Petition to tv makers (your thoughts about that)

[mimic]

You and CheffoJello don't convince me at all because you and I, all are just speculating. So even if you're 99% right that leaves 1% that there is a line unused and few engineers standing around, playing MAME in their cubicles, that they wouldn't mind putting them to work for 50K profit.

This group of engineers is likely costing $50 000-$100 000 per year EACH in salary, plus the cost of their work space, benifits and stuff like that.  They would make a greater profit by FIREING this group of do nothing slacker engineers that are just screwing around at work playing MAME than to put them on a $50 000 profit project.

nope, still not convinced 

[DJ_Izumi]

nope, still not convinced 

You're just trolling us now, arn't you?

[CheffoJeffo]

You and CheffoJello don't convince me at all because you and I, all are just speculating. So even if you're 99% right that leaves 1% that there is a line unused and few engineers standing around, playing MAME in their cubicles, that they wouldn't mind putting them to work for 50K profit. So unless you can produce a statement on their company letterhead stating: Dear BYOAC member CheffoJello & DJ_Insani are right and we piss on 50K profit. Then you didn't convince me  

CheffoJello ... I like and will remember that ...

My issue with your totally stupid attitude towards me is that one of us knows that professional people have looked into this exact issue (and even suggested that one of those people would be good to contact) and one of us couldn't be even be bothered to Google for "4:3 LCD petition" (ProTip: It's the number #1 result IF you had bothered to do ANY research).

If you are having trouble figuring out who is who ... I know how to use Google.

 

[saint]

It's you who doesn't get it... 

You and CheffoJello don't convince me at all because you and I, all are just speculating. So even if you're 99% right that leaves 1% that there is a line unused and few engineers standing around, playing MAME in their cubicles, that they wouldn't mind putting them to work for 50K profit. So unless you can produce a statement on their company letterhead stating: Dear BYOAC member CheffoJello & DJ_Insani are right and we piss on 50K profit. Then you didn't convince me  

Mimic, I haven't jumped in yet, but they're right. $50,000 pure profit is nothing to a company that would have the resources to pull this off and the opportunity cost of doing this would likely be high (i.e. the loss of whatever they could have been putting their resources into instead).

A small company might jump at $50k pure profit, but I have serious doubts as to a small company's ability to pull this off.

[RayB]

We should probably all just shut up and let Rick Nieman have the final word.

*edit; Jan 4: Not worth wasting Rick's time with this nonsense.

[mimic]

You and CheffoJello don't convince me at all because you and I, all are just speculating. So even if you're 99% right that leaves 1% that there is a line unused and few engineers standing around, playing MAME in their cubicles, that they wouldn't mind putting them to work for 50K profit. So unless you can produce a statement on their company letterhead stating: Dear BYOAC member CheffoJello & DJ_Insani are right and we piss on 50K profit. Then you didn't convince me  

My issue with your totally stupid attitude towards me is that one of us knows that professional people have looked into this exact issue (and even suggested that one of those people would be good to contact) and one of us couldn't be even be bothered to Google for "4:3 LCD petition" (ProTip: It's the number #1 result IF you had bothered to do ANY research).

If you are having trouble figuring out who is who ... I know how to use Google.

 

Look, it's all very simple. While slaying dragons in MAME and straining my eyesight looking at my tv pretending to be an arcade monitor, I had a "brilliant" and "original" idea surely deserving praise and admiration of present and future generations of ALL BYOAC & arcade related message boards users.
I promptly rushed to the computer to pour down my thoughts on unsuspecting world, obviously completly ignoring Google (which I'm sure at that time was broken anyway) expecting at least 4 stars of the saint's quality by my nickname within minutes of pressing [POST]. Unfortunately everyone was so jelous of my ideas that they quickly stoned it back to the stoned age and by the post #19 I admitted defeat (that no one seemed to noticed) and made the last unfortunate "innocent" 50K profit statement, and even that BYOAC "brothers" (yeah right) couldn't let me have it, oh no! But I'll defy forever, and forever will call it SPECULATION, that 50K profit is not worth it, (unless of course I'll see that statement on some large companys letterhead I mentioned somewhere above in post #38.

So long cruel thread...         

[DJ_Izumi]

See?  I told you he was just trolling now.

[saint]

Actually I thought his last post was pretty funny...

[CheffoJeffo]

I thought it was funny! 

[Dartful Dodger]

We should also start a petition for Sony and Microsoft to add the b&w/color switch that the Atari2600 had.
This way the consumers that have their PS3 hooked up to a 13 inch black and white TV can maximize their gaming experience.

[Gorotsuki]

Unfortunately the X-box 360
doesn't exactly meet
the quality benchmarks
of my old black and white TV.

[ahofle]

I find it amazing when people say things like 4:3 is "obsolete".  IMO the only use for widescreen monitors are for watching movies (or TV originally captured in widescreen) and possibly newer first person perspective games.  I personally don't watch movies on my PC, so that narrows it down even further.  The reason PC LCD monitors are all 16:9 is because it's cheaper for manufacturers (since they already make the same panels for TVs), not because it's better.  I would venture to guess that most people out there using computer monitors spend around 75-90% of their time on the computer reading email, viewing web pages, reading/writing documents, publishing, writing software, etc -- all activities which benefit from more vertical screen real estate (4:3 or even 3:4), not less.  Pick up any book or magazine and unless it's a children's book, it will not be in 16:9 viewing format.  Heck I even see people rotating 16:9 PC monitors for these same reasons (that is a bit too much vertical space for me though).  And yet people seem to be happy for the non-widescreen monitor's demise.  

Note that I have not even mentioned classic gaming which in the grand scheme of computer usage is very rare.

(Where did the 'get off my lawn' icon go?  )

[CheffoJeffo]

I was going to tell Andy to get off of my lawn ... until I realized that he was telling me that I was an exceptional user of my computer monitors (and, so, must be younger than he). And, it turns out, that I agree with most everything he wrote ... although when I browse print-friendly content, I use a rotated 16:9 monitor. 

And let me take the opportunity to say that I would *LOVE* to see a big, classic gaming-friendly LCD. Right now I have 3 modern consoles, which are attached to the big screen. I also have 5 classic consoles, which are attached to a number of different TVs throughout the house. Last year, a friend of mine gave my elder son a "gaming monitor" that he had rescued from one of the video game stores. It connect nicely to the Intellevision, the NES and the N64 that he has in his room, along with the DVD ... and the sound is pretty amazing for a monitor of that size.

Connectivity and support like that would be cool to see ... I'm just not optimistic.

[ahofle]

I guess my point hidden in that post somewhere is that 4:3 monitors are not dying because of niche markets (like classic gaming) or small market segments, but because of peoples' inability to understand and resist when they are being shoveled a buzzword technology that isn't necessarily 'better'.

I may give the 16:9 rotation a try again.  I think it would be much better if it were something closer to 16:11 or so. 

[TeutonicDarkness]

 Maybe I'm just living in the Dark Ages here.
I have never liked the Idea of Flimsy LCD's. I certainly would not want
a 4:3 LCD monitor.

I'm still running a 19CRt for over 4 years and proud of it!
I stock up on these monitors all the time.
Every time someone decides to "upgrade" if that what you want to
call it.

If the day finally arises I can build my MAME Cab you can bet it won't be
a flimsy LCD, Flatscreen,  whatchamacallit.

I will stick with the "Old Faithfull's" as long as humanly possible. 

[Blanka]

Wasn't there some stupid law in the US and A too that forbids companys to sell 4:3 flatscreens above a certain size?
Mostly CE is dominated by Brussels law, but in this case I thought the inventing nation has actually something (stupid) to say.

[DJ_Izumi]

The real advantage to CRTs is that everyone is getting rid of them.  You can pick up high end Sony Trinitrons as PC monitors or TVs for nothing or next to nothing.  I paid only $90 to get a used 27" Sony Trinitron, nice flat tube, component input.  It's beautiful and works for all my light gun games.  Of course there's the down side of having to MOVE the ---gosh-darn--- things.  I can totally understand why someone would want an LCD.  Light, does't produce as much heat, consumes less electrictity and can be a lot more flush with a wall.

[SavannahLion]

Wasn't there some stupid law in the US and A too that forbids companys to sell 4:3 flatscreens above a certain size?
Mostly CE is dominated by Brussels law, but in this case I thought the inventing nation has actually something (stupid) to say.

Not, flatscreens, CRTs. CRTs above er... 21" or 29" or something, can no longer be manufactured. Supposedly this is due to the content of lead or power consumption or some other ---That which is odiferous and causeth plants to grow--- nonsense. For the life of me I can't find the actual government code though. It's in there, my searchfu is just off today.

I do recall the law being pushed into effect by some combination of environmentalists and LCD manufacturers to artificially boost LCD sales and reduce environmental impact. Sorry to say those idiots got it all backasswards since I see more dead LCD panels in the trash in recent years than I ever have seen dead CRTs in the last twenty years.

[DJ_Izumi]

For manufacturers, LCDs are a lot cheaper to ship and stock at the warehouse or retail location.  I mean, geez, 36" CRTs are prohobitatively large, would have great difficulty even fitting the full retail box into peoples cars.  They're huge and heavy meaning less can fit in a container, or how many can fit in the store.  LCDs, even like 50 inches, the whole box can slide into almost any vehicle with the minimum of effort.  There are a LOT of things agianst CRTs as far as the typical consumer and retailer are concerned.  A 50" rear screen projection CRT could barely move around one's house due to the huge size of the assembled unit.

[Hoopz]

Let's not forget that the original coders for the arcade games in the early 80's intended for their games to be displayed on LCDs not CRTs.  At least, according to Genesim.   

But he also said Mame was wrong to emulate games the way it did and he hated people in uniforms.

[bkenobi]

A 50" rear screen projection CRT could barely move around one's house due to the huge size of the assembled unit.

Don't forget that rear projection sets are technically supposed to be serviced any time they are moved to realign things.  I don't know if that's true for LCD or DLP, but it is for all the older stuff.

[ark_ader]

Is this because you would want a larger 4:3 LCD screen for your cab, and you want to set up some kind of petition for Lucky Goldstar to produce it?

What size are we talking about here?  30 inch?  40 inch?

Maybe email these guys for a Chinese company that can manufacture a custom display?

info@review-displays.co.uk

[SavannahLion]

For manufacturers, LCDs are a lot cheaper to ship and stock at the warehouse or retail location.  I mean, geez, 36" CRTs are prohobitatively large, would have great difficulty even fitting the full retail box into peoples cars.  They're huge and heavy meaning less can fit in a container, or how many can fit in the store.  LCDs, even like 50 inches, the whole box can slide into almost any vehicle with the minimum of effort.  There are a LOT of things agianst CRTs as far as the typical consumer and retailer are concerned.  A 50" rear screen projection CRT could barely move around one's house due to the huge size of the assembled unit.

SED was supposed to solve all that.  

[saurian333]

I think the main problem with this idea is the suggestion to petition to "TV makers."

Major manufacturers, as has been duly noted, would not be interested in such a niche market.  If 4:3 LCDs were to be made, very few people NOT building arcade machines would be interested.  In fact, it seems to be the general consensus that very few who ARE are interested, or at least that the current state of things doesn't bother them much.  This means that only a smaller company or someone with the means to start up such an operation would be likely to jump on it.

Anybody who really wants to see this done would need to band together and actually do it, or find someone who's willing to.  A petition to major companies isn't going to accomplish anything.

By the way, I see the dropping of analog broadcasting in the US (and most of the world) as a factor in that.  Digital broadcasts are generally HD.  HD != 4:3.  So there is very little use for a 4:3 TV or monitor.  The average computer user either doesn't care or prefers 16:9 (actually, 16:10, generally).  The average TV user is in the same boat.  And apparently, so are approximately half of arcade builders (from the very unscientific study of opinions on this forum)...and most of the ones who really want 4:3 are purist enough to want a CRT anyway.

Like others here, I'm not saying I'm opposed to the idea, since such a unit would definitely have its applications.  I just think petitioning to major powers is not going to get it done.  You'd have much better luck approaching smaller companies, or getting a group of people together to pool resources and take the plunge themselves.

[Spaz Monkey]

Other thoughts off the top of my head.  $50k worth of profits in one year?  That's 1000 units with a $50 "mark-up" being sold in one year.  What's the sales projetion and profit the next year?

[DJ_Izumi]

Other thoughts off the top of my head.  $50k worth of profits in one year?  That's 1000 units with a $50 "mark-up" being sold in one year.  What's the sales projetion and profit the next year?

Is 'squat' a economics term?

[Blanka]

Digital broadcasts are generally HD.  HD != 4:3.  So there is very little use for a 4:3 TV or monitor.

Who watches broadcasts? Seriously. My TV use is as alive as a Mexican flu pig. Broadcasts=CRAP.

What I need a screen for
-Movies: 2.35:1
-90% of point and shoot camera photo's 4:3
-SLR camera's photo's 3:2
-typing in word: 1:SQR(2)
-websites/blogs 1:1-1:5
-skype videochat: 4:3
-console collection: 4:3
-A-team, Knightrider and other good classic shows: 4:3
-golden section: (1+SQR(5))/2:1 (nice on the eye estetically)
-e-books: 1:1.45

So WTGDF is the use of 16:9? Can anybody give a GOOD need for that complete abritrary aspect ratio for general LCD screen use?

[protokatie]

Not to derail, but speaking of "buzzword, kneejerk consumer sheep herding", has anyone seen the ads on TV for the new "Sun glasses with HD vision?".

I seriously hope that people aren't stupid enough to buy these sorts of things, but then again, everytime I say something like that I am proven yet again that I need to abandon all hope...

 

[saurian333]

Who watches broadcasts? Seriously. My TV use is as alive as a Mexican flu pig. Broadcasts=CRAP.

First off, let me agree with that.  I don't watch broadcasts.  I don't have cable, either.  The TV shows I watch are all downloaded or from DVD/etc, and most of them are older shows (not widescreen).

Furthermore, your list is quite agreeable as well.  Most of those things would be better (or at least don't benefit much) from a widescreen.

That said...

-Movies: 2.35:1

WAY better on a widescreen.  It's still got unused space at top and bottom, but far less than on a 4:3.  I have a 21" CRT and a 22" LCD monitor, and I bring out my monitor for movies, because the picture ends up being much larger, even though the overall screen area is smaller.  Also, not all movies are 2.35:1.

-90% of point and shoot camera photo's 4:3
-SLR camera's photo's 3:2
-typing in word: 1:SQR(2)
-websites/blogs 1:1-1:5
-skype videochat: 4:3
...
-e-books: 1:1.45

Not common TV applications.  But I see your point.  I would like to point out that I rotate my widescreen at work 90 degrees quite often for e-books, and it's much better if you're viewing one page at a time.

-console collection: 4:3
...
-A-team, Knightrider and other good classic shows: 4:3

Agreed.  No benefit from widescreen.

-golden section: (1+SQR(5))/2:1 (nice on the eye estetically)

LOL...good one.
Actually, I have to point out that the golden ratio equates to about 1.61, which is rather close to 16:9 (1.77).

So WTGDF is the use of 16:9? Can anybody give a GOOD need for that complete abritrary aspect ratio for general LCD screen use?

Only three off the top of my head:
- Viewing 2 "letter-sized" pages at once (leaves a little extra space, which is usually taken up by other screen elements like scrollbars)
- Modern TV shows (HDTV, as I mentioned, is 16:9...and there are few good, current shows, believe it or not)
- Modern video games (also HD resolution)

The last two go back to my original point, as they are probably the most common uses for a TV among average consumers.  They are the consumer needs driving manufacturers' decisions.

Putting it back into this forum's perspective...for many modern arcade games, widescreen is important.  For most classic arcade gaming, 4:3 is preferable.  I'm not arguing with that at all.

[saurian333]

Not to derail, but speaking of "buzzword, kneejerk consumer sheep herding", has anyone seen the ads on TV for the new "Sun glasses with HD vision?".

No, I had to look that one up...

  

One of the stupidest things I've ever seen. 

[Blanka]

Modern video games (also HD resolution)

The PC versions show that real modern games don't give ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- about the resolution. They are resolution independant. I like COD on my pivotted widescreen. I always shoot the bad guys from the roofs and towers first. And the N64 emulator shows that Mario Kart 64 renders perfectly at 1600x1200

[saurian333]

Modern video games (also HD resolution)

The PC versions show that real modern games don't give ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- about the resolution. They are resolution independant. I like COD on my pivotted widescreen. I always shoot the bad guys from the roofs and towers first. And the N64 emulator shows that Mario Kart 64 renders perfectly at 1600x1200

I guess I meant to say "ratio" again, didn't actually mean "resolution."  I also meant current-generation consoles, specifically.  I should have specified that.  You're absolutely right about PC games; different animal, though.

As long as the topic of resolution has come up, I have to say that it does make a difference on some games.  I can play PS3 games on my monitor, but not usually on the TV.  While the PS3 will adjust to the TV's AR and resolution, certain elements (usually HUDs, speedometers, etc.) are impossible to read, sometimes rendering a game unplayable (COD4 being one of them).  They've put too much detail into the newer games to be able to view them properly at 640x480.

That sort of brings us back to how some people feel about LCDs for their classic games.  They're generally higher-res than arcade monitors or TVs, and provide a much clearer, crisper image.  Some people like that, and others like the old-school, traditional feel.

But again, I was actually referring to HD aspect ratio; "resolution" was a slip of the tongue (so to speak), and is actually neither here nor there in this discussion.

[DJ_Izumi]

I personally very much like 16:9 and similar wide screen resolutions.  I have nothing agianst them.  The reason I have big old CRTs is cost and support of my light guns.  When your do gaming events and you want more TVs of your own to bring, it's a lot more economical to pick up used high end CRTs for less than $100.  Of course then you're trying to weasel a 99lb 27" Sony Trinitron out of the back of a sedan and get it into a university building or hotel, you're suddenly grunting out "I SWEAR TO GOD, MY NEXT TV WILL BE LCD."

And honestly, if so many movies have to be shown letter boxed on a 4:3 screen, is some pillar boxing on a 16:9 screen for old games and TV shows -really- so bad?

[Blanka]

Most movies are letterboxed on 16:9 too.
The thing is mainly wether you consume media, or interact with it. If it's just consuming TV and HD games, 16:9 is fine. If those are just a small part of your digital lifestyle, 16:9 makes much less sense. I think 3:2 would be closest to your vision working-in-detail part. 16:10 screens work very good for me, and sometimes I turn them vertical for those typing and reading days. Reading text on 16:9 screens stinks.

[RayB]

Not to derail, but speaking of "buzzword, kneejerk consumer sheep herding", has anyone seen the ads on TV for the new "Sun glasses with HD vision?".

In the 1990's the very same glasses were called "Blue Blockers".

Lasik or some other laser eye surgery chain also advertises "HD vision".

[Malenko]

Gorotsuki posted 2 haikus, this thread is over.

[protokatie]

Not to derail, but speaking of "buzzword, kneejerk consumer sheep herding", has anyone seen the ads on TV for the new "Sun glasses with HD vision?".

In the 1990's the very same glasses were called "Blue Blockers".

Lasik or some other laser eye surgery chain also advertises "HD vision".

I remember those glasses when I was a teen, I had the imitation ones that I got for like 3 dollars. They weren't worth shizzle.
As per the lasik thing, atleast it makes some sense, unless they blind you in the process...

[saurian333]

Gorotsuki posted 2 haikus, this thread is over.

 

Not to nitpick, but they weren't haiku.  Still made me laugh, though.

[SavannahLion]

Not to derail, but speaking of "buzzword, kneejerk consumer sheep herding", has anyone seen the ads on TV for the new "Sun glasses with HD vision?".

In the 1990's the very same glasses were called "Blue Blockers".

Lasik or some other laser eye surgery chain also advertises "HD vision".

Thank you. I have now reached the point in my life that any one inaccurately using the letters, "HD," in any sentence not properly describing 720/1080/p/i resolutions or some legacy computer component needs to be dragged out and ---smurfing--- shot in a public square on live television.

This goes right up there with i-anything in the late 90's, HiFi anything from the 80's and any other so-called "technical" term a bunch of marketing ---punks--- decided to stuff down our throats. Probably the same ---uvulas--- that came up with this ---smurf-poop--- list. Seriously, how the ---fudgesicle--- is, "there's an app for that," overused for a decade? Retarded  .






I feel better now that I got that off my shoulders.

[protokatie]

Hey, everyone! Let's group hug SL and then get into a circle and sing songs around him!

Far out!