Sal R
Active member
See my reply to ernstbk.
Ta ta da da!
You learn something new every day.
Ta ta da da!
You learn something new every day.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Digital Display Dilemma
- Thread starter Sal R
- Start date
MediaArchivist
Veteran Member
I learned a 19" square monitor runs roughly $1300.
Sal R
Active member
Yeah, 3 times the price of an iPad and it is just a display, probably not even comparable to an Apple Retina display.
Imagine a 12" square iPad style, call it an iAlbum, with Retina display that has iPad like features, just for photos. You could store images on it for backup, access cloud storage, which would be available for download should the device fail, WiFi and Bluetooth for direct camera transfer and internet capability, without the annoying image size differential between orientations experienced on current displays. I'd pay a few bucks more for a larger square display on such a device.I would still download my images to a computer and work them in Photoshop if needed but, for most images a simple global editing program on the device itself would do.
I have a dream!
Imagine a 12" square iPad style, call it an iAlbum, with Retina display that has iPad like features, just for photos. You could store images on it for backup, access cloud storage, which would be available for download should the device fail, WiFi and Bluetooth for direct camera transfer and internet capability, without the annoying image size differential between orientations experienced on current displays. I'd pay a few bucks more for a larger square display on such a device.I would still download my images to a computer and work them in Photoshop if needed but, for most images a simple global editing program on the device itself would do.
I have a dream!
Richard Frederick
Senior Member
They gave you a patent for that?
ernstbk
Senior Member
Now what we need is a followup patent for a square sensor.
Sal R
Active member
No, they gave me a patent for what I did with that!
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit, genius hits a target no on else can see." --Arthur Schopenhauer
I don't mean to imply that I am particularly smart, only that I shot at a target that I felt needed to be hit.
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit, genius hits a target no on else can see." --Arthur Schopenhauer
I don't mean to imply that I am particularly smart, only that I shot at a target that I felt needed to be hit.
Do you expect that opinions have changed because you have a patent ?
- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
You mean one that's necessarily bigger than the one that has to be rotated ? And that probably costs extra because you have to find someone to manufacture it for a limited market ? One that you realize you're paying extra for because EVERY photo is going to occupy only a portion of the screen ?
- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Twitmarsh
New member
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 6
I am very interested in this type of display because it allows me to be more effective using the 1:1 aspect ratio on my camera. This will give me a large number of options to display my photos. Just thinking, I would be able to display 4 photos on the top row, 2 photos in the middle and 4 photos on the bottom row. With the right slide show software there could be very interesting ways to develop a dynamic presentation.
Sal R
Active member
You can try. Treat the square sensor like and old 2 1/4 square negative. Most medium format negatives were cropped rectangular for printing anyway. With a square sensor you could choose your format after the fact, in camera or on computer, and shift the selected image within the square sensor to refine the composition.
You can give it a shot but get ready to raid your retirement account cause it ain't cheap. You might as well stock up on some antacid as well.
You can give it a shot but get ready to raid your retirement account cause it ain't cheap. You might as well stock up on some antacid as well.
Sal R
Active member
Dennis, Just so we are on the same page about the display and not comparing apples to oranges. Assume a 16X9" widescreen display versus a 12X12" square display , which are both 144 sq. inches in screen surface. Equal in size. Now assuming 4:3 aspect images, which in the case of the widescreen can be no higher than 9", its shortest side, and in the case of a square screen can be no larger than 12". The largest largest 4:3 image that will fit within the dimensions of both screens is 9"X12". For horizontal images, both images fill 75% of both screens. For vertical images, the 9'X12" fills 75% of the square screen but only 42% of the widescreen because the height of the image is limited by the height of the display.
Now, who is paying extra for EVERY photo that only occupies a portion of the screen. It is the mismatch of aspect ratios between the screen and the image that makes rectangular screens less efficient. At best they equal the square screen for landscape images and at worst they use 33% less screen than the square.
So to sum it up. The square does not have to be larger than the rectangle to achieve equal image size between orientations and, photographically, you are paying for screen that you cannot use.
Now, who is paying extra for EVERY photo that only occupies a portion of the screen. It is the mismatch of aspect ratios between the screen and the image that makes rectangular screens less efficient. At best they equal the square screen for landscape images and at worst they use 33% less screen than the square.
So to sum it up. The square does not have to be larger than the rectangle to achieve equal image size between orientations and, photographically, you are paying for screen that you cannot use.
Sal R
Active member
You have a 1:1 ratio on your camera? What camera do you have? Just curious. Haven't encountered any cameras with that feature.
Digital picture frames aren't 16:9 and I don't think the kind of device you're talking about competes with a computer monitor. I don't think I'd buy a 16:9 photo display device, either ... but I'd go with 2:3 or 4:3.
- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
I've used Sony cameras that have it. It's jpeg only, I believe (it would be nice to have an option to record a "native" raw and cropped jpeg, just like you can record a native raw and a b&w jpeg on some cameras).
- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
James Larsen
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 4,358
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,001
I think this went over my head...
Ron Poelman
Veteran Member
[No message]
Sal R
Active member
If cinematography is your goal, you are fine with existing digital displays. You will never shoot a vertical movie. Widescreen displays are made for you.
WatsonPhoto
Forum Enthusiast
This is easy to see where this going. Imagine the aspiring inventor on the Dragons Den or The Shark Tank. The inventor walks in and questions follow:
- How much have you invested in this product --> over a million.
- What is your current revenue --> Zero, but we have a patent
- Have you done any market studies to find out if there is any interest in a potential product --> Only to dpreview.com and the response was negative.
(probably Kevin O'Leary would say. --> The only way we could make money on this would be by engaging a legal firm and being a patent troll.
The majority of photographers want a multi-purpose display that work with Lightroom, Photoshop, etc and can display a wide variety of of resolutions and images. For client presentation purposes the iPad works the best. Eizo, NEC and HP pretty well have the pro market locked up due to the quality, resolution and desired format for a display device. I am fairly certain that these companies do significant consumer studies to find out what consumers and pros want. --> They want a high quality multi-purpose monitor. Not a square monitor.
For the general consumer all they want is cheap, cheap, cheap. All of the existing digital photo frames on the market meet that purpose. I as a photographer if I truly want a digital photo frame I am going to pick the one that looks like a framed piece of art in a 16:9 or 5:3 format.
Recommend that the moderator close this thread.
- How much have you invested in this product --> over a million.
- What is your current revenue --> Zero, but we have a patent
- Have you done any market studies to find out if there is any interest in a potential product --> Only to dpreview.com and the response was negative.
(probably Kevin O'Leary would say. --> The only way we could make money on this would be by engaging a legal firm and being a patent troll.
The majority of photographers want a multi-purpose display that work with Lightroom, Photoshop, etc and can display a wide variety of of resolutions and images. For client presentation purposes the iPad works the best. Eizo, NEC and HP pretty well have the pro market locked up due to the quality, resolution and desired format for a display device. I am fairly certain that these companies do significant consumer studies to find out what consumers and pros want. --> They want a high quality multi-purpose monitor. Not a square monitor.
For the general consumer all they want is cheap, cheap, cheap. All of the existing digital photo frames on the market meet that purpose. I as a photographer if I truly want a digital photo frame I am going to pick the one that looks like a framed piece of art in a 16:9 or 5:3 format.
Recommend that the moderator close this thread.
Sal R
Active member
You made a lot of good points but I am already invested.
There is no trolling unless there is another device that does what my design does. If there was this would have been a total waste of time and money. I hope you are wrong.
Look around though, there are a lot of pictures being taken by people that wouldn't know what to do with Photoshop or Lightroom. People who bought digital photo frames. People who just might appreciate a digital photo album with a better viewing arrangement. thanks
As for just having a patent, most inventors don't actually build devices for which the technology and associated patents already exist. The guy who invented disc brakes didn't build the car.
I do appreciate your thoughtful comments but I have to at least try to find a market. I have only had the Patent for a couple of weeks and it took four years to get it. I can't throw away the lottery ticket before the drawing.
There is no trolling unless there is another device that does what my design does. If there was this would have been a total waste of time and money. I hope you are wrong.
Look around though, there are a lot of pictures being taken by people that wouldn't know what to do with Photoshop or Lightroom. People who bought digital photo frames. People who just might appreciate a digital photo album with a better viewing arrangement. thanks
As for just having a patent, most inventors don't actually build devices for which the technology and associated patents already exist. The guy who invented disc brakes didn't build the car.
I do appreciate your thoughtful comments but I have to at least try to find a market. I have only had the Patent for a couple of weeks and it took four years to get it. I can't throw away the lottery ticket before the drawing.
Dan Marchant
Veteran Member
That's your problem right there. You seem to think your lone opinion is a viable sample size despite the fact that everyone else is disinterested. Still there is no reason to accept our opinions. If you want to actually license this to some company you are going to have to prove to them with proper, professionally conducted market research that there are customers waiting to buy this.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum