arncht wrote on 2023-10-19, 05:15:

Which modern display resolution is suitable for 200/240?

For upscaling 320x200, you likely want a 16:10 monitor with the 1920x1200 resolution. When set to the 4:3 aspect ratio, that effectively becomes 1600x1200.

Those are also excellent for gaming at 800x600 since that gives you a clean 2x upscale on each axis.

Non standard ratios are very rare nowadays. From the past there is the u3011 dell, but it is a 10 years old 60hz display.

It would be simpler, if you write models:
* vga input with 70hz support
* optimal for 200/240p
* amiga 15khz support

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-10-19, 07:16:

Those are also excellent for gaming at 800x600 since that gives you a clean 2x upscale on each axis.

That assumes the monitor can do a pixel perfect scaling without applying any image processing.

For example, I have an Asus ProArt monitor (1920x1200). It doesn't allow for disabling image processing. So scaling to 800x600 doesn't result in pixel-perfect image, since it applies a smoothing filter to the upscaled image. Adjusting sharpness setting on the monitor can help, but it's not perfect.

Ironically, I find this monitor actually looks better with non-pixel perfect resolutions like 1440x900.

Shponglefan wrote on 2023-10-19, 13:36:

So scaling to 800x600 doesn't result in pixel-perfect image, since it applies a smoothing filter to the upscaled image. Adjusting sharpness setting on the monitor can help, but it's not perfect.

Agreed. It would be best if the processing could be turned off entirely, but I'm not aware of any monitors that allow this.

That said, I recently found a pretty decent workaround when using a DVI connection on my Samsung S24B420BW. This likely only applies to that particular monitor family, but it's still pretty cool. I really like how 800x600 looks with that approach.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote on 2011-03-26, 14:29:

Anyone know the reason why they didn't make 1280 x 960 LCDs? I mean it's double 640 x 480 and would have made a lot of sense. Why did they go for 1024 lines?

It was a possibble 4:3 aspect ratio. Ive never seen a screen that does it myself but I assume its possible.
It wasnt taken on by LCD manufacturers because by the time LCDs became a thing certain resolutions had taken hold in the industry, the main one being 1280 x 1024. Back then reliably making panels that worked wasnt as easy as you might think. There were a lot of dead panels on the production lines...

Why tool a factory to make them 1280 x 960 when with an much effort you can make it by 1024 and keep up with current trends on the market.

To answer the OP, in my experience if you must use an LCD then there is only one manufacturer to roll with and thats Eizo.
They were top of the line then and now 20 years later theyre still refreshing their 1024x768x32 screens at 75Hz like they were born to. Though I usually run them at 60Hz to prolong their life.

I use them for XP gaming on a 750Ti. I also run MS DOS through them and they look as good on the one as they do on the other.

You cant beat the old hardware for displaying the old software, and when your going back, back into time they it has to be the best.

The problem with them is some of them, the ones worth having, can cost almost as much used as a nice new IPS panel does now.

If its got to be then its got to be the best, and then its Eizo.

arncht wrote on 2023-10-19, 05:15:

Which modern display resolution is suitable for 200/240?

1200+ vertical* lines. Alternatively, something with 960 lines (old 1280x1024 displays with custom scaling).

EDIT: Of course it's horizontal lines.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2023-10-19, 16:35:

arncht wrote on 2023-10-19, 05:15:

Which modern display resolution is suitable for 200/240?

1200+ vertical lines. Alternatively, something with 960 lines (old 1280x1024 displays with custom scaling).

Cool… but if the ideal monitor does not exist, you have to buy the best compromise.

arncht wrote on 2023-10-19, 17:04:

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2023-10-19, 16:35:

arncht wrote on 2023-10-19, 05:15:

Which modern display resolution is suitable for 200/240?

1200+ vertical lines. Alternatively, something with 960 lines (old 1280x1024 displays with custom scaling).

Cool… but if the ideal monitor does not exist, you have to buy the best compromise.

Thats the best youre ever going to get with a modern screen, it will never display what the old screens did, they will always be distorted in some way.

It depends on… it is not authentic for sure, but you cannot really cover the eg the 87-2005 era with a single display differently.

arncht wrote on 2023-10-19, 18:10:

It depends on… it is not authentic for sure, but you cannot really cover the eg the 87-2005 era with a single display differently.

Yeah right.
You do realise you have just tried to blanket cover one of the most rapid development periods in computer history there just so you could say something along the lines of 'yeah but you cant really be all things to all men in THIS period can you'

18 years of computer development...

I mean 18 years ago we had the AMD Athlon 64 FX-57 and the P4 EE 3.73Ghz ..

I could take a 1080p screen from today and Ill bet that Athlon 64 system would display just fine on it.

Where as if you try and put a DOS game on the same monitor... well it doesnt really look the same as it does when you put it on a 4:3 LCD from the early 2000s

If i want authentic look, i use a crt, and not an early lcd 😀 but if an lcd… i would bid to a late high gamut ips panel with led backlight and vga input (like the u3011) instead of some early tn panel.

I also have a dell 2007fp, 4:3 ips, 1200p, but 60hz panel, and the backlight has a yellow tint (as every lcd before the led backlight), and plan some still available eizo 4:3 - but these displays also has compromise just in the another side (cannot handle the 15khz, not 70hz, etc).

This modern dell is a quite good compromise, especially it is new and cheap, and covers many thing - but sure, not perfect as everything what mentioned before. We are looking for someting, what does not exist.

I have three old monitors that are probably all equally flawed, but they work fine for my purposes. They all have pretty poor response times, but I don't play games fast enough to be impaired by any ghosting that might be happening.

Syncmaster 170MP
Syncmaster 192MP
Sony MFM-HT95

The 170MP doesn't have a DVI port and the bezels on it are enormous.
The 192MP is physically a little smaller than the 170MP, despite having a larger screen.
The Sony is the nicest of the three. My only issue with this is that it has a glossy screen.

I kind of hate 1280x1024, but it's pretty much what you got from that era (or 1024x768 for 15" screens). I think Dell 2007FP is still probably the best monitor that you can get. I don't have one, but if I were starting this hobby, that's the clear winner, IMO.

This lg is possible also a not a bad choice for dos - but i found zero info about the retro usage.
* ah-ips
* 1200p
* 70hz support

eizo is serious: s2134, they refreshed after 10 years.
https://www.techpowerup.com/310109/eizo-relea … d-control-rooms

arncht wrote on 2023-11-08, 20:19:

eizo is serious: s2134, they refreshed after 10 years.
https://www.techpowerup.com/310109/eizo-relea … d-control-rooms

Nice, but not 850+ US$ nice, at least for me.

It's not targeted for average Joe to begin with. But at least it has IPS Black, probably with ATW polariser.

Good info ! Yeah IPS plus 10bit Gamma like a modern Graphic design monitor but in 4:3. No reason it is that expensive (should be in the $400-500 range for that size), except that they can charge that due to no other new 4:3 format.

Us retro folks are defeinitely not in the target market for a new Eizo 4:3 monitor .

However, Eizo is sourcing those 4:3 panels from somewhere, which means that some other company might come to market with a similar but lower cost model using the same or similar panels.
Of course, it is possible that Eizo has those 4:3 panels custom manufactured for its exclusive use .

EDIT: The AUO G213UAN01.0 (or more likely a higher end variant thereof, based on gamut specs) looks like it might be the panel that is used .

arncht wrote on 2023-10-24, 19:01:

This lg is possible also a not a bad choice for dos - but i found zero info about the retro usage. * ah-ips * 1200p * 70hz supp […]
Show full quote

This lg is possible also a not a bad choice for dos - but i found zero info about the retro usage.
* ah-ips
* 1200p
* 70hz support

I have 2 "recent" 24-inch 1920x1200 monitors

Philips 252B9 and Acer and Acer VW257.

Both are 70Hz capable without frameskip, but only the Philips one has a forced 4:3 mode