Simmerhead wrote on 2024-11-04, 18:45:

For instance, will it handle DOS games in standard VGA mode, or will I be forced to use Windows 9x games and newer only?

I don't think you should worry about that. I have yet to see a general-purpose monitor with D-SUB input that does not support standard VGA modes. Things you might want to research are the quality of the up-scaling process and the latency of that monitor. This consists both of the latency caused by switching delay of the liquid crystals and (that's likely more important with modern panels) any processing delay in the display. Overdrive algorithms that can shorten the switching time require to look one or two frames into "the future", so they may delay the image by one or two frames, which can be detrimental in games requiring quick reactions.

mkarcher wrote on 2024-11-04, 19:08:

I don't think you should worry about that. I have yet to see a general-purpose monitor with D-SUB input that does not support standard VGA modes. Things you might want to research are the quality of the up-scaling process and the latency of that monitor. This consists both of the latency caused by switching delay of the liquid crystals and (that's likely more important with modern panels) any processing delay in the display. Overdrive algorithms that can shorten the switching time require to look one or two frames into "the future", so they may delay the image by one or two frames, which can be detrimental in games requiring quick reactions.

Thanks! I suspect it won't keep up with a CRT monitor in that respect, or a modern 120 Hz + LCD/LED monitor, but then again, there isn't really another new 4:3 monitor on the market, so I can't be too picky.

I have the previous model S2133 so I can't specifically speak for S2134, I have no idea how they differ from each other but I'd expect they are similar enough to draw conclusions from my experience with S2133.

The good:
- Best scaling quality I've personally ever seen on LCD, every non-native resolution I've used on it have looked great on all inputs
- Perfectly smooth with DOS, no frame skipping
- 21" 4:3 screen with no black bars is simply glorious

The bad:
- Requires a high quality input signal, a typical VGA GPU from the 90's to early 00's will not look good on it. Voodoo3 looked great on it, I expect Matrox cards would look great on it, but a S3 Trio64v+ looked like ass. The monitor can't do anything to blurry input to make it look nice on it, meanwhile a CRT would just hide some of it with its natural blurring and would look fine enough
- Has some IPS backlight bleeding. I'm personally not sensitive to it at all so I don't really even notice it, but you might feel differently
- Surprisingly heavy, I wouldn't put it on some flimsy IKEA cardboard desk
- Costs an arm and a leg unless you find one second hand for a fair price

Overall I personally love it and would not give it up without a fight, I use it all the time so it was worth the price for me. But I do use it only with later systems with good quality output signal, with DOS era systems or even with early 2000's systems with less than stellar image quality it would be just a massive waste of money, you'd be far better off with some much cheaper model.

Sombrero wrote on 2024-11-04, 20:19:

Overall I personally love it and would not give it up without a fight, I use it all the time so it was worth the price for me. But I do use it only with later systems with good quality output signal, with DOS era systems or even with early 2000's systems with less than stellar image quality it would be just a massive waste of money, you'd be far better off with some much cheaper model.

Thanks a bunch! I bet there is no significant difference between the 2133 and 2134.

Really useful info about older DOS VGA graphics cards since I use quite a lot of them in my early Pentium builds. I have a stack of Matrox cards which I haven't used for a long while, and I might just replace those Triedent and S3 cards with those for better image quality.

If there only were a cheaper model... Currently there is no other new 4:3 monitor being made, apart from medical monitors by EIZO in the DuraVision line, and I think their largest 4:3 in that series is a 15". It would be quite nice for older DOS based PCs, but I can't find them anywhere for sale...

when dropping a grand on this, one nice thing to have would be a 2x integer scale for 640x480 inputs. it doesn't do this of course, so win95 era systems would be stuck with blurry scaling.

while i get the appeal and wouldn't mind testing this unit, IMHO the money would be much better spent on another monitor (ideally an OLED or something with proper black levels) and a scaler that would give you actual options to dial the image in. and the other thing is, i don't think you can expect 320x200 to look good on this, no matter what, even with proper 70hz motion. uneven big pixels will be really noticeable on that small resolution and big screen size.

Sombrero wrote on 2024-11-04, 20:19:

- Requires a high quality input signal, a typical VGA GPU from the 90's to early 00's will not look good on it. Voodoo3 looked great on it, I expect Matrox cards would look great on it, but a S3 Trio64v+ looked like ass. The monitor can't do anything to blurry input to make it look nice on it, meanwhile a CRT would just hide some of it with its natural blurring and would look fine enough

this is just really a S3 problem though. vision cards have good image quality but the output is a bit dark, quite a number of trio cards have just bad overall output, and then there's that brightness bug.

auron wrote on 2024-11-04, 20:46:

while i get the appeal and wouldn't mind testing this unit, IMHO the money would be much better spent on another monitor (ideally an OLED or something with proper black levels) and a scaler that would give you actual options to dial the image in. and the other thing is, i don't think you can expect 320x200 to look good on this, no matter what, even with proper 70hz motion. uneven big pixels will be really noticeable on that small resolution and big screen size.

Yes, it's criminally expensive, but no other 4:3 option...

I have plenty of 5:4, 16:9 and 21:9 options, but as I said in the original post, I hate black borders!

that's understandable, i don't like them either, but i also dislike non-integer scaling - with LCDs it's pick your poison, unfortunately. LCDs make black borders even worse with their bad black levels though, on a screen with good black levels and in a light controlled room they should be more tolerable.

if i was to consider this monitor, i'd make sure there was a return option. i'd take also comparisons with the S2133 with a grain of salt, simply because despite the similar model number, specs can change significantly - some components could be going EOL, requiring significant redesigns, for instance. and this is an office monitor so low input lag isn't exactly guaranteed.

auron wrote on 2024-11-04, 21:35:

that's understandable, i don't like them either, but i also dislike non-integer scaling - with LCDs it's pick your poison, unfortunately. LCDs make black borders even worse with their bad black levels though, on a screen with good black levels and in a light controlled room they should be more tolerable.

if i was to consider this monitor, i'd make sure there was a return option. i'd take also comparisons with the S2133 with a grain of salt, simply because despite the similar model number, specs can change significantly - some components could be going EOL, requiring significant redesigns, for instance. and this is an office monitor so low input lag isn't exactly guaranteed.

Since it’s still manufactured you would “hope” the manufacturer has the full spec sheet including full stroke input lag on each input type alongside the general refresh and scaling lag measurements.

Afterall you could “ask them” being who they are they shouldn’t lie like certain 4:3 25” lcd arcade monitor vendors do

Recently I got myself an S2134. It's beautiful. It handled all the weird resolutions I threw at it very well under DOS. However, under Windows 98, it's 800x600@60 that's not working for me correctly. I get an image of course, but it appears blurry and I can't force the monitor to only do integer scaling, the sharpness setting is disabled in 800x600. I guess because of it's an integer scale of 1600x1200? But then I expect it to do integer scaling only and not bilinear interpolation causing blurriness.

43purism wrote on 2025-01-06, 10:35:

Recently I got myself an S2134. It's beautiful. It handled all the weird resolutions I threw at it very well under DOS. However, under Windows 98, it's 800x600@60 that's not working for me correctly. I get an image of course, but it appears blurry and I can't force the monitor to only do integer scaling, the sharpness setting is disabled in 800x600. I guess because of it's an integer scale of 1600x1200? But then I expect it to do integer scaling only and not bilinear interpolation causing blurriness.

S2133 does integer scale 800x600 and it's perfectly sharp. Hopefully they didn't change that with S2134.

Try to adjust phase.

Sombrero wrote on 2025-01-06, 12:02:

43purism wrote on 2025-01-06, 10:35:

Recently I got myself an S2134. It's beautiful. It handled all the weird resolutions I threw at it very well under DOS. However, under Windows 98, it's 800x600@60 that's not working for me correctly. I get an image of course, but it appears blurry and I can't force the monitor to only do integer scaling, the sharpness setting is disabled in 800x600. I guess because of it's an integer scale of 1600x1200? But then I expect it to do integer scaling only and not bilinear interpolation causing blurriness.

S2133 does integer scale 800x600 and it's perfectly sharp. Hopefully they didn't change that with S2134.

Try to adjust phase.

Unfortunately, it seems they have changed it. The Sharpness setting under the signal section is greyed out in 800x600 (just like 1600x1200). That interpolated image is soft and blurry. I tried adjusting the phase, but no luck. I get razor sharp image when I switch the resolution to 1600x1200 under Windows 98, so it's not the VGA cable. It's so stupid that even 480p and 1024x768 look better than 800x600 just because the sharpness can be set on those resolutions.

I hooked up the same thin client using the same VGA cable to a RetroTink 4K under 800x600 which I scaled up to 1600x1200 again before doing an HDMI to DVI conversion and ultimately connecting it to the Eizo. The image is perfect. However, there is no 70hz/75hz support over DVI. Such a bummer.

Never heard of this monitor before. But that's crazy expensive....

I was a bit lucky to get a brand new unit for half the price during a clearance at a web shop just before Christmas. The picture is amazing. This one has a newer panel compared to the 33, has a better contrast and higher brightness as well (500cd/m2 compared to the 420cd/m2 in the S2133). It even supports 70hz over VGA. I don't know if the S2133 supports 70/75hz over VGA but this one does. However it's that one resolution that I couldn't get to integer scale it correctly (yet) without an external scaler. I don't really remember if I tested 320x200 correctly, because that's also a perfect scale to 1600x1200 with the correct 5:6 PAR. I'll let you guys know.

43purism wrote on 2025-01-20, 16:04:

I was a bit lucky to get a brand new unit ... newer panel...

Which model is it? Eizo FlexScan S2133K?

perhenden wrote on 2025-04-03, 20:41:

43purism wrote on 2025-01-20, 16:04:

I was a bit lucky to get a brand new unit ... newer panel...

Which model is it? Eizo FlexScan S2133K?

S2134

There is no K suffix AFAIK

Been using S2133 in the last few weeks as i am building Win98 rig and 800x600 are gorgeous on this IPS screen. I have 2 of em as my standby CRT replacements.

I believe the ‘K’ suffix refer to body color of Black. There is also rarer white version which is mostly for medical uses.

43purism wrote on 2025-01-20, 16:04:

I was a bit lucky to get a brand new unit for half the price during a clearance at a web shop just before Christmas. The picture is amazing. This one has a newer panel compared to the 33, has a better contrast and higher brightness as well (500cd/m2 compared to the 420cd/m2 in the S2133). It even supports 70hz over VGA. I don't know if the S2133 supports 70/75hz over VGA but this one does. However it's that one resolution that I couldn't get to integer scale it correctly (yet) without an external scaler. I don't really remember if I tested 320x200 correctly, because that's also a perfect scale to 1600x1200 with the correct 5:6 PAR. I'll let you guys know.

70/75hz over VGA is supported on the S2133. Great quality display.

After testing extensively, I can say that on the S2134, 320x200 is seen as 720x400 VGA text mode. The monitor cannot differentiate between them.
With the sharpness setting set to full, it looks good but not perfect.

With the RetroTink 4K, it looks amazing. No interpolation at all. The only con is that there is no 70/75hz support over DVI. That's a real bummer. I guess I'll have to live with the fact that 70/75hz is triple buffered using DVI.

Never tried gaming on them, but fwiw I've used the older Flexscan S2133 for years, and lately also the S2134 at work. They've replaced old CRT HMI monitors in the ship's automation system, running in 1280x1024@60Hz. The scaling is among the better I've seen in any LCD monitor. The non-native lower resolution and 5:4 ratio can be handled either by showing the picture unscaled but windowboxed (Normal), in native aspect ratio scaled vertically and pillarboxed (Enlarged), or stretched to fill the screen completely (Full Screen). I e all the different ways one could possibly want to handle non native resolutions/aspect ratios.

Regrettably the system is quite locked down, and we're almost constantly in production, so can't test other resolutions since it means digging around on system level risking to screw things up.

Generally the picture is crystal clear, and color reproduction etc is amazing. Contrast and IPS bleed is on par with any other high quality IPS monitor. There are no signs of ghosting etc at all when moving around the white mouse pointer on a dark background.

I just love those monitors for the kind of work I do on them, and can image both models would work great for retro gaming if there are no quirks I just haven't encountered with my use case. If I get the chance to try some gaming on a spare monitor at some point, I'll of course report back here.