Digital Display Dilemma

[tko]

Seems like you've taken something very simple and made it complication. Square is square, rectangular is rectangular. Where is the invention? How is your square shape different from the square shape anyone could have made for years, and different from the square shape TV's had when they first came out?

Rectangular displays have evolved from square displays. People like them. Why would they go back? Your square display will fit every image poorly, with black around it. Does a LCD manufacturer need your patent to make a square display? No, they don't.

Hint. Create a visual graphic showing us the advantage and how your invention would look. Photographers are visual, so draw a mock up with a fake image inserted.

And, stop using duh statements like "Have you ever wondered why all of your vertically composed photos are so much smaller than their horizontal counterparts when viewed on your computer?"

 

[AmbleYonder]

I can't believe ......

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.

Instagram users might hire a 1:1 display for the day for their sham lifestyles .

I can see those who solely shoot 1:1 might be interested in a dedicated display

but as digital projectors have a ratio of 16:9 or 4:3 then it is incompatible for professional slideshow presentation .

 

[Twitmarsh]

You have a 1:1 ratio on your camera? What camera do you have? Just curious. Haven't encountered any cameras with that feature.

All Panasonic Micro Four Thirds cameras can record photos using 1:1 ratio in raw and jpeg. I think Olympus has the same feature.

 

[Sal R]

Just surprising, I guess, that they would crop the square from the center of the 4:3 sensor to offer 1:1. That drops the resolution of the four-thirds sensor by 56 percent. If the full sensor is used, the image could be cropped after the fact. You would still reduce the sensor resolution by 56 percent but, you could shift the cropped square side to side to fine tune the composition. Only reason to crop from the get-go is to save memory space.
A more practical way to do it would be an in-camera cropping option for 1:1. The image could be adjusted for composition and saved. I don't know many photographers who wouldn't appreciate a little wiggle room with their framing. I am not familiar with Sony cameras, they might already have that capability.

 

[Tom_N]

Just surprising, I guess, that they would crop the square from the center of the 4:3 sensor to offer 1:1. That drops the resolution of the four-thirds sensor by 56 percent.

How do you figure that? A Four-Thirds system camera would only need to throw away 25% of the raw sensor data to achieve an aspect ratio of 1:1 for the recorded data. (The camera must ignore the leftmost 1/8th and rightmost 1/8th of the data, after which the remaining data will have an aspect ratio of 3:3.)

If the full sensor is used, the image could be cropped after the fact. You would still reduce the sensor resolution by 56 percent but, you could shift the cropped square side to side to fine tune the composition.

Changing the aspect ratio after the fact? Where have I heard that before? Oh, right … APS film cameras. They had viewfinder controls to select different aspect ratios, but all those did was to mask the viewfinder, and affect a default printing preference that the camera recorded on the film's magnetic strip. APS cameras always exposed the entire negative, and you could ask for a lab to use a non-default aspect ratio at printing time.

 

[Sal R]

My bad, I was saying 4:3, but thinking 16:9 for the sensor aspect ratio. Duh!

Before APSC there was 2 and a quarter square that captured more image then was uaually used for prints, except for the occasional full frame square print. Standard prints were usually a rectangular crop from within the square negative. Still remember using cropping cards from the lab.

 

[Sal R]

This is brief and from a previous post but shows a few photo comparisons.
Forgive the "I can't believe", I was just thinking out loud.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58161216

 

[AmbleYonder]

square screen comparison and demonstration

win or fail

is the grass greener through a square window ?

 

[Sal R]

square screen comparison and demonstration

win or fail

is the grass greener through a square window ?

Thanks for the link, it was very informative.
To answer your question, the grass is just as green but, the sky is much bluer.

 

[AmbleYonder]

square screen comparison and demonstration

win or fail

is the grass greener through a square window ?

Thanks for the link, it was very informative.
To answer your question, the grass is just as green but, the sky is much bluer.

but your sky still has a black border unless you crop to 1:1 which is a compromise until they produce a square sensor to go with your square screen .

 

[Sal R]

It has a much smaller border than portraits on current displays and no more border on landscapes than on current displays. No need for a square sensor. Current Instagram photos are just cropped versions of a photo. They would fill a square screen.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for your input.

 

[AmbleYonder]

It has a much smaller border than portraits on current displays and no more border on landscapes than on current displays.

you seem to be missing the point my presentations are without a border you can only produce a presentation without a border at 1:1 so without a square sensor you have to resort to cropping which is a compromise

 

[Sal R]

We are missing each other's point. Unless your screen has the same aspect ratio as your image and is rotated to match the image orientation you MUST have borders. On a typical 16:9 computer screen with either a 4:3 or 3:2 image your landscape images do not fill the screen completely and vertical images fill less than half of the screen. Just view one of each orientations on your computer to verify this.
On a square display, borders are necessary but they are relatively small compared to what is necessary for vertical images on a rectangular screen. The square screen allows display of same size images regardless of their orientation by using the full length OR height of the screen. When I view an older 4:3 television program on a newer 16:9 screen I do not concern myself with the masking of the screen, I watch the program. Same thing with still photos on a square screen. If both image orientations are the same size I could care less about the masking used to accomplish it.
You seem to be more concerned about the relatively minor masking of images on a square screen needed to maintain consistent image size while ignoring the more drastic masking and image size disparity that takes place on a rectangular screen.
My contention is that a square screen is a better choice for viewing photographs, not video or computer applications.

 

[jrtrent]

I haven't read all the replies in this thread, so maybe my comments are out of place, but I'd welcome a square screen/monitor for viewing pictures. The following paragraph is a cut-and-paste from an old thread, but still reflects my view on the subject of wasted space around the picture area.

Pictures just look more impressive to me, have greater impact, when the screen is filled. I first noticed this as a kid. My dad shot 35mm slides and my grandfather shot 4 X 4 slides; Grandpa's pictures, always completely filling the square projection screen, made a better impression than always seeing black space above and below or to the sides (for verticals) of Dad's 35mm slides. I soon gave up shooting verticals at all with 35mm simply because I couldn't stand all the wasted space on the projection screen. For horizontals, I only open the screen far enough to show the picture because the blank space above and below bothers me. I bought a TLR and medium format projector to get that nice, screen-filling image I remembered from Grandpa's slides.

If I bought a square screen, I'd buy a camera that would let me compose in the field with a 1:1 aspect ratio (I hate cropping). Lately, I've been trying to get used to using a 16:9 format to fill my current computer screen or television viewing area, but of the various aspect ratios I've used (3:2 film and digital, 4:3 digital, 1:1 film TLR, and 16:9 digital), it's the 16:9 format I find most difficult to compose in. 4:3 actually became my favorite when I had a monitor to match, but square isn't bad.

 

[Donald B]

I would buy it in a heart beat most of the replies you have received are from photographers that cant see the advantge and have no commonsense.

People want multi aspect sensors for the same reason.

Cheers don

 

[Sal R]

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.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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

 

[AmbleYonder]

. Unless your screen has the same aspect ratio as your image

correct projector ratios 16:9 or 4:3 thus no borders

On a square display, borders are necessary

....compromise

My contention is that a square screen is a better choice for viewing photographs

which is limited to you and a couple of people crowded around it .

on the other hand a 1:1 presentation without borders on a big screen has real creative potential .

 

[Sal R]

Thanks Don! It is good to know that not everyone thinks I'm crazy. I know people generally oppose change but change with a purpose is not a bad thing. I would love to be able to view all of my images as large as possible and same size regardless on the composition I've chosen.

 

[Sal R]

I see 1:1 full screen images as impressive and an option but question it being a particularly "creative" option. 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 but digital displays can't be cut to fit and then properly oriented like a picture frame. The display should be of a shape that allows an image to rotate freely without reducing its size. Anything less just compromises one of your two compositional choices. To be concerned about masking to accomplish this is like worrying about the page of a photo album that is showing between images instead of the photos themselves.

 

[bullet1]

I would love to see your invention being implemented in photo projectors which I see being the most useful as projected images do not necessarily require a screen to be square especially if the screen is a wall.

Other than that I have been learning to adapt to the landscape style "portrait" in still photos seen most frequently in films and videos since videographers have little choice but to embrace 16:9 or wider aspect ratio imposed to them by the film industry.

I agree with you that the current system encourages landscape orientation and penalize portrait/vertical compositions. Who knows in decades or so the paradigm might shift so the landscape "portraits" might become the norm.