VOGONS


First post, by _StIwY_

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Hello everyone, i got a Philips Brilliance 190S, 19 inches, 1280x1024. It's a shame it have some dead pixels, because overall in a great shape. But since i HATE dead pixel, i'll use that just for test.

For the main use for games i have a CRT one.

Anyway, i tried it with games aswell and.it's not that bad.

I tried Blood at 800x600 and of course there are blurriness all over due to upscaling ( dunno if software or hardware ) but the pixel responsiveness is great.

I'm very sensitive at those things, but i can't find any trail / ghosting. The monitor is labeled as "5 ms ", so i suppose it's better not to pick one above 8 ms.

But since there are tons of other LCD monitors and i have 0 experience about 4:3 LCD for gaming purposes, i searched for some used on and i found these:

- Samsung SyncMaster SyncMaster 172S
- ViewSonic VA703m
- HP LP1965
- ACER AL1916N

I'm all ears about your suggestions. Regards.

Reply 1 of 25, by Joseph_Joestar

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Modern(ish) 24" business widescreen monitors (16:10) with a native resolution of 1920x1200 can work quite well for retro gaming purposes. The important thing to check is whether they have an aspect ratio correction setting in the OSD menu. This is usually stated in the manual, which can often be found on the manufacturer's website. Alternatively, you can utilize driver settings to manage aspect ratio when using a DVI connection, but not all graphics cards offer that option.

Anyway, those monitors are fantastic for gaming at 1600x1200 and are also fairly decent at upscaling 800x600 while maintaining a proper 4:3 aspect ratio. You get black bars on the side in either case, but the image in the center will display correctly.

Be advised that, while these are excellent for Win9x and WinXP gaming, they may not be ideal for DOS due to frame skipping when displaying 70 Hz. Monitors with TN panels are supposedly better at handling 70 Hz than those that use IPS panels, but your mileage may vary.

Last edited by Joseph_Joestar on 2023-11-02, 11:59. Edited 2 times in total.

PC#1: Pentium MMX 166 / Soyo SY-5BT / S3 Trio64V+ / Voodoo1 / YMF719 / AWE64 Gold / SC-155
PC#2: AthlonXP 2100+ / ECS K7VTA3 / Voodoo3 / Audigy2 / Vortex2
PC#3: Athlon64 3400+ / Asus K8V-MX / 5900XT / Audigy2
PC#4: i5-3570K / MSI Z77A-G43 / GTX 970 / X-Fi

Reply 2 of 25, by SScorpio

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

If you already have a CRT, LCDs won't be anywhere near close to the performance.

You already hit on the big issue which is that LCDs have a fixed resolution, unless you are running native you'll need to do no scaling which is a smaller picture, or the image will be upscaled and look like Blood did.

So, what are you going to run on it? Will it all be games around the era of Blood and you want to cap out at 800x600? Are you looking for even older games? Do you want something that can also take really old PC and consoles and sync to the signal?

Reply 3 of 25, by _StIwY_

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I'd prefer using 4:3 native monitors, i will use that under Win9X, no pure DOS games. 1024x768 LCD are mostly 15 inches, but the problem is their panels are slow, so there will be trails and ghosting for sure.

Reply 4 of 25, by shamino

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

1360x768 (1366x768? whatever) 19" monitors are essentially the same as a 15" 1024x768 with added pixels on the sides. They can display 1024x768 with bars on the sides and there won't be any upscaling.
Advantage with these is that they're a little newer than 15" 10x7 displays, so the panels are faster.
Disadvantage is the added bulk on the sides. But you get the option of using them full screen when in the Windows GUI or whenever distortion doesn't matter to you.
The model I've used is a Samsung 943SWX, I can vouch that model has a mode to properly display 4:3 and it displays 70Hz correctly without any stutter. I think the response spec is 5ms. They might have bad capacitors (chronic in Samsungs of the time). The soldering is easier than on a motherboard.
1360x768 was used on low end early widescreen monitors, so I think they're all TN panels. TN panels are fast and can display 70Hz if you ever want it in DOS. Nicer monitors were IPS or VA panels which have slower response time and can only run at 60Hz. 60Hz limitation is a big issue in 2D scrolling DOS games (they run at 70Hz so the monitor will stutter), but it doesn't matter in Windows where games run at 60Hz.

Larger 17" 1024x768 monitors are likely to be very old and streaky/ghosty. By the time LCDs got decent, 1024x768 was only used on 15" models.

1280x1024 come in larger sizes up to 19" and they are usually TN but some are IPS. Also 1280x1024 panels are 5:4 so they could make things look distorted if you're sensitive to that.

4:3 1600x1200 panels are (nearly?) always IPS or VA panels at 20". They look good but they are slower than TN - I don't really notice but I haven't gamed on them much. Only good for 60Hz.
I don't know of any TN panels in this resolution. But modern monitors as mentioned by Joseph could be a good option (I don't know anything about that).

- HP LP1965

I'm not totally sure, but from the spotty indications in a web search, I think this is an IPS/VA product. This means 60Hz limitation (fine for Windows), but also it might be a little more prone to ghosting than a TN panel of the same time period. Picture quality will be better though.
I have some LP2065 (20" 1600x1200) which are definitely IPS/VA (usually IPS). I think the LP1965 is a companion product.
Listings will say they do 75Hz but that's misleading. It comes from HP's marketing specs from back then. In reality they accept a 75Hz signal but they drop frames to display it on a 60Hz panel.
In Windows I'm very happy with the LP2065 but I haven't played games on it much and don't think I notice ghosting as much as some people do. For the minimum of ghosting you would want something with a TN panel.

Viewsonic VA703m

https://www.viewsonic.com/eu/products/sheet/VA703m
This looks like a good option if you don't mind the 5:4 ratio. It's a TN panel, 17" 1280x1024 rated at 5ms. No idea if it has a 1:1 display mode to avoid upscaling.

I don't know about the others, they didn't come up as easily in a search.

Reply 5 of 25, by _StIwY_

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Thanks for you replies, guys.

I just found a Samsung 172S, 17 inches 1280x1024 for like 10 bucks nearby my city, but the panel is rated 25ms and the manufacturer date is 2004....

Then there is an Acer Acer AL1717, 17 inches, 1280x1024 too but is rated 8ms, for 30 bucks.

EDIT:

I also found an Asus VB191T, 19 inches, 1280x1024 and rated 5 ms.

Reply 6 of 25, by rmay635703

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Why were 1280x1024 19” LCDs a thing?
(I still use 4:3 Dell LCDs at work for my secondary screens and they are all 1600x1200)

Even back in the day that would have been very meh resolution even compared to a CRT. (Heck I have a few ancient 15” CRTs that will sync to 1600x1200, you would expect a more modern 19” to be better)

All 4;3 screens made en mass from the first decade of the century seem to be rather laggy/blurry

That issue really wasn’t completely solved until about 10 years ago and 4:3 was dead by that point.

I seem to be happy enough with the Dell 2007fpb, I’m not sure if any other 4:3 LCDs are even worth having , the rare exceptions being the larger versions

shamino wrote on 2023-11-02, 14:26:

1360x768 (1366x768? whatever) 19" monitors are essentially the same as a 15" 1024x768 with added bars.
1360x768 was used on low end early widescreen monitors, so I think they're all TN panels. TN panels are fast and can display 70Hz if you ever want it in

I owned 2 “1080i” hd TVs with 1366x768 panels, one was 12” and the other 32”.

I can’t say I’ve ever saw that resolution in a stand alone monitor (only laptops)

I would have to imagine those are extraordinarily ancient at this point as my first wide screen 19” lcd monitor was 1440x900 and even back in 2005 that was considered low end/obsolete. (Also sucked because nobody used that resolution and early LCDs UI was terrible at setting screen size and positioning)

Good lord why does it still exist?
https://www.newegg.com/amp/p/3D4-005U-00028

More common seem to be 16xx by 10xx widescreen resolution 19”

Reply 7 of 25, by cde

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

A cheap option is the AOC G2590PX. It's a 1920x1080 144 Hz monitor that has a VGA input, several 4:3 options and can show a 70 Hz image from VGA without frame dropping (so the 320x200 mode which is really 640x400@70 is shown with correct aspect ratio and no frame drop). It's no longer sold new but can still be found used.

A better alternative that doesn't require a VGA input, but is more costly, is to use the OSSC setup as a line doubler (so 640x400@70 becomes 1280x800@70) with a monitor that accepts said signal without frame dropping and has a 4:3 option. There are several threads that detail this setup on this forum.

If you're going the 4:3 LCD route, 1280x960 would be ideal but doesn't exist. At best you would find 1024x768 (which respects 4:3) but those old monitors are 60 Hz and hence you'll get frame drops ; unless you want to play 320x240@60 or 640x480@60 games. 1600x1200 is also great wrt/ ratio but again would be 60 Hz max and is hard to find.

EDIT: I realize you were talking about Win9x games, not DOS. In that case indeed a 4:3 LCD would be acceptable in many cases. Although for FPS you might prefer either a real CRT or a repurposed recent 144 Hz TN that has 4:3 options, like the G2590PX.

Reply 8 of 25, by rmay635703

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
cde wrote on 2023-11-02, 18:14:

If you're going the 4:3 LCD route, 1280x960 would be ideal but doesn't exist. At best you would find 1024x768 (which respects 4:3) but those old monitors are 60 Hz and hence you'll get frame drops ; unless you want to play 320x240@60 or 640x480@60 games.

I think people overestimate how bad “upscaling “ is on semi modern LCDs thinking they all handle it like it’s 1995.

Some older 1600x1200 (4:3) LCDs have very good UI for scaling and interpolation of vga aka Dell 2007
My small LCD TVs that have vga also are buttery smooth at scaling non-native resolutions.

Even my craptastic 2005 era 19” widescreen LCD scales “ok” compared to screens even 2 years older. It also downscales higher than native resolutions fairly well, not as good as the little TV I have but it’s not terrible either.

The issue that we can’t answer is how much latency you get if any scaling occurs.
Also most LCDs suck at stretching and centering horizontal and vertically lacking the analog dials like a crt making them less useful for RCA input or very strange svga resolutions (my 2005 era lcd only offered very slight adjustment on the horizontal width and sadly vertically it automatically selected it)
Some non-4:3 LCDs would always stretch 4:3 input and provide no user selection or adjustment.

Ah well

Reply 9 of 25, by mihai

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

While I think a crt is best for retro purposes, my eyes cannot take 60 / 70 hz flicker in DOS. The resulting strain is crippling.

The next best thing for me is a 20 inch 640 x 480 lcd tv, with a great ips screen, good colors and no ghosting. It has a very nice scaler from 320 x 240, thus perfect for older vga games. I got it quite cheap in EU, cca $40 from ebay.de

https://blog.gingerbeardman.com/2021/05/06/pi … gaming-in-480p/

Reply 10 of 25, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Most 4:3 1600x1200 panels can't handle 70Hz DOS modes without skipping frames. You can skip 70Hz VGA mode and force 60 Hz with TSR, but some games are tied to 70Hz timings and will work slower.
And most 5:4 1280x1024 panels can handle 75Hz. So 19 inch 1280x1024 panel with advanced scaler can handle DOS quite well. Keep in mind that it applies only to old professional LCDs, don't even bother with common TN and xVA monitors.

19-21 inch NEC/EIZO professional monitors with IPS panel are the way to go.

I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.

Reply 11 of 25, by midicollector

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

In my experience, from what I remember, early LCDs tended to be pretty bad at scaling, and from recent experience they tend to have issues with trailing and ghosting. The most recent 4:3 LCD you can find will probably be superior to anything old, if you ask me, but I’m only familiar with the really early LCDs. The extent to which any of this bothers you or is noticeable will probably vary person to person though.

Reply 12 of 25, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

There's not much you can do with a scaling algorithm if pixel density does not match specific ratios. For example, decent picture can be achieved with 1.5x ratio, but not with 1.6x.

I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.

Reply 13 of 25, by _StIwY_

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Thanks for your suggestions. I think in my case it is better to take a 20 - 21 inch 1600x1200.

So i started searching for a 20 inches 1600x1200 LCD, but damn they are pretty rare.... ). I found a refurbished items store which had two HP LP2065.....unfortunately with some problems at the screen >.<"

But today maybe i found out the same monitor from another seller, but first i have to be sure about the screen conditions.

Reply 14 of 25, by Meatball

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

A great 19" LED 5:4 monitor is the Acer V196L. There are various sub-models; some with both VGA and DVI-D and some with just VGA. I have the Acer V196L Bbmd. You can still find these new for $80 - $120 thereabouts on eBay shipped.

5ms response
SXGA 1280x1024@75Hz/60Hz
VESA 1280x960@ (among others).

Manual here:
https://www.manualslib.com/manual/547333/Acer-V196l.html

Reply 15 of 25, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
_StIwY_ wrote on 2023-11-06, 20:52:

So i started searching for a 20 inches 1600x1200 LCD, but damn they are pretty rare.... ). I found a refurbished items store which had two HP LP2065.....unfortunately with some problems at the screen >.<"

Old NEC professional models are easier to find, they were commonly used in medical sphere.

I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.

Reply 16 of 25, by shamino

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
_StIwY_ wrote on 2023-11-06, 20:52:

Thanks for your suggestions. I think in my case it is better to take a 20 - 21 inch 1600x1200.

So i started searching for a 20 inches 1600x1200 LCD, but damn they are pretty rare.... ). I found a refurbished items store which had two HP LP2065.....unfortunately with some problems at the screen >.<"

But today maybe i found out the same monitor from another seller, but first i have to be sure about the screen conditions.

I wanted one for years but didn't want to pay much, until suddenly a bunch of them showed up in local thrift stores. I ended up with a bit of a hoard of 20" 16x12 IPS/VA monitors, mostly HP LP2065s. That window of time may have passed though and they might be harder to get again.
I think any 20" 4:3 LCD you see is guaranteed to be 1600x1200 res and probably IPS or VA panel. I don't think anybody made that size panel in any other resolution, and I think 20" TN panels are rare to nonexistent. That size was always for premium monitors.

Dell has a comparable series of monitors (Dell Ultrasharp). I think the Dell 2007fp is the equivalent of the LP2065. With all the monitors I took apart I might be mixing things up, but I think the 2007fp uses the same panels as the HP LP2065. So I think the only differences will be firmware/menus and connection options.

The Dell 2001fp is 1 generation older but still decent, it might have a slower response time. I think the equivalent HP is the LP2035.
The Dell 2000fp is the oldest, it's bulky and surely slower response time, but it's an IPS so it still has a good picture, unlike early TN panels.
All of these require 60Hz, they'll skip frames at 70Hz but in Windows that won't matter.

The HP LP2065 has an option to soften the picture but only with VGA signals. Not sure if the Dells have that feature.
The Dell 2000fp, 2001fp, 2007fp and HP LP2035 have Composite video, SVideo, VGA, DVI.
The HP LP2065 doesn't have Composite or SVideo, but it does have dual DVI-I - meaning you can use dual DVI or dual VGA or 1 of each by using the appropriate cable. So it's more flexible in that respect.

The menu on the LP2065 can show you the operating hours by opening the menu and going into "Information.." It will show backlight hours and total hours (there will be a difference if somebody used power management during it's life). But the brightness it was ran at also matters a ton.
My worst LP2065 had a tag on it from a govt office, it was set at 100% brightness, all hours were backlight hours, and it's panel condition was noticeably worse than the others. The best one I bought came from a private seller on eBay whose pictures showed it on his desk at home. He still had the original packaging and that thing was mint. Monitors at thrift stores are the best bargain for price, but they usually have scratch&dent abuse.

The LP2065 has a hidden service menu that can reset the hours, but the low reading would make that obvious unless somebody did it years ago.

Reply 17 of 25, by nd22

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

21.3 inch are the largest commercially available 4:3 LCD monitors; most of them are premium models made for the professionals to use in CAD/medical applications and so on.
I have an Eizo S2100 monitor - 21.3 inch - with 1600*1200 at 60hz max resolution; it has DVI and VGA inputs only, so no speakers; out of all the monitors I have ever used it has the sharpest image at non-native resolution; it is simply outstanding. Response time is 8 ms and it is good enough to play NFS on it! The menu can show how long has been used and many other useful info.
It is still available second hand but price is an issue!

Reply 18 of 25, by _StIwY_

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
The Serpent Rider wrote on 2023-11-07, 17:08:
_StIwY_ wrote on 2023-11-06, 20:52:

So i started searching for a 20 inches 1600x1200 LCD, but damn they are pretty rare.... ). I found a refurbished items store which had two HP LP2065.....unfortunately with some problems at the screen >.<"

Old NEC professional models are easier to find, they were commonly used in medical sphere.

Aren't those models equipped with slow panels ? ( that means trails - ghosting on fast paced games ). Anyway i didnt' find nothing suitable for my purposes ). Anyway i didn't find nothing suitable with a decent price.

shamino wrote on 2023-11-08, 02:35:
I wanted one for years but didn't want to pay much, until suddenly a bunch of them showed up in local thrift stores. I ended up […]
Show full quote
_StIwY_ wrote on 2023-11-06, 20:52:

Thanks for your suggestions. I think in my case it is better to take a 20 - 21 inch 1600x1200.

So i started searching for a 20 inches 1600x1200 LCD, but damn they are pretty rare.... ). I found a refurbished items store which had two HP LP2065.....unfortunately with some problems at the screen >.<"

But today maybe i found out the same monitor from another seller, but first i have to be sure about the screen conditions.

I wanted one for years but didn't want to pay much, until suddenly a bunch of them showed up in local thrift stores. I ended up with a bit of a hoard of 20" 16x12 IPS/VA monitors, mostly HP LP2065s. That window of time may have passed though and they might be harder to get again.
I think any 20" 4:3 LCD you see is guaranteed to be 1600x1200 res and probably IPS or VA panel. I don't think anybody made that size panel in any other resolution, and I think 20" TN panels are rare to nonexistent. That size was always for premium monitors.

Dell has a comparable series of monitors (Dell Ultrasharp). I think the Dell 2007fp is the equivalent of the LP2065. With all the monitors I took apart I might be mixing things up, but I think the 2007fp uses the same panels as the HP LP2065. So I think the only differences will be firmware/menus and connection options.

The Dell 2001fp is 1 generation older but still decent, it might have a slower response time. I think the equivalent HP is the LP2035.
The Dell 2000fp is the oldest, it's bulky and surely slower response time, but it's an IPS so it still has a good picture, unlike early TN panels.
All of these require 60Hz, they'll skip frames at 70Hz but in Windows that won't matter.

The HP LP2065 has an option to soften the picture but only with VGA signals. Not sure if the Dells have that feature.
The Dell 2000fp, 2001fp, 2007fp and HP LP2035 have Composite video, SVideo, VGA, DVI.
The HP LP2065 doesn't have Composite or SVideo, but it does have dual DVI-I - meaning you can use dual DVI or dual VGA or 1 of each by using the appropriate cable. So it's more flexible in that respect.

The menu on the LP2065 can show you the operating hours by opening the menu and going into "Information.." It will show backlight hours and total hours (there will be a difference if somebody used power management during it's life). But the brightness it was ran at also matters a ton.
My worst LP2065 had a tag on it from a govt office, it was set at 100% brightness, all hours were backlight hours, and it's panel condition was noticeably worse than the others. The best one I bought came from a private seller on eBay whose pictures showed it on his desk at home. He still had the original packaging and that thing was mint. Monitors at thrift stores are the best bargain for price, but they usually have scratch&dent abuse.

The LP2065 has a hidden service menu that can reset the hours, but the low reading would make that obvious unless somebody did it years ago.

I found an LP2065, the owner says the "screen is perfect" hopefully. Coming next week.

Reply 19 of 25, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Aren't those models equipped with slow panels ? ( that means trails - ghosting on fast paced games )

1) You will get blur anyway. Fast 4:3 panels practically do not exist, because 1600x1200 were all 60Hz with sample and hold, without any fancy black frame insertion.
2) All monitors of that time period have similar specs, especially if it's IPS or xVA. All within 8-16ms, depending on how they measure it and if Overdrive is enabled.
3) NEC monitors have a service menu with Overdrive option (at least late models like 1980/1990/2080/2090 and etc).

I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.