jwt27 wrote:

d1stortion wrote:

Also some beastly 2048x1536 CRTs do exist 😀

reading your post on one here 😀

😳... why did you have to post this, now I'm jealous 🤣 which model?

d1stortion wrote:

jwt27 wrote:

d1stortion wrote:

Also some beastly 2048x1536 CRTs do exist 😀

reading your post on one here 😀

😳... why did you have to post this, now I'm jealous 🤣 which model?

It's a Philips Brilliance 201P, it has those fancy BNC connectors so I guess that makes it a professional monitor. Does 2048x1536 at 75Hz, Max refresh rate is 150Hz at 1024x768.
Too bad it's a trinitron, I'm not too fond of that. Supposedly there's a 201B type that has a shadow mask but so far I haven't had much luck finding one.

I have a gdm fw900 and every time I read this forum it's being used

Pretty awesome. Does it still work fine without ghosting etc.? I have both a Sony TV and monitor that both smear bright colors on black unfortunately, while another old Philips TV ironically works just fine save for the broken SCART connector.

But yeah with Trinitron you always have to live with the wires. I'd imagine it did put some people off that heard only great things about these monitors and then saw those black lines 🤣 nevertheless, one of my dream monitors is still the FW900 😀

The only problems this screen has is slight non-linearity on the top and left edges, I can see the mouse cursor stretch a bit there. Plus it has a few annoying scratches in the anti-glare coating. Other than that it's still working fine.

My main problem with trinitron is not the horizontal wires but the vertical phosphor stripes. The distance between two phosphors of the same color is not the same in horizontal and vertical direction. And since one pixel will never fall exactly on one phosphor stripe, some parts of the screen are sharper than others. That makes things like small text look ugly compared to a shadow mask.

See my avatar for a comparison, one phosphor dot has six adjacent dots of the same color, at the same distance, in three different directions.

The S2100 is already rather old, apparently it was introduced in 2006. I considered getting one of these as a CRT replacement, but the high price threw me off. Also, nobody could tell me if it could display 70 Hz VGA without dropping frames.

I loved my old 21" Sony Trinitron CRT and it would be easy to get another used one for almost nothing, but in my experience old Trinitrons don't last very long. And I really don't feel like hauling a lot of these around any more. 😉

I grew up with aperture grille so it's my favorite, my kids just ruined my 15'' Trinitron the other day and now I'm left with shadow mask , I hate it so I'm currently looking for one Trinitron or Diamondtron, anything tron will do, except Flatron... 🙁

959NF from Samsung is looking good for the price...

I know that model is from 2006, but they still list it on their site, so maybe it's still being produced.

From my experience, it's especially newer Trinitrons that deteriorate. I know of early to mid-90s non-FD models that still work fine after all these years. Unless the ghosting issue with mine ('00 FD TV and '98 monitor) is by design, which I highly doubt. CRTs from other companies seem to fare better too.

Filosofia wrote:

959NF from Samsung is looking good for the price...

I had one of these before I swapped it for the bigger Sony. Very nice monitor!

About the longetivity of Trinitrons: My observations are based on some mid-90s models from Sony and lots of newer 21" screens from Iiyama, Nokia and Sony. They all have the same problem: The contrast gets very bad and the black level rises. Most contemporary cheap shadow mask CRTs looked much better after a few years of use.

d1stortion wrote:

1280 x 1024 5ms

It's 5:4, not 4:3. I don't think a lot of 1280x960 monitors exist (if any), only the really old 1024x768 or high-end 1600x1200s like the one I posted... Also some beastly 2048x1536 CRTs do exist 😀

My old laptop had a max resolution of 1280 x 960 and that was a 16:10 widescreen resolution.

sliderider wrote:

d1stortion wrote:

1280 x 1024 5ms

It's 5:4, not 4:3. I don't think a lot of 1280x960 monitors exist (if any), only the really old 1024x768 or high-end 1600x1200s like the one I posted... Also some beastly 2048x1536 CRTs do exist 😀

My old laptop had a max resolution of 1280 x 960 and that was a 16:10 widescreen resolution.

I guess it's possible with rectangular pixels, but not exactly usual.

I have an opportunity to buy a 17' 4:3 most likely a refurbished viewsonic, for a good price, why is the 4:3 format preferred?

Because 4:3 is the format of old games. Good widescreen monitors offer aspect-correct interpolation, but a surprising number of screens doesn't.
Interpolation is supposed to be done by the graphics card nowadays, that's why it's so difficult to find a decent screen for old machines.

I actually thought this didn't need any further discussion on a forum such as this 🤣

What's "aspect-correct" interpolation supposed to be, btw? You always end up with some sort of stretching, cutting off parts of the image or black bars.

For me (and I think most other people on this forum 😉) it means black bars.

Tea black bars or letter boxing.

OK. Just wasn't sure on the term, since zooming in on the image is aspect-correct as well.

Not really. When you zoom, you scale the image in x and y direction at the same rate.

But with aspect ratio correction (let's take a 4:3 image on a 5:4 screen), the image will be shrunk a little bit in the y direction only. So you end up with a small black strip at the top and bottom.

I don't see how that contradicts my statement? In both cases, the image will appear as it would when displayed with its native resolution (i.e. circles will be round etc.). In fact, in both of those cases the image gets scaled in both x and y directions - the difference is that with letterboxing, the scaling stops when either the top/bottom (for narrow images on wider screens) or the left/right (for wider images on narrow screens) borders are reached, leaving the rest of the screen black, while with zooming, the image simply gets scaled until it fills the whole screen.

No. You simply can't display a 4:3 image correctly on a 5:4 device without aspect ratio correction. Zooming doesn't change the ratio.

Just consider what ratio means.

4:3 means that for every 4 pixels horizontally there will be 3 vertically.

5:4 means that for every 5 pixels horizontally there will be 4 vertically.

Let's assume a square with 20 pixels horizontally.

On a the 4:3 it will be 15 pixels tall. On the 5:4 however it will be 16 pixels tall.

Does that make sense?

Let's zoom like you suggest by a factor of 100.

4:3 becomes 400:300

5:4 becomes 500:400

Zooming doesn't correct the aspect ratio.

To correct aspect ratio you need to do some simple maths.

Let's take a 5:4 resolution of 1280 x 1024 and map it to a 4:3 ratio.

1280 / 4 = 320

320 x 3 = 960

So a 17" or 19" LCD would have to take a 4:3 image and map it to a 1280 x 960 image with the remaining pixels being black (black bars at top and bottom).

Not many monitors do this and this is the essence of the problem.

Alternatives are old 15 1024 x 768 or newer, and expensive, 1600 x 1200 monitors.