A LCD panel manufacture will need an order for at least 25,000 and in most cases 100,000 units. That's just the LCD panel.
4:3 is getting to be the odd ball, and as time goes on unless there is a continuing industrial need your going to pay a lot. The only market today is HMI (Human Machine Interface) they max out at 15", the majority are 9" and 12". On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Swift Griggs <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 16 May 2016, [email protected] wrote: >> Oh wow, the arcade world needs 4:3 27/29" and 25" LCDs pretty badly. > > Don't they just! I come across tons of folks wanting to replace their 4:3 > CRT with an LCD in arcade cabinets all the time. I wonder why, with all > the niche electronics in the world these days, some company hasn't made > panels with 640x480 display resolution at large sizes as replacements. I > guess the companies that make LCDs just aren't interested (yet). I have > noticed a few niche CRT makers trying to fill that gap. CRTs look better > than LCDs do in many cases because of the cheap anti-aliasing you get from > the phosphor and interlacing (just my opinion). However, LCDs offer some > nice advantages these days. > >> That's a bit on the pricy side, don't need that kind of resolution for >> games that run at 640x480 :-) > > Large panels would be a godsend for me, I have early onset macular > degeneration in my retinae. I get that folks think I'm crazy for not > buying a 4k panel and then jacking up the fonts. What those folks don't > seem to understand (at all) is that I've already tried it. Yes, Windows, > MacOS, and to some extent Linux have features to crank the fonts way up in > your windowing system and for most applications. > > However, FAR from what some people claim, those features are very > inconsistent. Apps often set font sizes which are immutable, > controls/icons (or anything bitmapped for that matter) still get shrunk > *way* down, and older systems don't support that type of thing at all (and > I use a lot of older systems via KVM switch). Using a 4k monitor also > sucks (hard) when using emulation packages like dosbox or UAE. They appear > in categorically *tiny* windows, and if you use a scaler for that > resolution it eats (just about any) CPU doing all the interpolation etc.. > and your emulation slows down noticeably. Then, you can bet you'll want a > new video card to support an PC games you play because if you try to play > them at 4k, they are almost certainly going to be sluggish due to the > super-high resolution textures, rendering, blitting, etc.. Even with a > monster GPU, they still don't usually play at 60FPS... If you ask me, for > gaming, FPS > resolution. > > I'm tired of the attitude that I'm just ignorant of how to properly > configure my zillion OSs to work with 4k (or that it's even worth doing - > such a hassle in many cases on older OSs). I'm not working with MacOS 10.x > and using 2 built-in "i" applications here, folks. If someone else is, > good for them, but I'm not stupid just because I don't agree and I eschew > 4k for very good personal reasons. They'd understand after developing some > real vision impairment. When you are just about legally blind, you > appreciate that an app has *no choice* but to display in a manner that you > can SEE. Not to mention that a large, low-res 4:3 or 1:1 LCD would be > undoubtedly be useful to arcade restoration and retro computing efforts. > If it was as silly as some people act like, then I doubt Samsung 210T > units would still go for high prices on Ebay et al. > > I'd MUCH rather find a modern monitor with lots of brightness and good > contrast that runs at a "low" 4:3 resolution (say 1280x1024 max). If it > supported sync-on-green that'd be even better. The old Samsung 210T is > about the closest thing to what I want, but it's nowhere near the specs of > modern LED based displays for brightness and contrast. > > Some jerkhole sales guy in the Apple store got offended when I mentioned > (privately & quietly to a friend that was with me) that I hated the new > "retina" displays on their gear not only because of the squint (and yes, I > know MacOS has pretty much the best hi-res support going), but also that > the screens lacked an anti-glare coating (if they have any, it doesn't > work worth a darn). The guy comes over, interrupts us and gives me some > angry rant about how people like me need to "get over" anti-glare coatings > because they "distort" 4k displays. I told him that I wasn't speaking to > him and didn't need his help or input, but if I was I'd say something like > " Who gives a **** about the resolution if you can't see it over the > glare? " That's what I get for going into an Apple store in the first > place, though. My bad. > >> You could buy one then return it? > > I think I probably could. I also think that if I had to use a scan > converter it might be possible to use older systems with it. The problem > is that the scan-converter would need to support 1920x1920 and > sync-on-green. That's something that I doubt any of them would do, but who > knows what the future holds. The fact that this monitor is new and was > made at all gives me some hope. > > -Swift >
