Digital Display Dilemma

[jrtrent]

If you shoot either 4:3 or 3:2, which accounts for the vast majority of still photographs,and shoot both portrait and landscape images, there will necessarily be some wasted screen space.

Right. That's why I never shoot in portrait orientation. Early on I stopped doing it with 35mm slide film, too, because I didn't like the wasted screen space.

The reason you find 16:9 screens so unsatisfying is that they waste more space and restrict portrait image size because of the reduced height to width ratio of the screen.

I wasn't clear enough. It's not the 16:9 screen itself that is unsatisfying, it's trying to compose an image with the 16:9 aspect ratio. It's just a little too wide for me to easily find a good composition. I find 4:3 the easiest ratio to work with, but 3:2 and 1:1 aren't too far behind.

These images on a square screen having the same screen area as the 16:9 are displayed same size and fill the screen in either direction.

No, they don't fill a square screen in any direction; there is always wasted space above and below for horizontals and to each side for verticals. Only a square format image will fill a square screen, but I would definitely prefer that over the 16:9 I'm using now.

The height of a landscape or width of a portrait image is determined by the image's aspect ratio, wider for 4:3 and narrower for 3:2 images. There is masking on the square but much less than on the widescreen display, particularly for portrait images.

True, and for people with an existing set of images taken both horizontally and vertically, I see an advantage to having a square screen.

Actually, the only totally wasted space not used by either orientation is the 4 corners. The rest of the screen is used depending on the orientation of the image being displayed. Of course if you shoot or crop to 1:1 the entire screen is used.

Yes! The way it should be!!

I prefer 4:3 or 3:2 for compositional purposes but miss being able to view all images same sized, which is not possible on a widescreen display.

Well, it is possible, but only by reducing the size of your landscape-oriented pictures to a width no greater than your screen height. When I digitized some of my dad's old slides, many of which were in portrait orientation, I did exactly that so I could see all images the same size. Now there we're talkin' some wasted screen area!

 

[AmbleYonder]

I see 1:1 full screen images as impressive and an option but question it being a particularly "creative" option.

then i am obviously more creatively minded than you in regards to on screen presentation then

Photo paper and prints are uniformally rectangular, as are most picture frames, image sensors, film, paintings in galleries and museums, even medium format square negatives were usually cropped to produce standard rectangular prints. Rectangular photos offer more creative compositions

hence why we have standardised rectangular displays and not square .

your not doing very well here are you .

 

[Ron Poelman]

Who knows in decades or so the paradigm might shift so the landscape "portraits" might become the norm.
--

Unlikely,
unless we start viewing our big screens laying on our sides on the settee,
Roman banquet style.
Oh wait !

Seriously, one of these days they'll get 3D projection right
and all format bets are off.

 

[Sal R]

If I were a videographer I would be perfectly content with current displays but, I am a photographer. I am more concerned about how my images are presented. The fact that displays and images are both rectangular is immaterial if the image orientation doesn't match the screen orientation. If you are content to "steer" your way through a slideshow to maintain consistent image size, more power to you. I prefer watching a slideshow to participating in one. It should not be an aerobic exercise.
We will never see eye to eye on this so we are done.

 

[AmbleYonder]

If I were a videographer I would be perfectly content with current displays but, I am a photographer. I am more concerned about how my images are presented

you are failing to see the bigger picture

you and a couple of people crammed around a screen is hardly a professional presentation is it . so until there is a 1:1 projector on the market its a dead end for professional slideshow presentation.