So I'm browsing AliExpress and stumble upon the control board for the Photon M3. 

Additionally, the Photon M3 screen was still available for the £54 price, and with more quanitities than 1 or 2.

So I start thinking of what could have been when using the Photon M3 screen. It's still my first choice of screen, partially because it's got the same length as the height of the M3 Max's screen. I dig around for any STL that isn't the #SecSavr Skyrise [gd0092] frame, since I designed that specifically for a CR10 build area. Thus, the largest part I know of is a side section for the #SpecSpotlights [gd0024]. 

Wait. It... fits?!

Speed Calculations

But surely, FDM printers like the Sublime will still be faster when it comes to draft prints, so there's a need still.

Assuming 3 * 1.5s exposure for a 120um layer thickness and 
3 seconds to change resin whilst cleaning the layer:    
160 /(3600/7.5 * 0.12) = 2.7778 
.78 * 60 = 46.8 minutes
Time: 2h 47m.

 *starts slicing with the CR10 0.8mm nozzle + 0.5mm layer height profile*

Ok so I just have to beat 2h 47m and the SecSavr Sublime isn't redundan--

Speeds?

Ok those might be a tad slow, maybe? Ok what if the change takes 6 seconds and not 3?

160 /(3600/10.5 * 0.12) = 3.8889 

Still sub 4 hours!! 

Ok. TestBox Profile Me. 0.8mm nozzle, 0.5mm layer height, 240mm/s everywhere, 16K print acceleration and 20K travel acceleration, 8% double-lined infill.

Phew. Wait. The height is 131mm not 160mm.

131/(3600/10.5 * 0.12) = 3.184 
.184 * 60 = 11.04
Time: 3h 11m 

 It's... a tie? 

And I need to be printing at flow rates never before seen in industry for that. I think Vez (VzBot creator) just barely got that with his fancy brass hotend. And then 16k acceleration with motion componenets as heavy as seen in the Sublime might produce some strong vibrations to the rest of the room ( but the motors are low impedance enough and components stiff enough that a quality print might still be possible).

[E1: 18th July]  I didn't notice that Cura didn't save the new nozzle size when I changed it in settings.

Even with more realistic flow rates of 120mm/s and 9K acceleration isn't that much of a time penalty:

It's still quite a shame that print speeds and accelerations more-or-less cut in half are only a 20ish minute difference apart. 

Seems that most of the gains are in acceleration anyway.

[E1 End]

Doesn't look like the 0.1mm layers would even need the 5 axis ironing step like for a 0.5mm FDM print. 

Looking at the 8.9" screen again

8.9^2 / 6.6^2 = 1.8184 
108 * 1.8 = 194.4 W source to match 108W COB

Now, writing this log, I realise that the screen sizes aren't square so the area difference is less than this. Anyway, I went off to look for that kind of power since the one at the store was only 120W.

Longgggg story short (like 5+ hours), anything with a power over this one cost a significant amount more, with some over £400.

The 7.6" 4K screen

At 4:53 am, I asked this:

The seller said that the 6.6" COB was the best option for what they had. I can confirm, since one of the options was this beast:

Some time later, the listings were up and the total cost was only £8.60 more than the 6.6" setup.

Truly innovative stuff. Also, the seller sent me an image of the COB height:

Looks to be under 45mm.