Even if all lcd monitors has 70hz issue it's not a big problem. External upscaler will produce any standart resolution you want.

After upscaling to 1600x1200 for instance, good idea to apply slg. Scanlines will make picture soft and neat. Why scanlines? Because all lowres graphic modes initially intended to run on 15khz monitors without line doubling, thus with scanlines.

I'd prefer looking at smooth soft picture rather than staring at huge ugly razor sharp pixels

anthony wrote:

How to perform a frame skip check in 70hz dos mode?

You don't need to do it in DOS.

External upscaler will produce any standart resolution you want.

External upscaler won't help in this case.

anthony wrote:

How to perform a frame skip check in 70hz dos mode?

Use any game, or a demo, that has smooth VGA scrolling. On many IPS screens you should see the skips, as there is a framerate conversion (70 to 60) going on.

anthony wrote:

I'd prefer looking at smooth soft picture rather than staring at huge ugly razor sharp pixels

I cant disagree with you more, of course this is up to each. I always prefer razor sharp pixel that cut my eyes rather soft picture. Im not alone and many old guys like me think the same, there is even a thread in every vendor asking for Integer Scaling, and here its an article explaining the annoyance, and how to "fix" it:

http://tanalin.com/en/articles/lossless-scaling/

😊

dexvx wrote:

Problem with 4:3 LCD's is most are older, and their response time and/or color reproduction is worse compared to newer widescreen LCD's of the same series. If you buy a new 4:3 monitor, it'll cost you much more compared to a similar widescreen (e.g. Dell has some new 1280x1024 (5:4) for $120/$200, but they are way worse than the Ultrasharp WS in terms of quality).

Yeah, I bought 2x 17" CRT LG / Samsung, in pristine condition, and I found that they need heavy calibration as picture is heavily distorted in corners, and color reproduction sucks.

Pls give an example for smooth scrolling game suitable for frame skip testing. Better with video of this damn frame skipping. I'll test nec uxi display and xpc-4 upscaler.

Back in the days, as remember in 1993, I saw mortal kombat 1 on genesis console and wondering how wonderful and soft like silk it was looking. On CRT tv, 21 inch. Then I saw this game on pc, and still remember how it was disgusting due to strong pixelating. Even on 14 inch vga monitor. Why? Because 240p signal on tv gives nice scanlines, but 320x200 on pc gives linedoubling with big sharp pixels.

Sharp pixels good for hires. Low res was born to be smooth by it nature, 240p on CRT tv. Smooth, but not blurry

matcarfer wrote:

I cant disagree with you more, of course this is up to each. I always prefer razor sharp pixel that cut my eyes rather soft pict […]
Show full quote

anthony wrote:

I'd prefer looking at smooth soft picture rather than staring at huge ugly razor sharp pixels

I cant disagree with you more, of course this is up to each. I always prefer razor sharp pixel that cut my eyes rather soft picture. Im not alone and many old guys like me think the same, there is even a thread in every vendor asking for Integer Scaling, and here its an article explaining the annoyance, and how to "fix" it:

http://tanalin.com/en/articles/lossless-scaling/

😊

I'm a bit weird when it comes to my preference for how I want my picture to be displayed. I agree wholeheartedly that, for a fixed resolution panel, integer scaling is a must. I don't like interpolation but, in the case of console emulation, I do like the look of scanlines. It's about as close as I can get with fixed panels to produce the image that I want.

Ultimately, I always want the best image quality of whatever the prevalent display technology is applicable for what I'm playing. For example, if I'm playing a console game from the era of CRT televisions, I want, preferably, RGB or S-Video at the least. I hate using RF, and except in few cases, I stay away from composite video. Is it accurate to the time period, like in the case of a console like the Atari 2600? No, but that's how I like it.

I'm also picky about proper aspect ratio. If it was designed for 4:3, then I want it displayed in 4:3. As it relates to inter scaling, if a PC game was set for 320x240, then in a perfect world I'd have a fixed panel with an integer scale of that resolution. To me, these issues are non-existent if using a good CRT monitor. Of course, the drawbacks are that they won't be around forever and they are really bulky as you get above 19 inches. I wish there was a niche manufacturer that still produced CRT's for the classic gaming crowd, but I understand that cost of production for a relatively small market would make the endeavor not worthwhile from a profit standpoint.

Colour CRTs do also have different types of screen masks, which quite adds to the atmosphere.
http://infocellar.com/television/crt.htm

B/W TVs are also interesting, because of their lack of any of them. Depending on the model, they have a very soft picture.
Unfortunately, I didn't find an appropriate link.So here's an older vogons thread with a mono video monitor instead :
Windows 7 on a Amber Monochrome CRT from 1984

I must only say to not get a 5:4 LCD as a solution - on those _every_ 4:3 mode is stretched, and you can't do anything about it (and the only 5:4 mode is 1280x1024 itself).

I have an NEC AccuSync LCD 71V. It is 5:4 and will never be a perfect replacement, but colors look better then I would have thought, and input wise it supports basically everything you will ever need. 15khz, 24khz, 31khz all work over RGBHV. They are cheap too and make nice portable monitors for those that travel. I stick to my CRTs at home though.

What does RGBHV mean here?

If colors don't look good, it's generally because your gamma is too low (or your white balance is way off - if white looks OK this isn't it). The 'gamma correction' found in some games adjusts the wrong way, so if you can't change it in hardware you're stuck for DOS games. I believe that consumer LCDs intentionally set gamma too low to look better (at first sight) in a bright environment, but in a darkened room it's horrible.

If you don't mind the 5:4 aspect ratio and its accompanying distortion, that's a personal preference, but I do mind.

I don't mean color accuracy, CRT colors have a certain look to them, that LCD's simply can't match. Modern LCDs are getting much better with black, but most 4:3 LCDs will be older.

I mean the monitor I mentioned works with 15khz sources, via RGBHV. A lot of older 15khz outputting computers use RGBS, which this monitor doesn't have direct input for. There are ways to get around this though.

I know what RGBHV stands for, but I don't know what you're using it to mean. Presumably, the standard analog VGA connector, which I have never seen referred to that way, as I doubt an LCD monitor would have any other. I don't think anything ever output 15khz on that connector; RGBS was never used by PCs but it seems you're talking about other old computers. How do you convert it?

As for color accuracy, LCDs have gotten better and the right ones are very good if gamma is correct. If you aren't getting true black, the monitor probably isn't set optimally - use your manual and/or Google to figure it out.

Normally RGBHV is a 5 BNC connector(s), quite common on broadcast displays (even LCD ones)

koverhbarc wrote:

RGBS was never used by PCs

Many PC videocards can use the composite sync.
So PC VGA connector supports RGBHV and RGBS.

Dunno about 24 kHz and 15 kHz but Voodoo1 and Voodoo2 SLI use 31.2 kHz horisontal frequency for 512x384@72. And normal SVGA monitors (with 31.5 kHz limit) can't display this mode correctly.

It depends on where you live really.
VGA standard in most places is RGBHV at 31khz.
And this is what most members of this forum will be interested in.

However, for those interested in older computers, things get more complicated.
MSX for example is RGBS at 15khz, and is quite popular in Europe and Asia.
24khz is mostly a Japanese thing, but interest in Japanese retro PCs is really starting to
catch on in recent years.

As for going RGBS to RGBHV, there are several ways, I would say getting a SyncStrike is the
cheap and simple way for most people.

The best monitor will always depend on one's personal interests. For me I like light-guns and 3D
glasses, so I stick to CRTs, but the monitor I mentioned has high compatibility of exotic
formats at a cheap price for those who need them.

Yes. VGA always has RGBHV so there'd be no reason for conversion; the pre-VGA 9-pin connector for PCs also had separate H and V. I correctly assumed that interest in RGBS is connected with non-PC machines; of which the only I've ever seen and used are the Apple II series and a C64, and I believe they used composite.

I imagine 15khz is exactly the TV sync frequency, which really should round to 16 rather than 15 (15.75 or 15.734 in NTSC; 15.625 in Europe).

iirc, C64 is actually Luma and Chroma separation (S-Video), but it came out before the standard was established, so it uses a non-standard cable.

SuperDeadite wrote:

at 31khz

31.5 kHz. To be more precise - around 31469 Hz, 525 strings at the 60/1.001≈59.94 Hz. Standard NTSC frequency.
400 and 350 strings VGA modes use the same horizontal frequency but 70 Hz.
The precise vertical frequency in VGA 400- and 350-lines modes is 31500/1.001/449≈70.09 Hz.

Gamecollector wrote:

Standard NTSC frequency.
400 and 350 strings VGA modes use the same horizontal frequency but 70 Hz.

God, I'm glad old IBM was sane at the time and used proper standards..
DIN connectors, power cords with protective earthing, 50Hz MDA (pal/eur. mains freq) and most importantly,
advanced game ports (analogue). 😉

More video modes and h/v sync frecuencies are mentioned here:
http://minuszerodegrees.net/video/bios_video_modes.htm