with vb/v3 at least if you desire for hi-res glide on big monitors. Banshee can do 1600x1200

interleaved, not interlaced. afaik its 1024x768 @ 76 Hz 62.5 kHz

I have the AOC Gaming Q3279VWFD8 32 inch, 1440p, 75Hz monitor which is EXTREMELY retro friendly (in fact, it's so good, that I now have two).
It has aspect ratio correction (when using the VGA input) and a very powerful internal upscaler, so all "retro" resolutions look very nice and sharp (including 320x200). Furthermore, it can even emulate a 17'' or a 19'' 4:3 display, for even more sharpness in DOS. 😀
So, yeah, with this monitor I really don't feel the need for a CRT display (the fact that my wife won't let me have one has nothing to do with it! Nothing, I tell ya! 🤣 )

My current solution is a Philips 252B9 monitor (25" 16x10 1920x1200 16:10 , but I use it as a 1600x1200 in 4:3 mode, which is about equivalent to 21" ) with an OSSC .
70Hz is supported without frameskip .
320x200 mode 13h is sampled properly (thanks to OSSC).
This is currently fed by a Voodoo 3's VGA output .

I am very satisfied with resulting picture quality and sharpness .

EDIT : I used to own a Viewsonic P95F CRT monitor (not the ViewSonic P95F+B ) --> https://web.archive.org/web/20011006044937/ht … ts/crt_p95f.cfm and would not want to return to it . A high-end CRT's dynamic range, input lag and response times and multi-resolution (without scaling) abilities are nice, but a decent LCD has perfect geometry, no convergence issues, no focus issues, no blooming. Of course, LCDs can suffer from backlight bleed and lack of uniformity, input lag and processing latency, crappy scaling, viewing angle restrictions, FRC artefacts, but these can mostly be worked around by choosing a decent quality LCD AND a decent outboard "scaler" such as an OSSC .

maxtherabbit wrote on 2022-04-06, 19:59:

It is of course a matter of opinion, but mine is that the complaint that sharper CRTs are "too sharp" for DOS games is a complete load of shit. They look awesome with crisp pixel edges and visible scanlines. Blur belongs in the toilet

Nothing more satisfying than pressing the "Degauss" button on a CRT and seeing all the lines twist and jump. Never noticed it actually do anything to sharpness, but it felt good. 😁

While using high refresh rates (120 Hz and such) on CRT monitors is generally preferred due to reduced flicker, this can unfortunately cause issues with some poorly coded games.

For example, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic has some problems when the refresh rate is higher than 60 Hz. Many other games from that era, especially console ports, suffer from similar issues. The PC Gaming Wiki is a good source of information on this.

dr_st wrote on 2022-04-07, 06:36:

maxtherabbit wrote on 2022-04-06, 19:59:

It is of course a matter of opinion, but mine is that the complaint that sharper CRTs are "too sharp" for DOS games is a complete load of shit. They look awesome with crisp pixel edges and visible scanlines. Blur belongs in the toilet

Nothing more satisfying than pressing the "Degauss" button on a CRT and seeing all the lines twist and jump. Never noticed it actually do anything to sharpness, but it felt good. 😁

*BOOIIINGG* 😜

One of my little projects is a cheapo crappo 15" CRT that worked for about half an hour when I got it, then something in the HV part decided its time had come. Am saving it for once my skills are up to fixing it. Why this effort for such a crap thing? Because it has a little LCD display underneath it showing current resolution and refresh rate. Absolutely brilliant. Plus as I already commented, I have a beautiful late 17" flat tube Diamondtron Iiyama screen, but find it really doesn't do low-res 320x200 stuff justice. This 15" screen is just crap enough to do that 😉

Low MS dos resolutions is where CRT's really come into their own but for this you don't really need more then a 15" as larger you go the block-yness starts to come back IMHO.
In all honesty I find anything 800x600 or above my modern wide screen is fine as it allows you to lock the aspect ratio, It's not perfect but I've limited desk space.
Unfortunately my screens don't support anything below 800x600 but for me a old 5:4 17 or 19" was good enough, I know its not quite the correct aspect but I didn't notice unless comparing side by side.
I do have a 15" TFT so although that aspect was correct it did feel a bit small.

I currently have a 14" CRT on my desk. it's main purpose is for games that run in strange video modes not supported on modern screens. It's also covers any games below 800x600 as I don't have enough room for any of my 5:4 screens as well as a CRT as well as my 3 modern screens (life is full of compromises)

I've had to give my Dell Trinitron to a friend as I suspect this will be a permanent loan kind of deal as I don't have enough space to store it let alone set it up.
When I did have it Windows games is where that really came into it's own. CRT's can look very nice and the flexibility of not having a native resolution is very nice indeed but you really have to think is the space really worth it?

leileilol wrote on 2022-04-07, 04:12:

sli's interlaced though and you're better off with vb/v3 at least if you desire for hi-res glide on big monitors. Banshee can do 1600x1200

"interlaced" in the sense that each card is drawing every other line, but the final output is very much progressive scan (and looks just fine on big displays, including digital ones if it's digitized after a good LPF)

blur is actually one of my favourite bands I regret my earlier post 🤣

Hi again. Just took a picture of a 15" NEC and a 20" Fujitsu-Siemens LCD monitor for a size comparison.

If it's helpful, I can do capture some pictures of certain games etc.