Same, I have a 2007fpb and it displays fine on composite/VGA/DVI.

oeuvre wrote:

Same, I have a 2007fpb and it displays fine on composite/VGA/DVI.

Same... it works well, maybe the 2713 was better, it handels the 4:3.

Looks like the NEC MultiSync P212 is a more recent, high-end 4:3 monitor. Still 1600x1200, but with 440cd/m^2, 1500:1 contrast, and 30-bit RGB. (If I had known about this back when I had money to blow on such things...)

I have used LCD-s.. Just recently grabbed Eizo 20.1" UXGA one, a professional monitor, later Viewsonic VP2030b and V201b UXGA ones, love them. All of them have both VGA and DVI inputs and easy to use two computers with one monitor.

I like the Samsung 213T - 21" 1600x1200, but admittedly I haven't seen many other 1600 x 1200 LCDs. Found mine dead and replaced the caps, backlight is still fine. I've gota couple of 640x480 and 800x600 native LCDs that I've been meaning to try on older PCs, but I haven't got around to it yet.

I have a Digimate L1715 17" 4:3 that i specifically use for old games. I've always been happy with the image. It's better than the CRTs back in the day IMHO even the good CRTs like Iiyama and some of the Dell ones i owned with totally flat CRT screens.

You need to be aware that the black level you perceive is actually an optical illusion. In reality No CRT of LCD can display any part of the image that is DARKER than the surface of the CRT or LCD panel is when it is turned off. So what you think of as black is actually grey. The brighter, higher contrast, the highlights are, the darker your eye perceives the 'blacks'. That is why the 'blackness' seems to decrease with low contrast low light images. Really the black level stays the same (if you measure it scientifically) but your eye sees it lighter grey.

Oh The Digimate 1715 is also 'period' hardware if you have an xp retro gaming rig as is the 17" size appropriate too 😀

In ambient light conditions it is true, the black is as black/grey as the non-lit surface in/on the screen but in sufficiently low ambient light you will be able to get actual blacks on a CRT where no photons are emitted. Secondary emissions from shadow mask itself do lower contrast around bright objects on the screen, seen as sort of a halo around the bright thing in such conditions. That's one area where OLED and µLED can surpass the CRTs as far as contrast goes.

I really like my Compaq FP5315. Proper 4:3 1024x768, built in speakers with an analog volume control (and they sound decent for monitor speakers). It's also a nice compact size for testing systems.

I actually bought this thing new on clearance in 2005 for ~$90 cdn

It seems to me like my Dell U2410 can do 4:3 pretty well with black bars on the sides, with it being a 1920x1200 panel. But for retro gaming, I still much prefer a CRT, although I can totally see how people might want to save some space by using an LCD. I would think any decent 1200p LCD should be pretty good for running 4:3 content. Never tried any native 4:3 LCD panels though.
I do have to say, that looking at highish resolution (1024x768 or higher) at 24 or 32 bit colour depths on a CRT just produces awesome picture quality. I'm not going to say that it is better than LCD, but the colours do look really impressive. My CRT is a Compaq V710, and from what I can tell, it's a pretty decent monitor.

My 24" HP Compaq LA2405wg is actually pretty okay for DOS and 4:3 stuff. Has DP, DVI, and VGA

not 4:3, but it could be good for retro with native vga input.

https://www.techspot.com/products/monitors/ao … g322qc4.188440/

640x480@60Hz
640x480@67Hz
640x480@72Hz
640x480@75Hz
640x480@100Hz
640x480@120Hz
720x400@70Hz
720x480@60Hz
720x576@50Hz
800x600@56Hz
800x600@60Hz
800x600@72Hz
800x600@75Hz
800x600@100Hz
800x600@120Hz
832x624@75Hz
1024x768@60Hz
1024x768@70Hz
1024x768@75Hz
1024x768@100Hz
1024x768@120Hz
1280x1024@60Hz
1280x1024@75Hz
1920x1080@60Hz
1920x1080@100Hz
1920x1080@120Hz
2560x1440@60Hz
2560x1440@75Hz
2560x1440@144Hz

I'd never ever EVER go LCD for 4:3 or 5:4. Nearly every early 4:3 LCD screen I had (even quite expensive ones) were crap compared to modern LCDs and crap compared to late end CRTs as well.

- lots of monitors that old have faulty invertors after a while leaving you without a backlight
- the lamps inside tend to yellow which gives everything a dirty yellow tint
- input lag
- the response time is shit
- GHOSTING
- often no HDMI/DVI but VGA = fuzzy pixels which sucks on LCD screens
- lower resolutions look crap
- TERRIBLE black values
- TERRIBLE colour reproduction (IPS was unusable for games back then due to very slow response times and tons of ghosting)

Seriously - find a late end quality CRT and you won't want to go back. Benefits:
- great colours & black values
- good colour reproduction
- no input lag & great response time
- no ghosting
- any resolution you'd want
- no nonsense with lamps yellowing or inventors breaking
- they're practically getting rid of these for free although the tide is slowly turning

Of course the negatives are:
- big & heavy
- uses more power
- higher (more modern) resolutions = lower refresh rates = headaches

Second option is to get a modern LCD screen but then you need a graphics card with drivers that allows for 1:1 pixel allocation meaning the screen will have black borders around the image. Most quality modern displays won't work with VGA though.

You are right that the 4:3 era in LCDs was not an era of good monitors, because the technology in general was far from maturity. However, towards the end of the 4:3 era you could already find decent IPS LCDs, with reasonable response times (the kind you would get from today's 60Hz LCDs). The DELL 2007FP is one example. It's 16ms ISO on paper, 6-8ms average grey-to-grey. The black values were not great, though.

CRTs have their advantages but disadvantages as well (even if you factor out the huge size); they sometimes get blurry or develop geometry issues as they get old (and by now, all of them are old).

dr_st wrote:

You are right that the 4:3 era in LCDs was not an era of good monitors, because the technology in general was far from maturity. However, towards the end of the 4:3 era you could already find decent IPS LCDs, with reasonable response times (the kind you would get from today's 60Hz LCDs). The DELL 2007FP is one example. It's 16ms ISO on paper, 6-8ms average grey-to-grey. The black values were not great, though.

CRTs have their advantages but disadvantages as well (even if you factor out the huge size); they sometimes get blurry or develop geometry issues as they get old (and by now, all of them are old).

I really got lucky with my Philips 109P - no such distortion or blur. But yeah I know what you mean. I sometimes wonder - when I'll be 60 years (in 20 years), how much of all this will survive and how hard will it be to find replacements?

i also use a very late manufactured 2007fp (8th rev, ips, 2011). the most annoying thing the yellow tint, but anyway the image quality is comparable to the modern monitors (~decent office display). the scaling is also very good. but you can buy an older 2713 eg - the vga/analog compatibility is also very good.

red_avatar wrote:

I sometimes wonder - when I'll be 60 years (in 20 years), how much of all this will survive and how hard will it be to find replacements?

I often wonder the same. Right now I only have one CRT left - a 17" MAG Innovision 786PF. It's still in good shape, and used so rarely these days, that it may just live for 20 more years. I used to have it's "bigger brother"- the 19" 996PF, but got rid of it - it simply was taking too much desk space, and I had no use for a second CRT, so I kept the smaller one (which also seemed to have sharper image and better color reproduction at the time I had to make the choice).

arncht wrote:

i also use a very late manufactured 2007fp (8th rev, ips, 2011). the most annoying thing the yellow tint

Mine's older (I think it's a REV A05 from 2009?), but yes, the yellow tint is indeed the most annoying thing (especially since it's a bit uneven on my unit). The purple IPS glow is also super-strong with this panel (strongest I've ever seen), but that's typically not a problem except for very dark scenes viewed from the side.

I have two Dell 2001FP. One of them is working fine in both DVI and VGA connections, the other seems to have broken VGA input (picture too dark - gamma way off).

I haven't noticed any problem with ghosting, lag, etc.

CRTs are best for retro gaming, for variety of reasons like zero input lag, high refresh rates, ability to display different resolutions without scaling, etc.
But even then, there's no one ultimate CRT. Sony GDM-F520 would be probably the best for late win98 and winXP games, it can do 1600x1200 at 100hz and has a great tube. For DOS and early low res windows games tho, perhaps an old 14-17" shadow mask CRT of not very good quality will look better because it will smear the visuals a bit and make the pixels look more... rounded, this looks really nice in 320x200 2D games especially.

LCDs wise, I also have a Dell 2007FP, in the IPS variety (because of panel draw some models have PVA panels). I bought it because I saw people saying it can do 75 Hz. It's a bit of a lie tho. It can certainly take 75Hz at lower resolutions like 1024x768, but it can't do it at 1600x1200. What's more, the LCD panel itself is a 60Hz panel, so even in those lower resolutions, its certainly not displaying 75 Hz on screen. Most likely its only taking 75Hz signal for compatibility with vintage stuff, but is displaying it at 60 on the actual screen. With that said, I think theres some newer 21.3 inch 1600x1200 monitors by Eizo that will probably be the best for this, but CRTs are best for gaming, I stand by that.

HP P1230 or Mitsubishi DiamondPro 2070SB get my vote. Up to 2048x1536@85Hz is nothing to sneeze at. It weighs 30 pounds less than a GDM FW-900 while providing the same size (or possibly larger) image for older 4:3 only applications\games, plus they made them in 2005 so they're one of the latest high end CRTs you'll find.

HP LP2065 monitors are also pretty good options for true 4x3 IPS displays. Still, inappropriate where you need more options for Vclock.