Digital Display Dilemma

Believe it or not, you can actually take a ruler to the screen, your display is not square. Both dimensions are not equal they are proportioned 4:3 to match the older broadcast standard. It is closer to being square than current widescreen monitors, which have only increased the viewable difference in size between portrait and landscape images.

If you maintain the relative physical sizes of every photo in an arbitrary collection, there is no way to guarantee that all photos will make maximum use of the display. In particular, there will always be the possibility that some photos will need to be shown with both horizontal and vertical "black bars".

E.g., if I crop off half of the width and half of the height of a photo, but leave the DPI ("suggested mapping of pixel counts to physical size") alone, then when I display a collection containing the original and modified copies of the photo, the modified one will use neither the full width nor the full height of the screen.

Sal R said:

Thank you, thank you! I knew someone would get it.

Click to expand...

we all got it , but are far from overwhelmed by it

Sal R said:

Current screen proportions are optimized for video and computer applications, not photographs.

They are mult-purpose devices that allow us to view our images but not in the same proportions regardless of their orientation.

Click to expand...

exactly because we use them for multiple purposes not just for viewing photographs

and why would I bother buying a dedicated monitor just for photos when i can not control how others view them when sharing

mostly we use monitors in photography for editing and cataloguing I am not bothered if certain ratios are not presented perfectly because its just a preview of the final output

if i was really that bothered then there are already digital photo frames at 4;3 on the market

Both views are not smaller. On a square screen both orientations are the same size. Landscape photos are mostly right on a 16:9 screen, they are masked left and right because of the difference between screen and image aspect ratios. Portrait images are severely masked on widescreen displays and only have relatively minor masking on square screens ,while maintaining consistent image size between image orientations.

I was not granted a patent for a square screen, that would be foolish and the patent office is not foolish. My patent is for the method of organizing and displaying photographs of different aspect ratios and orientations on a square display while maintaining consistent image size.

No matter the screen saver used,if the canvas/screen is oblong and the image is oblong and rotates in 90 degree increments,one orientation must be downsized to fit the screen.
I don't want or need a square sensor. I want a screen that will accommodate both orientations in both directions without altering the size of either, regardless if the sensor's aspect ratio.
There is less wasted space for photos on a square screen than on a rectangular screen of comparable size.

As long as the proportions of the screen and image sensors are different some masking is required. Less masking is required for photos on a square screen than on a rectangular one. Place the largest possible portrait oriented image on your computer monitor and look at the amount of masking required. Place the same image on a square screen and the masking is drastically reduced.
Consistent image sizing for both possible orientations is the goal. Masking of images with different aspect ratios than the screen is always necessary. The idea is to minimize masking an maximize image size in either direction.

Unfortunately it sounds like a solution looking for a problem.

I understand that we use monitors as multi-purpose devices but just because a Swiss army knife has a corkscrew doesn't mean that it can do a better job than a wine bottle opener designed specifically for that purpose. I have no problem with current monitors, I have been a digital photo restoration artist for 18 years and spend a lot of time in Photoshop. I appreciate the extra working space that current displays offer for tools, menus etc. but when I view a slideshow of my finished work, a lot of which is on portrait oriented images, it is a little disappointing to see scaled down versions with huge swatches of wasted space on my screen. Same goes for my own personal photographs. It does not matter if the final output is a print that can be physically rotated for proper viewing but, prints are no longer the primary viewing method anymore.

Since I have to backup all of my work anyway, whether business or personal, I would much rather have the option to view all of my images in the same size even if it takes another device to do it. Not all readers feel compelled to purchase a Kindle even though it offers a smaller, glare free, longer battery life etc. display than an iPad but serious readers seem to prefer them. It does not seem unreasonable to think that a photographer would consider a separate device that provides more consistent image treatment than current devices. I would not watch movies or edit photos on a square screened device but I certainly would rather view my photos on one.

Note that if you purchase a 4:3 digital photo frame you will still have a size discrepancy between differently oriented images, just not as drastic as on a 16:9 display. The same is true when viewing multiple images using the full screen of a rectangular display. Any image that does not match the screen orientation must be smaller than images that do match. Do not confuse the layout of multiple photos on an image editing program which are arranged on a screen within the screen and can be scrolled through with no regard for wasted space because the images do not encompass the entire screen.

Asymmetrical images cannot be rotated on an asymmetrical screen without reducing the image size of one orientation and asymmetrical screens cannot be divided into symmetrical segments. Only a symmetrical square screen can allow an asymmetrical image to rotate freely without resizing the image Only a symmetrical square screen can be divided into symmetrical grids to allow multiple images to rotate freely without resizing the images.

Square screens may not be your cup of tea but, they offer the only alternative if the goal is to achieve consistent image sizing and placement of photographic images.

The problem is that photographers have become accustomed to viewing photos of the wedding party full sized and portraits of the bride half sized. As long as they can see the entire image they don't care about the size difference. They don't care that differently sized images is unnatural to a photographer who grew up with film and prints. They are content to steer their way through a slideshow on a smartphone or tablet if they want to see the largest size of all of their images. They don't care that their computer monitors shortchange all of their vertical images.
I CARE!

Sal R said:

Only a symmetrical square screen can be divided into symmetrical grids to allow multiple images to rotate freely without resizing the images.

Click to expand...

Now you're being silly. You can't tile a rectangular screen space with squares?

So if I have a 2560 x 1440 pixel screen, I can't partition it into a 16 by 9 grid of 160 pixel by 160 pixel squares? Or a 3 by 2 grid of 720 pixel squares (with some unused space)?

Brides aren't going to buy a square monitor to look at the photos, and all smart phones are capable of either orientation.

Sure you can but, in addition to the unused space that naturally occurs around images within the squares you will have additional unused space that contains no image information. You cannot divide a rectangle completely into squares without creating unnecessary wasted space. Using a square divided completely into 4, 9, 16, 36 or 144 squares is the only way to minimize wasted screen space.

If a bride had both types of monitors to choose from to view her photos, which one would she choose? One that she had to rotate to view a larger portrait of herself or one that she could just watch with no need to physically manipulate the screen.
With side by side monitors which one would you prefer to view a slideshow on?
If you backed up your images on a square screened device and only wanted to view the images would you prefer your computer monitors display with different image sizes or the square device with same sized images?

Sal R said:

You cannot divide a rectangle completely into squares without creating unnecessary wasted space.

Click to expand...

Cannot? For any rectangle size and any tile size?

I just gave a specific example of how, for one popular resolution, you can. A 16 x 9 grid of 160 x 160 pixel squares will completely cover a 2560 x 1440 pixel area.

Sal R said:

If a bride had both types of monitors to choose from to view her photos, which one would she choose? One that she had to rotate to view a larger portrait of herself or one that she could just watch with no need to physically manipulate the screen.
With side by side monitors which one would you prefer to view a slideshow on?
If you backed up your images on a square screened device and only wanted to view the images would you prefer your computer monitors display with different image sizes or the square device with same sized images?

Click to expand...

You are asking the wrong person, you must ask the brides mother because she is the one picking up the bill. Effectively you would need to organize a franchise to outfit all wedding photographers with square display panels.

That brings me to another question, have you already contacted the manufacturers of display panels to be able to estimate the cost of manufacturing ? And do you already have a commitment of graphic adapter manufacturers to provide graphic cards and drivers to for square display panels ? Has Apple already shown interest, would be very important because many professional (like wedding) photographers use Apple equipment, a square ipad could be revolutionary.

I stand corrected. You CAN get ONE arrangement of 144 squares with equal size images inside on a rectangular screen. ONLY ONE. The square offers 6 choices of 1, 4, 9, 16, 36, and 144 sets of squares. Most importantly is the 1, which allows single images to be displayed in their largest size on the screen in either orientation on the square screen but not on a Rectangular screen.

You are so right about the bride's mother. I was just using weddings as an example of practical portrait/landscape images. I actually feel that anyone who takes photography seriously would benefit from the device. I am just tired of photographers having to view their images on screens that are obviously designed primarily for video and forced into service as the only available photo viewing format. If displays were designed for photographers they surely would not discriminate between images with different compositions. The subject determines the compositional choice, the display should be able to accommodate both options without compromising the image size of one over the other. Videographers shoot in the horizontal plane only, photographers shoot in both horizontal and vertical planes which is not taken into consideration by current rectangular designs.

I have just begun my search for manufactures since my patent just issued recently. Typically this will be a hard nut to crack since they have their own engineers and product development staffs and don't want pay licensing fees if they can avoid it. I imagine the costs would be somewhere between that of a tablet computer and a digital photo frame depending on the features offered. The technology to do all that is needed is already contained in these devices it just needs to be applied to my design for apportioning the screen, positioning the images within the selected template, properly orienting the images and resizing them to fit the selected template.

I was hoping for a positive response from photographers, who I expected to be more receptive to the idea of viewing their photographs same-sized irrespective of orientation, but the advantages seem to elude the majority of respondents on this site. I could almost understand the patent examiner being skeptical but after countless rebuttals of a considerable amount of prior art over a 4 year period I was able to prove that my design was in fact different from all others. I never thought I would have such a time convincing fellow photographers of its worth.

Live and learn. I believed the quote from Steve Jobs that read, "People don't know what they want until you show it to them." Like a fool I thought that was all I'd have to do once I got over the patent hurdle. Maybe not.

I still have two CRT computer monitors, and measuring them with a tape measure confirms that the display area is very close to 4:3. Yes, the h-sync/v-sync and related adjustments can be used to alter this, but my recollection is that a square appeared as a square. So the stated resolution of CRTs can be used to compute the aspect ratio, at least to my satisfaction.

Earlier in this thread there was a link provided to an LG monitor, model E1910S. It is an LCD with a resolution of 1280x1024. That is exactly 5:4. Here is the math:

• 5 x 256 = 1280 (horizontal)
• 4 x 256 = 1024 (vertical)

Math. It is not square, nor is it 4:3. It is 5:4.

ernstbk said:

http://www.eizoglobal.com/products/flexscan/ev2730q/

Click to expand...

Ta da!

Very interesting. Was produced after my patent was filed and does not seem to have provisions for arranging multiple aspect ratio/oriented images in the same size but certainly shows individual images on a square screen. Notice how much more natural that seems.
Thanks for forwarding the link.