Digital Display Dilemma

[Sal R]

Several years ago I started a thread suggesting that a square display offered a better alternative for viewing photographs than current display designs. At the time I had a patent pending on the design and my idea was, mostly, dismissed by the readers of DP review as rubbish. Oddly the majority of respondents seemed perfectly content with the status quo despite the fact that vertical/portrait images occupy less than half of a typical widescreen computer monitor. I was, and still am, perplexed that more photographers did not see my design as a more aesthetically pleasing alternative for viewing their images. How could bookworms demand and receive e-readers to improve their reading experience and shutterbugs not demand a standalone photo-specific viewing device that improved the presentation of their work?

I have since been granted U.S. patent number 9,396,518 for "A System of Organizing Digital Images" to solve the longstanding problem of differing image sizes between portrait and landscape oriented images on rectangular displays. Since the patent itself is not exactly light reading, though it can be searched for by number on the USPTO website, I offer the following brief description of the invention.

On a square 1:1 display screen, the image size of a photograph is determined by the image aspect ratio (4:3 3:2 or 1:1) and the size of the screen. For example: A 12"X12" screen can display a 9X12" 4:3, 8X12" 3:2 or a 12X12" 1:1 image, in either orientation. For multiple image display, the screen is divided into grids and images are scaled down to fit within individual grids of 4, 9, 16, 36 or 144 images. Because of the extra headroom available to images on a square versus rectangular shape, all images can be displayed in the same size, irrespective of their orientation. A mixture of aspect ratios is easily accommodated and a square display, having the same screen area as a comparable rectangular display, offers a more efficient use of the screen for photographs.

I am aware that the limitations of a rectangular display can be largely overcome by rotating a portable device but, I do not believe that viewing a slideshow should be an aerobic activity.

Now that I am in a position to license my patent, I am seeking a consensus on the desirability of my invention by photographers. The only way this device will ever make it to market is if there is a measurable demand from the photographic community.

My invention is not intended to, nor could it ever, replace current display designs. The two designs are mutually exclusive. Neither can satisfactorily perform the tasks of the other. Its sole purpose is to offer a more pleasing photographic viewing alternative. Just add WiFi, bluetooth, cloud access, etc. and you have a digital photo album with more consistent image sizing and arrangements than are possible on any current device.

 

[MediaArchivist]

I'm not sure I understand. Is this a computer display, that would be used in place of a "traditional" monitor? A square monitor?

Or is this a square picture e-frame?

Or is this software that will display multiple photos in a certain pattern?

 

[AmbleYonder]

already on the market http://instaframeshop.com/

 

[Sal R]

This is a design for a standalone photo display in the style of a tablet, digital photo frame, etc. that allows same-sized portrait and landscape images to be viewed in succession, ie. slideshow. It also allows multiple same-sized images to be displayed within a selection of 4, 9, 16, 36 or 144 images. Could be used as a photo backup device with a better viewing arrangement and include any other options now available on current display devices. Essentially a separate digital photo album. Imagine viewing a slideshow where your vertical images are not half the size of their horizontal counterparts or multiple image arrangements where all images are the same size per aspect ratio and properly oriented. The key is the use of a square display and the method used to segment it into smaller squares for a selection of different image quantities. Images in the primary photo aspect ratios of 4:3, 3:2, and 1:1 can all rotate freely within a 1:1 square of any size by fitting the longest side of the image within the square and centering it either left to right for portraits or top to bottom for landscapes.

 

[Sal R]

I checked out your link and the instaframe is designed only for square instagram style photos. There are no provisions for viewing full frame 4:3/3:2 images, only cropped versions of those aspect ratios. In fact, to do so would probably infringe on my patent, but I don't want to go there. Thanks for the info though!

 

[Peter Del]

Many years ago, when digital picture frames were popular, I suggested to the manufactures (at photographic shows) that they produce square ones, so that portrait and landscape photos would be the same size - they all dismissed my proposals!

Peter Del

 

[Sal R]

Peter, Now you see what I am up against and why I am trying to gather support for the idea. Manufacturers won't budge unless they can be assured of turning a profit. It actually makes more sense to use a square screen for photos. I have worked out the design in my patent application to take full advantage of the square to include how to manage multiple thumbnail arrangements while maintaining the size integrity of both orientations and accommodating all three primary photographic aspect ratios. Obviously the most desirable arrangement is individual images in their largest size in slideshow mode.

 

[Glen Barrington]

I just don't see this as something I would care strongly about in the abstract. Maybe if there was a working prototype that I could see in person I'd think differently.

But right now, it's all hypothetical to me and it doesn't seem like it is something I could naturally gravitate to without some strong evidence. I do wish you luck, however.

--
I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/

 

[MediaArchivist]

OK, I think I understand. I think that might be useful for people with a more or less even distribution of photos they want displayed. My initial thoughts on marketing:

Who would want it are people with:

• Even mixture of portrait and landscape (and square) images
• Single display per room (or observation area, eg hallway or reception area)
• Larger displays (where a collage has less impact on resolution)

Less likely are people with:

• Large discrepancy in orientation (eg 96% portrait)
• Ability for multiple displays (one landscape, one portrait)

 

[fmian]

Sounds like a whole lot of overengineering and overthought for limited appeal.

Why don't you just put a matte board with a cutout over the top of an existing screen, and then use drivers/software to limit display to that portion of the screen?

Instead of buying a new screen you could just pop on the matte board with whatever ratio you want. You could even have star or heart shaped screens, among other patterns.

Simple $1 solution from the days when people used to.. you know.. print and frame their photos..

--
Shoot life. Shoot film.
IG: @primephotographysydney

 

[Sal R]

I don't see image distribution as a factor. Consider a 19.5 inch diagonal screen which is 9X16" or 144 sq inch surface area and a 12X12" screen with a 144 sq inch area. The best case scenario for a horizontal 4:3 image on the rectangular screen is that it uses 75% of the screen because of the difference between the screen and image ratios. On the square 1:1 screen the same 4:3 image occupies 75% of the screen as well, so there is no difference. On the other hand, a 4:3 vertical image on the rectangular screen uses only 42% of the screen while the same 4:3 image on the square utilizes the same 75% of the screen as the horizontal image. The figures for 3:2 images are similarly skewed while 1:1 images on the rectangular screen use only 56% of the screen as opposed to 100% on the square. If there is no difference in screen usage for landscape images and a huge difference in screen usage for portrait images, what is there to lose? If any of your compositions are shot vertically you can only gain by using a square display.

Video display proportions have always been determined by the prevailing video broadcast standard of the time, first 4:3 and now 16:9. Photographic display has always been secondary, hence the downsizing of images that don't match the screen orientation to fit on the screen. Shouldn't the screen conform to the image and not the other way around? Photography is a visual art yet we accept what the manufacturers offer us without complaint.

 

[WatsonPhoto]

Absolutely zero photographic interest in this. This is not where display technology is going. Look at where display mediums are going. They are going big, very big. 1:1 will be irrelevant.

 

[Sal R]

Why would anyone reduce the size of a display with a matt board instead of trying to get more use out of the most available screen space? That would be like telling an avid reader to throw away his Kindle and buy a paperback if the wants something lighter and easier to read than his tablet. I think we are past that point technologically.

I don't know that using a square display is over engineering as much as it is engineering with a purpose. With the money I have invested in my photo equipment it seems a shame to have to view some of my images smaller than others if it can be avoided. If it takes a different device than what is currently available, so be it. Can you imagine going to pick up a roll of developed film and prints only to find that all of your portrait oriented images are half sized? That is exactly what photographers have been accepting since the inception of digital photography 40 years ago.

 

[Sal R]

No matter how big displays get, half of your compositional choices as a photographer will still be half the size as the other. That doesn't bother you?

 

[WatsonPhoto]

The future is wall sized display mediums. Whether an image is 1:1, 16:9, 4:3 or 3:2 will be irrelevant. Even MS Word can display two vertical letter size images on my display. I certainly wouldn't pay extra for this function.

 

[Mark B.]

No disrespect to your patent, but it's just a patent and not a finished product. I still do not see any mass appeal at all for such a display except as maybe a niche product for professional photographers. Our eyes are side by side and we see the world as a panorama. A square display will look like viewing through a tunnel.

Mark

 

[Sal R]

In this particular case the size of the display doesn't matter. The bigger the screen the more pronounced the problem of different image sizes for differently oriented images appears. You cannot rotate a 4:3 image from landscape to portrait on a 16:9 display without downsizing one orientation of the image to fit on the screen. A larger screen does not change the fact that one orientation will use 75% of the screen and the other will use only 42% of the screen.

 

[WatsonPhoto]

I fully agree with Mark. A 1:1 display device is a niche product. Enzo and LG already have 1:1 display devices. Other 1:1 display devices are available in the commercial signage displays for business.

A Chinese manufacturer could easily make a cheap 1:1 digital photo frame but the market and appeal is very limited.

 

[Sal R]

Honestly, you don't see any advantage to viewing a slideshow of your images, as large as possible on the screen with same sized portrait and landscape images? That doesn't appeal to you in the least? You would prefer to continue to view both orientations in different sizes? You see it as a niche product for professionals and I see it as a household item that offers a more appealing slideshow presentation of your photographs. A digital photo album that offers more consistency in image size and placement. Current displays are designed for videographers not photographers.

 

[Sal R]

Don't you understand? No one can make it without my permission. I have a utility patent on a square display device that gives detailed instructions on how the display is to be utilized, how it is to be divided to accommodate different quantities of images of different aspect ratios, how to electronically resize and place the images properly oriented and same sized on the display. There is no square viewer on the market because the patent was just issued in July, and because no one in forty years has ever bothered to solve the image size inconsistency problem. Call me old fashioned but, If I take two photos with the same camera, one portrait and one landscape, I expect to be able to view them in the same size. I can do that in any old photo album on my shelf. Remember when people had photo albums. Remember when all you had to do was rotate the print properly and put it in an album. Why can't we do the same thing electronically with all of the technology available to us?