Hey Jow Forums
I have this old CRT monitor, I'm wondering is there a way to check resolution it supports.
Till now, the only stable one seems to be 640x480 at 72Hz. I also have a Windows 95 PC at hand if that can help.
CRT resolution
Kayden Phillips
Jackson Gonzalez
>72 Hz
use a lower rate
Jackson Lewis
you mean like this?
myhometheater.homestead.com
Luis Cox
Yes, how can I find available bandwidth of the monitor?
(If it's any help I've tried it with 1024x768 at 50 60 72 [Hz] etc. and I only get a jumbled signal. Then again this is an old monitor (1987) so 640x480 is probably all it supports.)
Isaiah Bailey
if you know what model your crt is you could try looking it up from there. If not then keep adjusting the res/refresh until you can get something high enough but still stable, then type that info into the calculator I linked and look at the third result line, KHz Horizontal Scanning Frequency Required (With Estimated Retrace), and assume that's the max frequency the crt can handle. then from there you can adjust the res/refresh within that limit. At least... that's what I'd do. Maybe someone else knows a more efficient way
Jace Robinson
I've attached a picture which shows what one black pixel of a 640x480 image zoomed looks like.
To me it seems that this one pixel is made of more actual pixels, so 640x480 is not the maximum resolution. I'll try adjusting it manually, unless someone has a better idea.
Lucas Perry
Here's the picture.
Jack Bell
I've made it to 800x600 at 59Hz.
I think it can go higher still.
Landon Butler
So you're looking at the dot pitch of the monitor, some monitors don't support input bandwidth sufficient to do a 1:1 ratio between phosphor trios and pixel density, some support more.
Best bet is to look your monitor up and figure out the "modelines" which should be in the manual.
Lincoln Morales
This is the backplate, haven't found any information about it.
However, have kinda achieved 1024x768 at 46.6Hz however that gives me a headache, so probably gonna stick to 800x600, might experiment later it's 3AM here.
Gabriel Baker
That looks like an 800x600 monitor.
James Lewis
Look up Peacock PM-1414 LR manual, that might help.
Ian Rogers
With CRT monitors you really need to check the owners manual to figure out the resolution they support. Changing the resolution means increasing the number of video lines between the vertical sync pulses. This should trigger the monitor's electronics to go to the appropriate settings but it's not guaranteed they know all of them. Sometimes you'll find they support things like 1024x768 and 800x600 but not rarely used ones between that.
VGA monitors actually have an I2C data channel which is supposed to tell the computer what resolutions they support. However not all of them bothered with that and I don't know if modern graphics cards and OSs bother with it either.
Jack Green
Are you stupid? Switch to 1280x1024@60 or 1600x1200@60. You think you are so special because you browse Jow Forums but are unable to commit any action without someone wiping your ass.
Hunter Flores
Ask me how I know you're underage.
Jordan Long
I always wondered, are those CRT monitors analog? I guess they are
It just seems so strange to me, same with old game consoles plugged into analog TVs; video signals have been digital since like the 70s but it took TVs a while to catch up
Liam Rogers
I hope you'll try to absorb more information, hereafter, before commenting. I doubt it though.
Ian Gomez
Almost all the ones that didn't do this were from before EDID was standard and common. And a screen that can only do 1024x768 of you put the refresh rate in the 40s is probably older than that.
Ayden Barnes
Yep, all analog. They don't have a real concept of pixels, only lines and frames. They'll turn the beam on and off as often as you like as you scan across. For instance they'll happily display 1366x768 and it'll show more detail than 1024x768 (but squished). If there's an OSD it will show the resolution as 1024x768.
Carson Long
Seeing zoomers dicking around with old hardware is absolutely toe nail curling.
>he is actually wondering why his cheapest ass late 80s Taiwan monitor is struggling to display anything above 640x480 @60 or 70Hz
Protip: Those monitors were not meant for "high resolution" which was pretty much anything over VGA back then. You're lucky IF it gets 800x600 synced at 60Hz.
Either look for something decent from EIZO or Sony or just appreciate the junk thing you have for what it is, otherwise it will most likely end up in magic smoke and potentially do the same with your home if you overdrive that cheap shit while leaving it unsupervised for an hour.
Cameron Gomez
>1280x1024@60 or 1600x1200@60
>late 80s/early 90s, supermarket brand Taiwan CRT
William Diaz
Okay Moly, help me out. I have an old Packard Bell CRT that lists 1021x768 as an option on the back, however no amount of dicking with these knobs or in my OS display settings can make anything but 800x600 or 640x480 work. What gives?
Cameron Brooks
How did your Peacock crt from couple posts above turn into a Packard Bell one?
The PB one has a bigger chance to get this done but I have no idea why it says 1021 instead of 1024.
I'd say get the Scitech Display Doctor VGA driver for Win98 (I think it even works with 3.1) and try to get 1024x768 @60 running with that. Maybe even 72Hz or 75Hz. But yeah, the Peacock crt is highly unlikely to get more than VGA displayed in my opinion.
Grayson Wood
it's because I'm not OP. I'm using Manjaro and 1024x768@60 gives me stuttery noise. I could try making a custom resolution for 1021x768 I guess? Maybe downclock the refresh to like 30 and step it up incrementally?
Brody Gutierrez
I think since those VGA crts are analog you should be able to do all sorts of oddball resolutions but I have no idea how you configure that in Lunix. But I'm sure that's somewhere to be found on the interwebs. Good luck with that though and again, never leave old CRTs running on questionable resolutions without you in the room having an eye on it. I still remember that smell lol
Alexander Ramirez
linux.rz.rub.de
check the part about monitor resolution, if you don't have the manual it is a pain in the ass
Lincoln Sanders
>15 March 1995
>posted over 24 years ago
holy fuck
Adam Hernandez
There's a difference between old and ancient.
768.. interlaced
tinyvga.com
There was even a period of time where monitors explicitly advertised "non-interlaced" on the front to distance themselves from that abomination
Brayden Parker
Assigning arbitrary displayodes in Linux is easy. I've done it before but not woth that one in case it blew up. It has some very thermal-sensitive pincushioning and overscan is terrible so I haven't tried anything too wild.
>interlaced
ah, dropped. Thanks for saving me some time, lad