jaqie wrote:

for me, the reason is that I have become incredibly sensitive to CRT flicker to the point of even seeing one in my peripheral vision can induce vertigo and nausea and instant retching... I have had to remove CRTs from my daily life entirely because of that.

That's probably to do with the refresh rate. Some people are sensitive to low refresh rates, including myself, while others are sensitive to high refresh rates, including one of my friends. However, it also depends on the response time. Combining a fast response time with a low refresh rate will lead to extreme flicker, so for monitors that can run really high refresh rates it's important to run them as high as you can to make up for each frame disappearing faster due to a faster response time.

I can look at most 60 Hz CRTs just fine, but my monitor on my main Windows 98 machine is capable of 120 Hz and has a really fast response time. If I run it at 60 Hz, I can't look at it for too long without my eyes going numb. x_x;

You're not talking about response time, you are talking about the phosphor glow time, while related not the same thing.

I have an awesome 32 inch Sony Bravia from around 2008-2009 that does excellent 4:3 scaling (there's even a button for it on the remote!), but its maximum resolution is only 1366x768 (or 1024x768 in 4:3 mode) 😜

My 22-inch LG does that. It is LG Flatron M227WAP. It has manual control of the aspect ratio, whether you want 4:3 or 16:9. It has 1920x1080 native resolution.

I don't really know whether this model is still available or not, because soon after this model is launched LG launched another 22-inch with a better design, and I can't see my model anymore at the store.

jaqie wrote:

You're not talking about response time, you are talking about the phosphor glow time, while related not the same thing.

Err... *tries to research this and comes up empty*

You'll need to link me to where you're getting your information from because I can't find any details about such a thing.

However, even if you're right, you would still need a low glow time to facilitate a high refresh rate, so one way or another, the response time on a 120 Hz CRT will be much faster than on a 60 Hz CRT. :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube … hor_persistence

also,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphor#Standar … _phosphor_types

look at the persistence column, and then scroll down to various category where it speaks of the various afterglow levels.

In laymen's terms, this would be called ghosting.

Again, response time is not phosphor glow time (persistence, forgot the exact term till I looked up links for you sorry bout that)

jaqie wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube … hor_persistence […]
Show full quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube … hor_persistence

also,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphor#Standar … _phosphor_types

look at the persistence column, and then scroll down to various category where it speaks of the various afterglow levels.

In laymen's terms, this would be called ghosting.

I saw those articles, but I'm trying to figure something out here: I KNOW the term "response time" is used with CRTs, I have a manual for my old Tandy 1000 monitor that proves it, but if "response time" and "glow time" are two different things, yet response time is how fast it takes a pixel to change and considering that CRTs scan ALL pixels with single beams, unlike an LCD where each pixel has to physically change its state, then what does response time exactly refer to for a CRT?

(And sorry to everyone else for semi-hijacking the thread. Please continue with the normal conversation, I'm just really confused about this and want to figure it all out!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_time_%2 … ay_technologies

Put simply, for a CRT it is the time inbetween the time the signal is given to the monitor to display a pixel of white to the time that pixel can/does become black again. It is a co-mingling of delay in processing(if any), physical scan rate, glow initiation to full, and phosphor persistence times.

jaqie wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_time_%2 … ay_technologies

Put simply, for a CRT it is the time inbetween the time the signal is given to the monitor to display a pixel of white to the time that pixel can/does become black again. It is a co-mingling of delay in processing(if any), physical scan rate, glow initiation to full, and phosphor persistence times.

So I was technically right in my first statement about the whole thing, you just wanted to be extra-specific and make me all confused! ;D

I'm just kidding, of course. It's always interesting to see the different ways everyone approaches these things. ;)

specificity conflict. I was being more specific. You could say that the CRT itself is the problem, and be putting "too dull a point on it" per se. 😀

Maybe I am pedantic?

Brand: Dell
Model: U2412M
Size: 24"
Native resolution: 1920 x 1200
Connectors: VGA, DVI, HDMI
DOS compatibility: YES

Ive been playing around with my 386DX40 machine and its a winner!

At first some of the text is missing top and bottom, that is fixed by selecting "Auto adjustment" and brings the screen to where it should, it has options to select 16:10, 4:3 or 5:4 aspect ratios.

Im running windows 95 at 1024x768 and the picture is unbelievable! I've got a Scarlett Johansson wallpaper, stunning, gobsmacked, the picture is crystal clear, nothing grubby like an old crt, as you can tell I cant convery enough just how good the picture is!! I guess with the old 2meg Cirrus Logic at 1024x768 the picture does'nt suffer from the low refrash rate a crt screen would

I would take some photos but ive got no batteries and will have to wait a day or so, Ive run a few games like secret weapons of the luftwaffe and Doom2, 3dbench, is their any requests for specific titles I should test or to take screenshots? Ive got a video camera if thats helpful.

That's good news! Thanks for sharing 😀

dirkmirk wrote:

Brand: Dell Model: U2412M Size: 24" Native resolution: 1920 x 1200 Connectors: VGA, DVI, HDMI DOS compatibility: YES […]
Show full quote

Brand: Dell
Model: U2412M
Size: 24"
Native resolution: 1920 x 1200
Connectors: VGA, DVI, HDMI
DOS compatibility: YES

Ive been playing around with my 386DX40 machine and its a winner!

Sounds interesting, I'm getting sick of messing around with different monitors for different machines, and having a shed full of CRT's of various sizes.

So what does this thing do when you plug it into a DOS machine? Does it fill the screen vertically and leave black bars at the sides? It'd still be a bit big for DOS games wouldn't it?

That Dell monitor looks like the real deal. Pictures and video would be awesome!

Dell UltraSharp U2412M... that is the one I would have bought if it had a 16:9 mode for HDTV. But it doesn't!?. So I bought the U2312HM. They are very similiar.

Havent made that video yet.

Ive been using that setup and its not perfect, sometimes when I exist a game like doom, sometimes the screen remains blank, you can still go to another programme by typing in the address at the command prompt.

Commander Keen 1 & 4 (assume the others) don't display a picture, the games work as I can hear the game sounds and by swapping the monitor cable with a 17" crt, the game must enter some kind of mode where it does'nt agree with the lcd, I havent come across any other games that have this problem.

A work around could be having a newer retro computer with a DVI interface? When I get time i'll check it out.

With the pixels so largely blown up you can see vertical lines in low res games (which might be most games?) It was apparent in Secret weapons of the luftwaffe & Wolfenstein 3d, for instance in prince of persia where you have a block that is one shade of blue/grey, you can clearly see one line is slightly darker/lighter to the next line, where its obvious the colour is the same. This happens in Wolf3d with the ceiling colours and the floor colours, its one of those things you get used to though.

When I switched back to the crt to look for these lines I could strain my eyes and see the black dots/pixels tbat you could say is a problem with crts? I dont think you could say one is better than the other, you have the choice of a big screen or a screen they does'nt display those different vertical shades of colour.
This problem does not exist in windows, its purely an issue with low res graphics.

Another good thing with this monitor is assigning shortcut buttons, the top 2 of the 4 front buttons (down the bottom right hand corner) Ive assigned one to DVI, one to VGA, that way I can quickly switch between my main pc and my 386 through vga, its a 2 button press to switch monitors so keep that in mind, ie one press brings up the 4 options that correspond to each button ie "DVI-D, VGA, MENU, EXIT".

A dissapointment in that regard is the lack of a 3rd shortcut button for Display Port, I was thinking that would be great for having the old 386, newer pentium 333 with DVI display card and the display port for the main pc, their might be a suitable solution with a 2 port switch and having the 386 on seperate VGA and keyboard/mouse.

Im getting some games together to make a video, I'll post back when its ready.

Sune Salminen wrote:

Dude, you're having a 'blonde moment' here. […]
Show full quote

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

You said it is fire and forget. So let say I connect the monitor to computer A (which has GeForce card), and then set the monitor to do 4:3, then the monitor will display the aspect ratio properly, with black bars.

And then I connect the monitor to computer B (which has Voodoo card), and then the monitor will still display the black bars at it should, without the need to reconfigure the monitor's aspect ratio.
Am I correct?

Dude, you're having a 'blonde moment' here.

Aspect ratio correction is done on the GPU, the video card does not program your monitor so that it will scale correctly when it's connected to another video card!

How could a setting in the Nvidia Forceware control panel possibly affect a video card from another manufacturer, in another machine?

Doh! My bad. First I thought ForceWare would send a "universal setting signal" of some sort to the monitor, the same way universal TV remote works. 😵

Anyway, I'm also thinking about flatscreen TVs. I noticed the difference between TV and computer monitors in regard to 4:3 mode:
(1) in computer monitors, the "4:3 mode" actually keeps the original aspect ratio instead of forcing 4:3. For instance, if the source is 16:9, then it will still be displayed as 16:9 even in 4:3 mode.
(2) in TVs, the 4:3 mode actually forces any source into 4:3 aspect ratio. As such, 16:9 sources will be horizontally compressed into 4:3 ratio. Objects will look thinner than they are, etc.

I think TVs could be interesting solution for those playing 320x200 DOS games in pure DOS, because it can force 320x200 resolution to 4:3 aspect ratio.

We have 22" Samsung LCDs at Work (1680 x 1050) and it has a aspect ratio button. When pushed it letterboxes any signal to 4:3. I haven't tested this with VGA yet, just DVI but I'm confident it will also work.

jwt27 wrote:

May I ask..

why not just use a CRT?

Same reason why I'm not aiming 4:3 LCD; they're getting harder and harder to find. 😵

Anyway, I have seen screen photographs where DOS games (320x200 resolution IIRC) are not displayed properly on modern monitors. Sometimes it is just small image in the corner. What caused such thing to happen? And what type/brand of monitor to avoid in regards to such problem?

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

(1) in computer monitors, the "4:3 mode" actually keeps the original aspect ratio instead of forcing 4:3. For instance, if the source is 16:9, then it will still be displayed as 16:9 even in 4:3 mode.
(2) in TVs, the 4:3 mode actually forces any source into 4:3 aspect ratio. As such, 16:9 sources will be horizontally compressed into 4:3 ratio. Objects will look thinner than they are, etc.

(1) This happens because you are using the "4:3 mode" setting on the monitor. This is very inflexible and will produce wrong images, as you say - because the monitor then assumes that any incoming signal is 4:3.
Instead, you should let the video card do the scaling and always run the monitor at its native resolution/aspect ratio. Then you always get the correct aspect ratio for everything that's displayed.

(2) Same thing. You want to leave the TV in 16:9 mode and make sure that you are driving it at its native resolution. Turn off all scaling and filtering settings on the TV.
Tell the video card to scale the image by aspect ratio, and tick "override the scaling mode set by games and programs".

Your video card (and its drivers) are way better at these tasks than any display connected to it. Think about it, the video card is producing and transmitting the image, the TV/monitor is only there to display it. It has no idea what aspect ratio it's supposed to have.