Digital Display Dilemma

[Mark Blauhoefer]

I haven't read the whole thread so don't know if it's been commented on, or if it's available. When Xerox invited Steve Jobs to investigate some of their tech one thing was a rotatable display. It was a CRT because it's all there was in the eighties, but the vertical rotation was for seeing a page full screen as it would be printed.

As I say I'm not sure if it was mass manufactured, and I don't have time to check right now

 

[fmian]

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?

I don't know, you're the one who is trying to get people to buy an entirely new screen which is smaller in width than the current screen they have. If the image is not square you are wasting screen space with your idea.

Matte board = $1
New screen = $100+

Matte board doesn't have to be smaller. It can be the same size as the existing screen and present just a nice looking border. The user has the option to fit whatever shape/size $1 matte they want. Whatever color that want. If they want it with pink shiny sparkles for their 4 year old childs birthday they can do that. Can they do that with your patent?

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.

It's nothing like that at all. You are seeing things from an extremely limited scope because someone has made you realise that a $1 idea from 100 years ago is far better than your 'technological' patent.

I don't know that using a square display is over engineering

It is when other options that can achieve the same perceived result to the end user have existed for 100+ years.

as much as it is engineering with a purpose.

A very limited 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.

Yet you expect people to spend even more money on something that can be achieved with a $1 piece of cardboard and changing a few settings in software??

If it takes a different device than what is currently available, so be it.

It doesn't take a different device, as much as you want to insist that it does.

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?

I used to work in a photo lab and this is what novice clients used to ask us about every now and then, and they would realise their lapse in logic when we pointed out the solution to them..

That is exactly what photographers have been accepting since the inception of digital photography 40 years ago.

And now they have to accept that your square screen idea will cost them more money and only allow them to use a portion of the screen for any images that aren't 1:1.


It's even more limiting than the 'problem' you are trying to solve.. if it can be called a problem at all.

Good luck with your patent, but I honestly don't think it will go anywhere.

 

[Ron Poelman]

Then guarantee both "waste" pixels.
= Profit ?


At least a landscape screen is right most of the time.


I find it a little hard to believe you were granted a patent
on something that has been available in just about every screen-saver ever.



I guess wishing you good luck waiting for square sensors is in order.

 

[Tom_N]

Don't you understand? No one can make it without my permission.

I am not a lawyer, so take the following with a grain of salt.

The U.S. Patent Office is not supposed to grant patents on ideas that would be obvious to anyone reasonably skilled in the art, or for which there is prior art. When they do grant patents under inappropriate circumstances, it is possible for people or companies to mount challenges and seek to have inappropriately-issued patents invalidated.

The idea of a display with a 1:1 aspect ratio would be obvious to many photographers, mathematicians, and engineers. In fact, there are already several square displays on the market.

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.

Patent claims usually start with broad, sweeping categories, and then get narrower and narrower as the text goes on. The scope of the patent is typically as narrow as all of the text combined. So, you're saying that the patented invention specifically involves an electronic (custom chip?) implementation of

assume a scaling ratio of 100% (no downsizing);
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) { determine the contribution of photo to the scaling ratio; }

Again, take this with a grain of salt, but it sounds like this patent might not even cover the combination of a computer (running a program that does the resizing calculation) and a separate 1:1 display.

 

[Sal R]

Photographs use a larger portion of a square screen then they do on a rectangular screen of the same area.

Horizontal 4:3 images on 16:9 Rectangular screen are masked on either side using 75 percent of screen, same as on on a square screen only masking is top and bottom.

Vertical 4:3 images on a 16:9 screen use only 42 percent while on a square they use 75 percent of the screen.

The square screen may be smaller in width but is still wide enough to contain the largest dimension of a rectangular image. The square screen is higher than a rectangular screen, allowing it to accommodate the largest dimension in the vertical direction as well.

Thanks for your good, though skeptical, wishes!

 

[Dan Marchant]

To answer your question, I would have zero interest in such a device. In all my years taking photos I have never once heard anyone complain that the screen they were using doesn't display some of their images correctly. It is such a non-problem that it doesn't even qualify as being a 1st world problem.

I also believe that the majority of people would actively choose a rectangular device over a square one for the simple reason that rectangular devices feel "right".....
1. Human vision isn't square. We see in widescreen.
2. Probably because of point 1 we have always naturally gravitated towards the rectangular. From Papyrus to Tapestry to Book to Painting to Screen, we naturally choose rectangular for the vast majority of what we do.

 

[Sal R]

Believe me, after four years of back and fourth with the patent office I know more about prior art and non-obviousness than I ever thought I'd know and it has been an expensive lesson. I am quite confident that my invention meets all of the requirements. It was granted with 22 claims approved. If you can find a device that treats all photographs equally regardless of orientation and does so more efficiently than my design you are better than my rather stubborn examiner whose prior art references nearly wore me out. Fortunately all of the prior art cited was insufficient to overcome my assertions. My patent depends on a square screen to accomplish its goals, but a square screen without the supporting design info is just a square display. Maybe the thought of another digital device is off putting to some but, I believe the improved view possible on a square display will appeal to discriminating photographers.

Thanks for the comments.

 

[Sal R]

Square versus Rectangular displays for photographic images.

I can't believe that photographers prefer images like the single vertical image above on the rectangular screen as opposed to the same image on the square. Or multi-images on a rectangular screen with its smaller vertical images and associated wasted space around them instead of equally sized images with minimal wasted screen. And the much smaller square image on the rectangular screen as opposed to the full screen alternative on the square.

I guess to each his own. Thanks for your input.

 

[KLO82]

I can see the merit of your idea/ patent. Infact I have always felt that when viewing photos at portrait orientation, I have to reduce the "paper size" to fit it on the screen, whereas at landscape orientation I can see the full sized image. When we print two images (one landscape and one portrait orientation) on 12x8 inch papers, we do not suddenly make the image 8x5.3 inch when we print the portrait orientation photo. We just print the portrait orientation image normally and rotate the paper. Unless we can rotate our displays, a square display will be ideal for photographers.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126939108@N02/

 

[GodSpeaks]

[No message]

 

[fmian]

Square versus Rectangular displays for photographic images.

I can't believe that photographers prefer images like the single vertical image above on the rectangular screen as opposed to the same image on the square. Or multi-images on a rectangular screen with its smaller vertical images and associated wasted space around them instead of equally sized images with minimal wasted screen. And the much smaller square image on the rectangular screen as opposed to the full screen alternative on the square.

I guess to each his own. Thanks for your input.

Your image example is deceptive in that it assumes someone is going to buy a 1:1 screen that is taller than the existing 16:9 (or 16:10) screen they have. So for your idea to work the end user would need to have a greater height accommodation than already present in things that are traditionally longer rather than taller - like shelves and TV cabinets and computer desks.
Also, for a certain percentage of images (horizontal ones in your example) the image is displayed smaller than if they used a wide screen.
ie. You would be able to use more screen real estate by simply rotating a wide screen, whereas this is impossible (or useless) with your limited idea.
People don't want to pay more so they can do less.




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

 

[greenlight149]

Old external computer monitors were square, is that a patent infringement? I still use one as a second monitor at work with a 16:9 main monitor.

Kind of like this one : http://www.lg.com/uk/monitors/lg-E1910S-led-monitor

 

[PhotoFactor]

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?

I thought patents had to be substantial inventions/concepts that are "which are non-obvious in light of the prior art". There have been square displays, and it's certainly not a concept that would hard for anybody to imagine. No offense. but the ability to patent things like this is ridiculous IMHO. I wonder if it could hold up if actually challenged?

 

[MediaArchivist]

Old external computer monitors were square,

Square? Or 5x4?

 

[MediaArchivist]

I guess I still don't see who makes up your potential market. You might want to create a character and a backstory as an example of a need this fulfills, then present your idea via this character.

I do almost all of my shooting in portrait orientation, and my camera is 2x3 (4000x6000 pixels, common for 24Mp cameras). I have two displays, one is mounted at 90º and is 1200x1920 (5x8). The other remains in landscape orientation and is 2560x1440 (16x9). I display portrait images on the portrait monitor, and landscape images on the landscape monitor. Both displays are, practically speaking, close enough to the native ratio of my images so that:

• auto cropping (center) almost always works
• "Ken Burns" effect can be used and is hardly overwhelming
• letterbox stripes are pretty small if displayed uncropped

I am satisfied with any of the above, If I was not I could manually crop to my satisfaction.

I also use the built in Mac OS screensaver in "sliding panels" mode. This creates a random tiling of random images, which often includes random cropping. It looks great. Any image over cropped is not the next time it cycles through. If the algorithm was such that images were never cropped and it figured out maximum tiling coverage, I guess that would be an improvement. But such an improvement (in tiling) would work regardless of the dimensions of the screen. It would not need to be square.

 

[Tom_N]

Old external computer monitors were square,

Square? Or 5x4?

Old computer monitors had an aspect ratio of 4:3 – not 5:4 or 1:1. However, there are multiple current sources of square screens, ranging up to 55" (or perhaps larger) even without considering the possibility putting together 2x2, 3x3, etc. arrays to make huge "venue" displays.

 

[MediaArchivist]

Old external computer monitors were square,

Square? Or 5x4?

Old computer monitors had an aspect ratio of 4:3 – not 5:4 or 1:1.

There may be a discrepancy on what we consider "old"

CRT monitors were often 640x480, 800x600, or 1024x768; for a 4:3 aspect ratio.

The monitor referenced by the link is 1280x1024, assuming square pixels that works out to 5:4.

 

[Sal R]

CRT monitors were not measured in pixels as they were analog devices and used scan lines. Digital images had to be converted to analog for viewing. The figures you quoted were for the digital image, not the monitor specs. They were 4:3 because that was the video broadcast format, they are 16:9 now because that is the current video broadcast standard.

 

[Sal R]

Given the same screen area for both displays, for example 144 sq. in. for a 16X9 and a 12X12 screen, the square by its nature is taller and narrower. It is a matter of proportions. The square having equal sides the rectangle being oblong.

A 4:3 image fitting the above screens would be 9X12". To fill a 16X9 screen with a 4:3 image you would have to expand the 12" side to 16". That would increase the 9" side to something larger but since the other screen dimension is only 9" it would not fit without being cropped. On a square screen the largest side of the image, 12", would fit in either direction.

The only image that would fit the entire screen without distortion is a 16:9 proportioned image, which is cropped from within the 4:3 sensor. That is why 16:9 video images from the same camera use less pixels than a 4:3 still photograph.

 

[Sal R]

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