New *square* 1:1 26.5" LCD monitor 1920x1920

[Pete Lancashire]

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 <swiftgriggs at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2016, ethan at 757.org 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
>