VOGONS


Reply 200 of 295, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Horun wrote on 2020-08-28, 05:05:

Thanks ! Will do some deeper testing tomorrow nite or Saturday on the a thru d you suggest and see what happens. If it works out OK will proceed to 1 thru 3. Do you know of any good Utilities that can read the EDID thru Windows? This one is way more advanced than the other ones have played with and am somewhat lost, guess if I got a Phillips or Acer like yours would be even more lost 😀 Thanks again.

As far as EDID utilities for modern Windows go, I like this one https://www.entechtaiwan.com/util/moninfo.shtm

I would guess that most if not all pre-HDMI video card BIOSes would ignore the second 128-byte EDID block (extension) . I have always stuck to the first block for any modifications for retro purposes. The wikipedia article on EDID is really well written and comprehensive, IMHO .

Also IMHO, your Benq is a complex beast, from trying to read the manual . I think it can letterbox and pillarbox resolutions to avoid scaling, among other things . Most of its features will probably not be of much use for retro gaming, but it would make a nice monitor for day to day modern use and color-critical applications like the image editing/processing .

Reply 201 of 295, by Horun

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
darry wrote on 2020-08-28, 14:38:

As far as EDID utilities for modern Windows go, I like this one https://www.entechtaiwan.com/util/moninfo.shtm

Thanks ! Will check it out...
I just played around with some more resolutions and to my suprise: 1920x1440 and 1600x1200 show centered with proper 4:3 aspect (full height but black bars left&right) w/o using any monitor menu changes There is a setting called 19s in the Advanced > Display monitor menu that when I applied it to a native stretched 1024x768 res it made it near full screen vertical but at 5:4 aspect (black bars on sides) so for older Windows 4:3 games I may have some options that will work. Still learning about what all this "complex beast" will do 😀 Will try those tests you mentioned tonight or tomorrow.

added: Ok ran Moninfo and it does report (Realtime, top line) that the EDID has these:
Standard timings supported: 720 x 400p at 70Hz - IBM VGA, 640 x 480p at 60Hz - IBM VGA, 640 x 480p at 75Hz - VESA, 800 x 600p at 60Hz - VESA, 800 x 600p at 75Hz - VESA, 1024 x 768p at 60Hz - VESA, 1024 x 768p at 75Hz - VESA etc. same as most Analog monitors am familiar with. Ran a few of those res at 75Hz tests at Vsynctester (using Google Chrome) but got some red flashes (dropped frames ?) . Cannot get it to lock in 720x400 or 640x480 but 800x600 does actually lock in but only at 60 or 75Hza but 75Hz drops frames and have not tried all the menu settings yet.

Added2: Set it for 800x600 and set Monitor Menu to Aspect mode and got the pic below and obtained full screen at 4:3. So from my perspective: The BenQ BL2711U can do true 4:3 (without stretching) at most resolutions in Windows [(some native do not stretch, other you have to change the Menu> Advanced Default> Aspect {instead of FULL}) one thing: it remembers, checked later and at 800x600 it was still full screen but 4:3 aspect] but cannot do the IBM DOS modes.
Here are pics using 800x600 using the Monitors "Aspect" choice, and 1600x1200 using the Monitors "Default" (Full) in menu just to show it really does 4:3 OK from Windows 7 using HDMI..
As per the first OP this monitor cannot do DOS 320 x 200 game or DOS 640 x 480 game unless within Windows and either Res or Monitor is set correctly, AFAIK. If I can figure out more will update.

Attachments

Hate posting a reply and then have to edit it because it made no sense 😁 First computer was an IBM 3270 workstation with CGA monitor. https://archive.org/details/@horun

Reply 202 of 295, by Horun

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Next quirk: finding an old Video card with DVI-D, have lots with DVI-I but that will not work with this monitor.....

Hate posting a reply and then have to edit it because it made no sense 😁 First computer was an IBM 3270 workstation with CGA monitor. https://archive.org/details/@horun

Reply 203 of 295, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Horun wrote on 2020-08-29, 03:27:

Next quirk: finding an old Video card with DVI-D, have lots with DVI-I but that will not work with this monitor.....

DVI-I normally includes DVI-D functionality plus analogue RGB (VGA) .

EDIT: If you are not getting a picture from a DVI-I equipped card, my guess is the card does not like the EDID for some reason . My DVI-I (not that being DVI-D would change anything here) equipped Geforce FX 5900 and FX 5900 XT display no picture on my Acer VW257 unless I feed them a modded simplified EDID . The same cards work fine at native resolution (1920x1200) on the Philips 252B9 . The Acer has no such issues with modern video cards .

Actually, thinking about it, the vBIOS in those Nvidia cards likely attempt to scale to whatever is the native resolution according to in the first 128-bye EDID block . If the pixel clock for that is too high for DVI 1.0, I would imagine no picture would result, unless the vBIOS logic has a fallback mechanism (which I doubt) . I will not be testing that because I just put my Acer into storage (never thought of dumping its EDID) and testing this would imply re-programming one of my EDID emulators, which would require I use a monitor with programmable EDID as an intermediary, which is a pain .

Reply 204 of 295, by Horun

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
darry wrote on 2020-08-29, 03:47:
DVI-I normally includes DVI-D functionality plus analogue RGB (VGA) . […]
Show full quote
Horun wrote on 2020-08-29, 03:27:

Next quirk: finding an old Video card with DVI-D, have lots with DVI-I but that will not work with this monitor.....

DVI-I normally includes DVI-D functionality plus analogue RGB (VGA) .

EDIT: If you are not getting a picture from a DVI-I equipped card, my guess is the card does not like the EDID for some reason . My DVI-I (not that being DVI-D would change anything here) equipped Geforce FX 5900 and FX 5900 XT display no picture on my Acer VW257 unless I feed them a modded simplified EDID . The same cards work fine at native resolution (1920x1200) on the Philips 252B9 . The Acer has no such issues with modern video cards .

Actually, thinking about it, the vBIOS in those Nvidia cards likely attempt to scale to whatever is the native resolution according to in the first 128-bye EDID block . If the pixel clock for that is too high for DVI 1.0, I would imagine no picture would result, unless the vBIOS logic has a fallback mechanism (which I doubt) . I will not be testing that because I just put my Acer into storage (never thought of dumping its EDID) and testing this would imply re-programming one of my EDID emulators, which would require I use a monitor with programmable EDID as an intermediary, which is a pain .

Ended up being the DVI cable. Thanks for the tips.

Last edited by Horun on 2020-09-05, 20:04. Edited 2 times in total.

Hate posting a reply and then have to edit it because it made no sense 😁 First computer was an IBM 3270 workstation with CGA monitor. https://archive.org/details/@horun

Reply 205 of 295, by imi

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Horun wrote on 2020-08-28, 23:51:

The BenQ BL2711U can do true 4:3 (without stretching) at most resolutions in Windows [(some native do not stretch, other you have to change the Menu> Advanced Default> Aspect {instead of FULL}) one thing: it remembers, checked later and at 800x600 it was still full screen but 4:3 aspect] but cannot do the IBM DOS modes.

yeah, displaying true 4:3 resolutions isn't that much of an issue anymore with modern monitors that support the aspect ratios... the troubles usually start when you want to scale resolutions with non-square pixels ^^ i.e. all the DOS modes that your monitor doesn't even sync with unfortunately 😒

Reply 206 of 295, by Horun

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
imi wrote on 2020-08-29, 16:07:
Horun wrote on 2020-08-28, 23:51:

The BenQ BL2711U can do true 4:3 (without stretching) at most resolutions in Windows [(some native do not stretch, other you have to change the Menu> Advanced Default> Aspect {instead of FULL}) one thing: it remembers, checked later and at 800x600 it was still full screen but 4:3 aspect] but cannot do the IBM DOS modes.

yeah, displaying true 4:3 resolutions isn't that much of an issue anymore with modern monitors that support the aspect ratios... the troubles usually start when you want to scale resolutions with non-square pixels ^^ i.e. all the DOS modes that your monitor doesn't even sync with unfortunately 😒

Yes, I am thinking it more of a GTX960 + Windows7 driver issue with not pushing the IBM DOS modes, my GTX960 is a 4K UHD card so it's vBIOS just may not have the lower dos modes built in. Am going to test this monitor on a lessor video card like an AGP with DVI and also test the old Dell 1907FP on the GTX960 to see what lowest res it shows.....but have a lot of chores to get done first.

Hate posting a reply and then have to edit it because it made no sense 😁 First computer was an IBM 3270 workstation with CGA monitor. https://archive.org/details/@horun

Reply 207 of 295, by bestemor

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
darry wrote on 2020-08-28, 01:56:
So the 6800GT does display a picture over VGA when running Doom, but the monitor says it's getting 1920x1080, correct ? If that […]
Show full quote
bestemor wrote on 2020-08-28, 01:13:
I mean, I play Doom (on DOS 6.22) on an older card, and I get 720x400 on that monitor. But doing the same with a 6800GT, it sud […]
Show full quote
darry wrote on 2020-08-26, 00:42:

As for your 6800GT , I am no sure I understand the issue . You get no picture over even VGA in DOS/BIOS ? With what monitor is that ? Support for 720x400@70Hz over VGA (frame-skip or not) was pretty much a given because, until UEFI came along, most PC BIOSes started in that mode . My guess is the monitor is the issue, not the video card, because the 6800GT is definitely from a time when 720x400@70Hz was still very relevant. I may dig up my Geforce 6600 at some point to run some more DOS tests .

I mean, I play Doom (on DOS 6.22) on an older card, and I get 720x400 on that monitor.
But doing the same with a 6800GT, it suddenly shows as 1920x1080 instead. Although my memory might be a little bit fuzzy on the actual details, I DO remember it not showing the correct resolution anymore...

And NOTHING else has been changed in hardware or software, than that card. (on a Slot1 mobo)
Hence the monitor is fine, and I blame the card, which for some strange reason is suddenly chosing to force native(monitor) resolution only.
So perhaps a VGA EDID emulator would fix that (?).

d) Without an EDID emulator, output at 70Hz from a DVI equipped video card will not be possible under DOS on practically any monitor .
f) To get 70Hz and 75Hz over DVI/HDMI under Windows 9x, something like PowerStrip will likely suffice . Doing 70Hz over DVI/HDMI under DOS will require a properly programmed EDID emulator .

To clarify, I am mostly talking about over VGA. Because of said problems with that 6800GT.
But if an EDID emulator fixes this(AND the proper resolution!), both on VGA and HDMI, then great... 😁
(any suggestions of an idiot proof, easy to use, reasonably priced, and actually obtainable model? VGA or HDMI or DVI)

- Sadly I really know very little about any of these things, programming EDID or anything else 'fancy' - still want my monitor(s) to show 720x400@70hz though, somehow...
Basically trying to 'future proof' for the time when my VGA monitors die... as well as fixing some current issues.

What could a combo of Extron 300 DVI + EDID VGA emulator do I wonder ?
(VGA card->emulator->Extron->monitor, or do we need an DVI/HMDI EDID emulator after the Extron instead ?)

So the 6800GT does display a picture over VGA when running Doom, but the monitor says it's getting 1920x1080, correct ? If that is the case, I would think that the video card is upscaling 720x400 (actually 640x400, but the monitor interprets as 720x400) to 1920x1080 over VGA, which surprises me . Are you sure you weren't running over DVI, because that would be the expected behaviour in that case ? I have never seen an Nvidia card upscale over VGA, but then again, I have not used Nvidia VGA outputs in a very long time .

As mentioned before, the Extron 300 family will force everything to 60 Hz and there is no way around that . If that is not an issue for you, it is one of the best, cheapest and simplest scaling solutions available . When using an Extron 300 family scaler/digitizer, VGA and DVI/HDMI EDID emulators are useless . The Extron lets you override DVI/HDMI EDID on its output and I do not see why you would need an EDID emulator on its VGA input .

To make it easier to understand what you need/want, allow me to ask you some questions .

a) What video card(s) do you intend to use and what output(s) do(es) it/they have ?
b) Do you already have an LCD monitor lined up for use in a retro setup (which model ?) or are you planning on purchasing one (now or when your CRT(s) dies(s) ) ?
c) Is maintaining 70Hz in DOS games important for you or would conversion to 60Hz be acceptable ?
d) Does the uneven scaling/digitization of 640x400 (line doubled 320x200) as 720x400 by essentially all LCD monitors over VGA input bother you ?
e) Does having 4:3 resolutions stretched to 16:9 or 16:10 on a widescreen monitor bother you or not ?
f) When running over DVI/HDMI, Nvidia cards typically upscale to a monitor's native resolution but the result is rather soft looking. Does this bother you ?

I know this is a lot of questions, but it will help a lot if these points can be cleared up first . I went through a lot of rather expensive trial and error and after the fact realizations about what I wanted and would like to help you avoid that . If some of these points seem unclear or gibberish, do not hesitate to ask for clarification .

Sorry for late reply, but I've been trying VERY hard to find the hardware I used in that 'test' I believe I posted about somwhere long time ago...
Oh well... Either my memory is not what it used to be, or I just cannot find the card, and have hence not been able to replicate it so far.
Meaning, ALL my 6800GT(X) cards (that I could find) are AGP 2.0, which means NONE did fit into my agp port at ALL when I tried just now.... 🤔

So, was it an ATI card I used, or which card was it I wonder ?

As for the questions:
(so far all I've used is monitors with VGA input, not tried DVI-D or anything else for this)

a) : Any card with VGA output, I suppose. From S968 and up. I have a selection from all eras, but haven't really landed on any specific card(s) yet.
I suppose I want to keep this open, when looking for a suitable monitor. But strictly speaking, I guess the line goes at when cards where starting to have BOTH vga and dvi connectors en masse. But even then, having the option of 75hz refresh rates (over analog) is something I'd want to preserve as much as possible for various reasons. For those monitors that allow for it...
- So perhaps I should settle for DVI ? For my Gforce4 cards an up ? I don't know...

b) I figured the EIZO FS2333 could do the job, modern-ish (durability), reasonbly good scaling and picture quality, and has native VGA-in.
I DO have some other models as well, older, with VGA-in, but not sure how long they'd last.
BUT, I am still/always looking for a 'better'/more versatile or retro friendly modern (longevity/backup) model, so.... open for suggestions (!).

c) As for 70hz , well... I would like* to have an option of higher than 60hz available.
And there are times when the programs themselves FORCE 70-72 hz, and I end up with a black screen if the current monitor does not cope with well that (had one old S3 card send out 71hz and the modern monitor I was testing at the momentt tanked/could only tolerate 70hz max).
(*: as I DO notice a real difference with 75hz with certain hardware combinations in windows)

d) Well, I've tried testing out things using Doom, since it supposedly is a 320x200 mode game - though I can't recall ever seeing that resolution anywhere, even in its 640x400 incarnation. Granted, have not done any testing on CRT that I can recall, but I have a suspicion of that the graphics card would not give out that resolution, regardless of monitor... (?) I'm not that into these things though, so maybe if I had the 'right' (oold) vga card it would ? Please correct me on any of the above...

e) Now, THIS bothers me, yes. And the only monitor I currently own with forced 4:3 setting is a Dell U2412M (1920x1200 native, but does not support 75hz at all/any resolutions).
The EIZO just has 'enlarged' while keeping original aspect ratio, but having some settings that allow for 75hz which I like.

f) Soft/fuzzy/smudgy upscaling I do not like. At all. I am always checking out the 'aspect ratio' testing when reading any monitor reviews, to see how bad it appears as on non-native resolutions. Some monitors are better than others, or so it seems ? But are you now telling me it is really/mostly the cards doing ?

As for an EDID emulator, I figured it could be used to help out vs point C) above, when the monitor would otherwise have problems with refresh or resolutions coming out of my old PC/card etc... (?) While still employing regular VGA cable(s) 'directly', as in no signal conversion to HDMI or whatever.
If that makes any sense ?

Reply 208 of 295, by bestemor

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Update:
- Just tested with an ATI X800 AGP card on a s478 mobo... While still using the EIZO FS2333.

While at POST, this thing gets me 1280x960@60hz ! instead of the 720x400@70hz I am expecting....
As per what the OSD is reporting, that is. Go figure.

And all the values (resolutions AND refresh) are THE SAME (identical) on both the VGA and the DVI-D connectors/signal sources (linked with 2 different cables at the same time, switching sources on the monitor to see each). So, there it is... would an EDID emulator be of any help at all here ?

PS: the text seems a bit more white while on the DVI, while having a faint yellowish tint on VGA. Checked cable seating etc, but no problems there, and the VGA cable is supposedly top quality (very thick/and unused as well), so.... oh well.

Reply 209 of 295, by Horun

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
bestemor wrote on 2020-08-30, 23:56:

While at POST, this thing gets me 1280x960@60hz ! instead of the 720x400@70hz I am expecting....
As per what the OSD is reporting, that is. Go figure.
PS: the text seems a bit more white while on the DVI, while having a faint yellowish tint on VGA. Checked cable seating etc, but no problems there, and the VGA cable is supposedly top quality (very thick/and unused as well), so.... oh well.

My one wide screen HD monitor does about the same, puts 720x400@70Hz into a 1280x @60Hz screen but looks quite clean. The VGA analog is usually not quite as sharp as any digital signal (DVI or HDMI) on newer monitors in my experience.

Hate posting a reply and then have to edit it because it made no sense 😁 First computer was an IBM 3270 workstation with CGA monitor. https://archive.org/details/@horun

Reply 210 of 295, by bestemor

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Some more updates:
Now, while testing another ATI card I just bougt, an HIS X1650XT, I tried booting into WinXP...
But there are some problems there, not sure they are related to having no actual driver for this card installed, but worrysome none the less.

NOW the OSD STILL(!) claims it is 1920x1080 (as upon boot), no matter what resolution I change to.
AND the visible picture has black borders all around ! (640x480 or 1152x864, doesn't matter what I do....)
Even changing aspect ratios in the OSD/monitor does absolutely nothing - ZERO effect whether I go for 1:1 or full screen/fill etc... (!!)
Now that I really don't like... 😲

Hmm, not what I expected, but then again I've been using Nvidia cards almost exclusively - so who knows what I am doing wrong ?
(recently bought a bunch of ATI AGP cards on the cheap, just to have an alternative, and seeing as more modern AGP cards are getting scarce and expensive)

PS: NOTE: the problems are only on DVI-D !
Changing to the VGA source, from the same card mind you, it seems to work more like normal...
Ouch.... my head is starting to hurt.... 🤣😄😅

Reply 211 of 295, by Horun

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
bestemor wrote on 2020-08-31, 00:29:
NOW the OSD STILL(!) claims it is 1920x1080 (as upon boot), no matter what resolution I change to. AND the visible picture has b […]
Show full quote

NOW the OSD STILL(!) claims it is 1920x1080 (as upon boot), no matter what resolution I change to.
AND the visible picture has black borders all around ! (640x480 or 1152x864, doesn't matter what I do....)
Even changing aspect ratios in the OSD/monitor does absolutely nothing - ZERO effect whether I go for 1:1 or full screen/fill etc... (!!)
Now that I really don't like... 😲

PS: NOTE: the problems are only on DVI-D !

edit: that is odd ! but DVI is digital and some older monitors do not allow changing much using that interface (my Sammy 2494 is like that) compared to the VGA input.
Am sure Darry could explain why as I am new to this oddness of using specific widescreen monitors and specific vid card.
Are you using the EIZO FS2333 ?

Hate posting a reply and then have to edit it because it made no sense 😁 First computer was an IBM 3270 workstation with CGA monitor. https://archive.org/details/@horun

Reply 212 of 295, by bestemor

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Horun wrote on 2020-08-31, 01:46:
bestemor wrote on 2020-08-31, 00:29:
NOW the OSD STILL(!) claims it is 1920x1080 (as upon boot), no matter what resolution I change to. AND the visible picture has b […]
Show full quote

NOW the OSD STILL(!) claims it is 1920x1080 (as upon boot), no matter what resolution I change to.
AND the visible picture has black borders all around ! (640x480 or 1152x864, doesn't matter what I do....)
Even changing aspect ratios in the OSD/monitor does absolutely nothing - ZERO effect whether I go for 1:1 or full screen/fill etc... (!!)
Now that I really don't like... 😲

PS: NOTE: the problems are only on DVI-D !

Are you using the EIZO FS2333 ?

Yes, so far everything as been done on that one...

Perhaps I should provide some pictures, to better show what I mean, but that'll have to wait a bit.

Reply 213 of 295, by Horun

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
bestemor wrote on 2020-08-31, 02:33:
Horun wrote on 2020-08-31, 01:46:
bestemor wrote on 2020-08-31, 00:29:
NOW the OSD STILL(!) claims it is 1920x1080 (as upon boot), no matter what resolution I change to. AND the visible picture has b […]
Show full quote

NOW the OSD STILL(!) claims it is 1920x1080 (as upon boot), no matter what resolution I change to.
AND the visible picture has black borders all around ! (640x480 or 1152x864, doesn't matter what I do....)
Even changing aspect ratios in the OSD/monitor does absolutely nothing - ZERO effect whether I go for 1:1 or full screen/fill etc... (!!)
Now that I really don't like... 😲

PS: NOTE: the problems are only on DVI-D !

Are you using the EIZO FS2333 ?

Yes, so far everything as been done on that one...

Perhaps I should provide some pictures, to better show what I mean, but that'll have to wait a bit.

I say yes ! A picture is worth a 1000 words as they say 😀

Hate posting a reply and then have to edit it because it made no sense 😁 First computer was an IBM 3270 workstation with CGA monitor. https://archive.org/details/@horun

Reply 214 of 295, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
bestemor wrote on 2020-08-31, 02:33:
Horun wrote on 2020-08-31, 01:46:
bestemor wrote on 2020-08-31, 00:29:
NOW the OSD STILL(!) claims it is 1920x1080 (as upon boot), no matter what resolution I change to. AND the visible picture has b […]
Show full quote

NOW the OSD STILL(!) claims it is 1920x1080 (as upon boot), no matter what resolution I change to.
AND the visible picture has black borders all around ! (640x480 or 1152x864, doesn't matter what I do....)
Even changing aspect ratios in the OSD/monitor does absolutely nothing - ZERO effect whether I go for 1:1 or full screen/fill etc... (!!)
Now that I really don't like... 😲

PS: NOTE: the problems are only on DVI-D !

Are you using the EIZO FS2333 ?

Yes, so far everything as been done on that one...

Perhaps I should provide some pictures, to better show what I mean, but that'll have to wait a bit.

Under DOS/BIOS and over DVI/HDMI, recent Nvidia cards (higher end Geforce FX series and newer, AFAIK) default to the monitor's native resolution and scale whatever resolution the PC needs to display to that native resolution and send it to the monitor (monitor always receives native resolution)

Under Windows and over DVI/HDMI, recent Nvidia cards let you select whether you want to use card's scaling engine (like in DOS, card scales whatever resolution to monitor native but with some extra control over aspect ratio, type of scaling, etc) or the monitor's (send whatever needs to be displayed as is to the monitor and let the monitor scale it to its native resolution) .

If you are getting a getting a picture that has black bars all around it under Windows over DVI/HDMI and the monitor says it's getting 1920x1080, you likely need to change the scaling options of the Nvidia driver .

If you are getting a getting a picture that has black bars all around it under DOS over DVI/HDMI and the monitor says it's getting 1920x1080, you likely need to change the scaling options in the vBIOS of your card using something like Nibitor . Some cards have oddly configured vBIOS options that default to that . Off the top of my head, I can't say which option it is (they are confusingly named, IMHO) .

EDIT : Under DOS, over DVI/HDMI, using the card's vBIOS, for most if not all resolutions, you can either have 1:1 pixel ratio (every pixel of a given resolution correspond to a monitor pixel) or full screen scaling, which implies stretching horizontally on a 16:9 or 16:10 monitor, unless your monitor has a forced 4:3 option . Under, DOS, there is no option for maintaining proper aspect ratio when using Nvidia' scaling.

EDIT 2: If you want a properly scaled 4:3 image for all resolutions, including 640x400 and 720x400, over DVI/HDMI on a monitor that DOES NOT have a forced 4:3 mode, your only option is using an EDID emulator to make the Nvidia vBIOS think that the monitor's native resolution is a 4:3 one . For a 1920x1080 monitor, that would be 1440x1080 . Most monitors , assuming they accept that resolution, should allow you to display it as 4:3 by setting the "preserve aspect ratio option in the menu" (may have a different name depending on monitor) .

EDIT 3: I hope this is clear. Feel free to ask questions . I will attempt to answer the post with bestemor's answers to my list of questions tomorrow .

EDIT 4: The "Enlarged" option on page 27 of the Eizo FS2333 monitor's manual is probably equivalent to the "preserve aspect ratio option" mentioned in my second edit .

EDIT 5: Nvidia cards do not scale output over VGA in DOS (and probably not in Windows either, I never use that option) .

EDIT 6 : Nvidia scaling on all older cards looks soft (modern cards, in Windows are apparently better and may offer integer scaling, according to what I have heard), so this is probably not the best solution for bestemor .

EDIT 7 : In case there were any doubts, on an LCD, native resolution is normally the monitor maximum or nominally advertised resolution .

EDIT 8 : rayer wrote a utility to control enabling and disabling of Nvidia scaling under DOS http://rayer.g6.cz/programm/nvsc.zip which should fix your black bars issue under DOS by forcing Nvidia scaling to on (with the caveat of a stretched image under DOS resolutions, unless using an EDID emulator, as mentioned before)
; NVSC - DOS NVidia Scaler control by Martin Rehak, 13.1.2009
;
; This real-mode DOS program will enable the nVidia GPU to perform
; one of the following desired video display options on digital flat
; panel displays depending on the DOS command-line option entered.
;
; NVSC [option #]
;
; Option "0" - NVidia GPU scaling enabled, (default mode)
; Option "1" - NVidia GPU scaling disabled, display centered
; Option "2" - NVidia GPU scaling disabled, display in uppper left corner

Last edited by darry on 2020-08-31, 04:02. Edited 4 times in total.

Reply 215 of 295, by Horun

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Curious if you have run into a widescreen monitor+vid card combo that does not allow 1440x1080 ? My 2494 + 8800GT does not, even using the VGA port under WinXP. Any work arounds ?

Hate posting a reply and then have to edit it because it made no sense 😁 First computer was an IBM 3270 workstation with CGA monitor. https://archive.org/details/@horun

Reply 216 of 295, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Horun wrote on 2020-08-31, 03:27:

Curious if you have run into a widescreen monitor+vid card combo that does not allow 1440x1080 ? My 2494 + 8800GT does not, even using the VGA port under WinXP. Any work arounds ?

Some monitors allow pretty much any arbitrary resolution, some do not . I just tested 1440x1080 on my Acer EB321HQ (native 1920x1080) and it works just fine .

Th only workaround I see would only work under Windows and would imply setting the Nvidia driver options to Adapter scaling and using the Aspect ratio scaling mode . This would allow 1440x1080 to be "scaled" to 1920x1080 by the video card by adding black borders to the left and right of the image and the monitor would actually receive 1920x1080 , which should make it happy .

Unfortunately, I see no equivalent option under DOS, unless you use an external scaler that both accepts 1440x1080 and allows "letter-boxing" like this . I have never bothered checking for this option, as all scalers I have seen did not support preserving 70Hz when appropriate, so would have been "useless" to me for DOS stuff anyway.

EDIT : If somebody managed to reverse-engineer how the Nvidia scaler works, maybe a DOS utility to control this could be written . This is far beyond the scope of my abilities .

EDIT 2 : rayer wrote a utility to control some features of Nvidia scaling under DOS http://rayer.g6.cz/programm/nvsc.zip , but it only allows enabling and disabling .
; NVSC - DOS NVidia Scaler control by Martin Rehak, 13.1.2009
;
; This real-mode DOS program will enable the nVidia GPU to perform
; one of the following desired video display options on digital flat
; panel displays depending on the DOS command-line option entered.
;
; NVSC [option #]
;
; Option "0" - NVidia GPU scaling enabled, (default mode)
; Option "1" - NVidia GPU scaling disabled, display centered
; Option "2" - NVidia GPU scaling disabled, display in uppper left corner

Reply 217 of 295, by Horun

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
darry wrote on 2020-08-31, 03:48:
Horun wrote on 2020-08-31, 03:27:

Curious if you have run into a widescreen monitor+vid card combo that does not allow 1440x1080 ? My 2494 + 8800GT does not, even using the VGA port under WinXP. Any work arounds ?

Some monitors allow pretty much any arbitrary resolution, some do not . I just tested 1440x1080 on my Acer EB321HQ (native 1920x1080) and it works just fine .

Thanks, ran into another older 1080p WideScreen monitor that goes from 1360x to 1600x then to 1920x, skipping any 1440x or other modes above 1280x. Is it common on older monitors (mid 2000's) for that ? Just curious..

Hate posting a reply and then have to edit it because it made no sense 😁 First computer was an IBM 3270 workstation with CGA monitor. https://archive.org/details/@horun

Reply 218 of 295, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Horun wrote on 2020-09-02, 01:54:
darry wrote on 2020-08-31, 03:48:
Horun wrote on 2020-08-31, 03:27:

Curious if you have run into a widescreen monitor+vid card combo that does not allow 1440x1080 ? My 2494 + 8800GT does not, even using the VGA port under WinXP. Any work arounds ?

Some monitors allow pretty much any arbitrary resolution, some do not . I just tested 1440x1080 on my Acer EB321HQ (native 1920x1080) and it works just fine .

Thanks, ran into another older 1080p WideScreen monitor that goes from 1360x to 1600x then to 1920x, skipping any 1440x or other modes above 1280x. Is it common on older monitors (mid 2000's) for that ? Just curious..

I really do not know . I only tried oddball, non-standard and non-EDID resolutions on modern monitors for retro purposes recently on the Acer EB321HQ , Acer VW257 and Philips 252B9 . The only mid-2000s monitors I have left are a Samsung 204B and a Del U2412M Dell 2007FP, both of which are 4:3 and have recently been put back in storage . I used to have an HP ZR24W and an LG L246WP (both 16:10), but I sold both of those about 2 years ago when I replaced them both with the Acer EB321HQ (16:9) for non-retro purposes .

EDIT : Corrected brain fart that was kindly pointed out by dr_st

Last edited by darry on 2020-09-02, 05:42. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 219 of 295, by dr_st

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
darry wrote on 2020-09-02, 04:35:

The only mid-2000s monitors I have left are a Samsung 204B and a Del U2412M, both of which are 4:3 and have recently been put back in storage .

I suppose you are referring to your 2007FP, since the U2412M is neither 4:3 nor from the mid-2000s.

https://cloakedthargoid.wordpress.com/ - Random content on hardware, software, games and toys