[photoptimist]

The other problem with square & portable is that people's purses, bags, briefcases, etc. are not square!

A square portable device fits inefficiently in the average bag as well as inefficiently displaying the average image.

Or is the square portable photoframe going to require people buy square bags, too?

[Sal R]

Why do you keep saying that?
It compromises the size of any image but a square image.
This is getting really irritating.
It's like talking to a TV commercial.

It doesn't matter what you say, it just keeps repeating the same lines over and over, regardless of your commentary. But you expect that of a TV commercial, we expect people to be more responsive.

Norm, if you don't consider a vertical image that is half the size of a horizontal image on your monitor compromised, what would you call it?
You say that all images that are not square are compromised. Does that mean that you consider 3:2 landscape photos on a 16:9 display to be compromised because the display is a different format? If a full frame image fits within a larger (square) display in either direction there is no compromise, only necessary masking of unused screen for a particular aspect ratio.

[acoufap]

Because of the headline „Digital Slideshows Suck“ I‘d like to add some words that address some points I read in this discussion:

For classical on the wall print presentation usually standard frame formats are used. The frames I use seldom show the same aspect ratio as the photographs. The photographs aspect ratio depends on my photographic composition. To support the image and it‘s composition I use frame plus passepartout so that everything fits together. Partially it depends on personal taste.

I‘d wonder how a digital frame could do it automatically. Of course there are also other possibilities to frame or mount pictures.

In the analog film days it was common sense that professional slide shows should be displayed in a standardized landscape mode. Of course most of the time it was 3:2.

Advanced slideshows based on film slides could use masking and multi-cache by example by using the WESS registered pinning system to put in portrait mode or other aspect ratio images or parts of it appropriately. If you had more than one projector you could fade, dissolve images etc. and make multivision shows. I had a Kindermann combo for such slide shows.

Digital allows to do things much easier. Slideshow Software supports masking, making image collages, use effects like the Ken-Burns Effect (camera shift over images, by example over portrait mode images) and much more to get a sound look for the show. You even can include movie sequences and sound.

I use FotoMagico (Mac Software) to create such sophisticated slideshows. You can create aspect ratios as needed and different resolutions up to 4K, you can create movies from it or use a standalone native working slide show.

Digital slide shows don‘t suck IMO. It depends on the maker how it does. The discussion of (digital) frame aspect ratios don‘t meet the most important point - showing our photographic work the best way.

Sorry, maybe some may feel I‘m now a bit off topic.

[Sal R]

Because of the headline „Digital Slideshows Suck“ I‘d like to add some words that address some points I read in this discussion:



In the analog film days it was common sense that professional slide shows should be displayed in a standardized landscape mode. Of course most of the time it was 3:2.


Sorry, maybe some may feel I‘m now a bit off topic.

Older analog slideshow were not displayed in a standardized landscape mode. If the screen was opened fully and the slide was properly oriented in the projector, the images were displayed in the same size for both portrait and landscape photos. The masking of the light outside the image area on the screen was done automatically by the slide mount. No one worried about the unused, darkened part of the screen because at the time we cared more about the image than the canvas it was shown on.

I do appreciate your input, even though I don't necessarily agree.

[acoufap]

Older analog slideshow were not displayed in a standardized landscape mode. If the screen was opened fully and the slide was properly oriented in the projector, the images were displayed in the same size for both portrait and landscape photos. The masking of the light outside the image area on the screen was done automatically by the slide mount. No one worried about the unused, darkened part of the screen because at the time we cared more about the image than the canvas it was shown on.

I do appreciate your input, even though I don't necessarily agree.

Of course the 50 x 50 mm frame with 36 x 24 mm hole (for FF slides) of the slide is the mask itself and in combination with projector construction keeps light outside the projection view. And I agree with you that it always was possible to mix landscape and portrait mode images. I‘d be more precise in what I say. I own a book from 1988 about making professional multivision slide shows that recommend using solely landscape mode for professional productions.

[Sal R]

Instead of getting too technical about the square design, which has already been overthought in this thread, let me give you a practical scenario to illustrate the value of a square photo display.

Let's say you've just spent the entire day with your family at Disneyland. You have an SD card just bursting with the day's events and can't wait to view them on something larger than your camera's LCD display. Back at your hotel room you have with you a rather large laptop with a 19 inch diagonal 16X9 inch display and a 12X12 inch digital photo tablet, both equal in surface area. Would you transfer your images to the laptop or the square tablet? Let's do both.

Since your normal instinct is to download the images to your laptop for storage and viewing, we'll do that first. Once loaded, you begin to view your photographs on the laptop and they look great, but as expected, your horizontal shots fill 75% of the screen with black bars on either end and your vertical shots are nearly half the size of the horizontals and only occupy 42% of the screen with black bars covering the remaining 58%. No big surprise there because it has always been that way.

Now you load the images into your square tablet and begin to view them. The first thing you notice in a side-by-side comparison is that, although the laptop screen is wider than the tablet, both horizontal images are the identical size. The excess screen width on the laptop is simply masked on either side, while the excess screen height on the tablet is masked top and bottom. A more notable difference is that the vertical images on the square are 40% larger than those on the laptop and occupy 75% of the screen, with the remaining 25% masked on either side. Given a choice, which would you choose? To me the choice is obvious, I would choose the one with the most consistent image size.

Prefer to browse in groups of 4 smaller but equally sized images? Simple on a square display, impossible on the laptop. How about groups of 36 same-sized-images? Easy on a square and again, impossible on the laptop. Maybe you want to view the whole day to find a specific moment? A full 144 same-sized thumbnails are possible on the square, not so on the laptop. The same screen efficiency achieved for single image display is maintained within each grid in the above multi-image arrangements. With a square display, image size is not affected by either screen or image orientation.

If anyone still thinks that a square photo viewer is a kooky idea, we will just have to agree to disagree.

[MarkJerling]

Because it ignores the OP. Also they are a bit pricey as gifts for grandma.

Brian sums it up nicely:

Digital photoframes are another problem entirely - a niche market as mentioned. I know absolutely no one who still uses a dedicated product like this.... More common is setting a tablet up on a stand and letting a slideshow run. I'm doubtful the advantages of a square frame could ever outweigh the convenience of a product they already own. That is the reality you are facing in this market.....

Also, grandma already owns a large TV.

[MarkJerling]

Instead of getting too technical about the square design, which has already been overthought in this thread, let me give you a practical scenario to illustrate the value of a square photo display.

Let's say you've just spent the entire day with your family at Disneyland. You have an SD card just bursting with the day's events and can't wait to view them on something larger than your camera's LCD display. Back at your hotel room you have with you a rather large laptop with a 19 inch diagonal 16X9 inch display and a 12X12 inch digital photo tablet, both equal in surface area. Would you transfer your images to the laptop or the square tablet? Let's do both.

Since your normal instinct is to download the images to your laptop for storage and viewing, we'll do that first. Once loaded, you begin to view your photographs on the laptop and they look great, but as expected, your horizontal shots fill 75% of the screen with black bars on either end and your vertical shots are nearly half the size of the horizontals and only occupy 42% of the screen with black bars covering the remaining 58%. No big surprise there because it has always been that way.

Now you load the images into your square tablet and begin to view them. The first thing you notice in a side-by-side comparison is that, although the laptop screen is wider than the tablet, both horizontal images are the identical size. The excess screen width on the laptop is simply masked on either side, while the excess screen height on the tablet is masked top and bottom. A more notable difference is that the vertical images on the square are 40% larger than those on the laptop and occupy 75% of the screen, with the remaining 25% masked on either side. Given a choice, which would you choose? To me the choice is obvious, I would choose the one with the most consistent image size.

Prefer to browse in groups of 4 smaller but equally sized images? Simple on a square display, impossible on the laptop. How about groups of 36 same-sized-images? Easy on a square and again, impossible on the laptop. Maybe you want to view the whole day to find a specific moment? A full 144 same-sized thumbnails are possible on the square, not so on the laptop. The same screen efficiency achieved for single image display is maintained within each grid in the above multi-image arrangements. With a square display, image size is not affected by either screen or image orientation.

If anyone still thinks that a square photo viewer is a kooky idea, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Here's a typical day's worth of images for me. All but the last of these presented to you (screenshots from my laptop) uncropped. Of course, the vertical image displays smaller than the horizontal images, but so what? If I want to see all the images at once, I can easily have that view. Lastly, I often shoot panoramas so the last shot displays very nicely on my laptop without much wasted real estate at all. Why do I need another device to view my photos, other than the 4 laptops and 3 TV's I have already?

[Sal R]

Here's a typical day's worth of images for me. All but the last of these presented to you (screenshots from my laptop) uncropped. Of course, the vertical image displays smaller than the horizontal images, but so what? If I want to see all the images at once, I can easily have that view. Lastly, I often shoot panoramas so the last shot displays very nicely on my laptop without much wasted real estate at all. Why do I need another device to view my photos, other than the 4 laptops and 3 TV's I have already?

You don't NEED it, and apparently don't want it so, good luck. Maybe when one of your laptops craps out you can reconsider, but probably not. Thanks for your input.

[MarkJerling]

You don't NEED it, and apparently don't want it so, good luck. Maybe when one of your laptops craps out you can reconsider, but probably not. Thanks for your input.

Thanks Sal. I'm trying my best to understand my need for such a device. That's all. Good luck with your venture. I'll let you know how my poll performs.

[BrianR]

Instead of getting too technical about the square design, which has already been overthought in this thread, let me give you a practical scenario to illustrate the value of a square photo display.

Let's say you've just spent the entire day with your family at Disneyland. You have an SD card just bursting with the day's events and can't wait to view them on something larger than your camera's LCD display. Back at your hotel room you have with you a rather large laptop with a 19 inch diagonal 16X9 inch display and a 12X12 inch digital photo tablet, both equal in surface area. Would you transfer your images to the laptop or the square tablet? Let's do both.

Since your normal instinct is to download the images to your laptop for storage and viewing, we'll do that first. Once loaded, you begin to view your photographs on the laptop and they look great, but as expected, your horizontal shots fill 75% of the screen with black bars on either end and your vertical shots are nearly half the size of the horizontals and only occupy 42% of the screen with black bars covering the remaining 58%. No big surprise there because it has always been that way.

Now you load the images into your square tablet and begin to view them. The first thing you notice in a side-by-side comparison is that, although the laptop screen is wider than the tablet, both horizontal images are the identical size. The excess screen width on the laptop is simply masked on either side, while the excess screen height on the tablet is masked top and bottom. A more notable difference is that the vertical images on the square are 40% larger than those on the laptop and occupy 75% of the screen, with the remaining 25% masked on either side. Given a choice, which would you choose? To me the choice is obvious, I would choose the one with the most consistent image size.

Under this scenario, sure, I'll take the square display. Partly because the aspect ratio of photos you've chosen, 4:3, makes the landscape oriented images also quite wasteful on the widescreen laptop, 16:9.

If we're closer to my reality of 3:2 aspect ratio images, I'll lean towards the laptop which makes the landscape oriented images larger, and can be (albeit somewhat inconveniently) rotated from my slovenly hotel-bed collapsed position if I want to see a portrait image larger (I'll also bemoan the scarcity of 16:10 laptops and monitors).

If I had my choice of device for hotel bed travel viewing, I'd take a non-existent 12x8 tablet screen that I could rotate as I go if something was worth looking at in detail, is more compact than a 12x12 device that can achieve the same image size (for my images), and is (imo) a better ratio for a multi-purpose travel device (space is always limited, and since your hypothetical trip is to Disneyland I'm going to need to pack a giant tub of aspirin to get through the day).

What I'd probably do if I wanted a sit-back and watch slideshow, is just hook the camera to the hotel's TV and run it from there.

Prefer to browse in groups of 4 smaller but equally sized images? Simple on a square display, impossible on the laptop. How about groups of 36 same-sized-images? Easy on a square and again, impossible on the laptop. Maybe you want to view the whole day to find a specific moment? A full 144 same-sized thumbnails are possible on the square, not so on the laptop. The same screen efficiency achieved for single image display is maintained within each grid in the above multi-image arrangements. With a square display, image size is not affected by either screen or image orientation.

Assuming you want a bunch of thumbnails displayed in a square grid - if you're willing to accept a minor loss in real estate you can do this on the 16:9 display and be more flexible on the number of images displayed. Mask 1/9 off the top and you can put 2 equally sized squares side by side. Then divide this into 2*4=8 equally sized squares, or 2*9=18, or 2*16=32, etc. Or you can trim 1/16th from the sides and put a grid of 15 squares (3 rows, 5 columns), and divide as above, 15, 60, 135, etc. Or trim 5/32 off the sides and start with a grid of 6 squares (2 rows, 3 columns) and go from there. Trimming 1/64 of the sides gets a nice grid of 4 rows and 7 columns as a starting point.

144 squares happen to fit perfectly in a 16x9 display (9 rows, 16 columns).

I don't see a very compelling reason to prefer a square screen here.

[normhead]

Now you load the images into your square tablet and begin to view them.

If I had my choice of device for hotel bed travel viewing, I'd take a non-existent 12x8 tablet screen that I could rotate as I go if something was worth looking at in detail, is more compact than a 12x12 device that can achieve the same image size (for my images), and is (imo) a better ratio for a multi-purpose travel device (space is always limited, and since your hypothetical trip is to Disneyland I'm going to need to pack a giant tub of aspirin to get through the day).

I have a cheap $109 dollar tablet I bought just for fooling around with. which I take places I might want to show people images. As mentioned above, it fits nicely in a coat pocket. It has a micro-SD card with all the folders I might want to display on it. The thing is, when I get a portrait image, I turn the tablet to portrait orientation, and the tablet automatically displays the image in portrait mode. So even for the use described, a square display makes no sense except for square image. I use more screen real estate for both portrait and images horizontal. I don't have any digital cameras that take square images to maximize the use of a screen display. So I can identify with the SOC scenario, but not the conclusion. My tablet is no different than carrying a package of 4x6 images, except instead of 36 images, I'm carrying 1000 in the same size package.

I have one Apple and one Android device, and they both make full use of the screen in either horizontal or vertical position. Just rotate the screen. A square device would give me fewer pixels to view the image with in both landscape and portrait positions. In fact a square screen gives me fewer viewing options. I currently have the possibility of maximum use of the screen in either landscape or portrait. Two formats. A square screen allows me to make full use of the screen in only 1. And yes, I do have many 16:9 landscapes, to make 100% use of even a 16:9 screen. I'd guess, I have more 16:9 images than square images.

I'm not sure why this 'A square frame is best used on square images" thing is so hard to comprehend.

If I ever want to display images straight off the camera, I'll put the micro-SD card in my K-3's second slot, set the camera to write the files at the size most appropriate to my display, so I have both my raw file to work on later and an immediate view of an SOC jpg.and then put the micro-sd card into my cheap little tablet. I've had this capability for approximately 4 years, and never done it even once.

As suggested above, maybe we just have to differ in our conclusions. My experience doesn't line up with your theory. The problem you've solved isn't problem a I have. I notice you've focussed on slide shows. I hate slide shows. A concept based on your egotistical assumption that your images are worthy of my attention. At this stage of my life, if you want me to view your slide show I want $100 an hour for my viewing time. 2 hour minimum. If you want me to view it in your presence... $150 an hour. If you want me to view it in your presence while you give me a running commentary, $200 and hour.

I've been tortured with boring slideshows almost my entire life. Every time my dear mother returned from one of her many trips to exotic locations. Enough is enough.

[BrianR]

My tablet is no different than carrying a package of 4x6 images, except instead of 36 images, I'm carrying 1000 in the same size package..

Well, a stack of 16:9 prints more likely. I went from a near square crt monitor (5:4) to a 16:10 and it was awesome for general computing. Apart from consuming tv/movies, I don't really like 16:9. I don't have any 16:9 images like you, and very few panoramas, so my preference would probably be a 3:2 display like I was wishing for in a tablet.

As you say, the 'optimal' screen will be very dependent on your image collection.

If you want me to view it in your presence while you give me a running commentary, $200 and hour.

Other way for me, I'll give an hour long slideshow with commentary for $200. You will be many things during the hour, but I can guarantee bored won't be one of them.

[normhead]

Well, a stack of 16:9 prints more likely. I went from a near square crt monitor (5:4) to a 16:10 and it was awesome for general computing. Apart from consuming tv/movies, I don't really like 16:9. I don't have any 16:9 images like you, and very few panoramas, so my preference would probably be a 3:2 display like I was wishing for in a tablet.

As you say, the 'optimal' screen will be very dependent on your image collection.



Other way for me, I'll give an hour long slideshow with commentary for $200. You will be many things during the hour, but I can guarantee bored won't be one of them.

The 16:9 was theoretical. I do have 16:9 monitors which I use for internet sports and stuff. My iMac is 2650x 1600, so approximately 3x2. MY tablet is 3.5x 6, so maybe .25 inces in each side away from 3.2.

That is 21 square inches or 4.6 per side if squared off for the same real estate. On my landscape display, a 3:2 image will display at 3.5x 5.25 with 3/8s of an inch on each side. ON a square frame of equal area the best they could do would be 4.6 inches. Real world I'd have to have (5.25x5.25) 27.5 sq-inches screen, an increase in 30 %, just to see the image at the same size all things being equal. Personally I think size matters. A 30% smaller image can display 30% less detail.

If you have a point and shoot in 4x5 format, the differences are less, but still in favour of the rectangular screen, in terms of how much real estate you waste with a screen that can be rotated to accommodate portrait images.

But then my main screen is 26x13, (2:1 in actual inches measured) ) and a 13 inch square is lots of view-ability (1600x1600) even for square or portrait.. Maybe it's different for people with smaller screens.

[acoufap]

I've been tortured with boring slideshows almost my entire life. Every time my dear mother returned from one of her many trips to exotic locations. Enough is enough.

I also did such to some audience - 5 weeks trip to and through greece 30 years ago. Too many pictures I wanted to show. Later I knew I should have used only a small bunch of them shown within only a few minutes. My victims still use it as a running joke.

I went from a near square crt monitor (5:4) to a 16:10 and it was awesome for general computing.

This was my way too. The 16:10 monitor shows 1920 x 1200 px in great quality. I'm very happy with it.

Instead of getting too technical about the square design, which has already been overthought in this thread, let me give you a practical scenario to illustrate the value of a square photo display.

I like the iPad for image viewing (aspect ratio 4:3). But I do many other things with this iPad. On my last vacation I loaded my K-1 and K-5 images onto it and did some raw development using Affinity Photo and I used it for internet surfing, music listening, reading etc.

Although I love the iPad mini (first version) more for digital reading I don't take it with me. The larger iPad does this job too. Not so comfortable in IMO but it does it sufficiently good. The same would affect a specialized digital photo frame - independent of the aspect ratio. I simply don't want to take many devices with me. I take one multi purpose tool with me, a swiss knife so to say. And that's the larger iPad.

If the screen was opened fully and the slide was properly oriented in the projector, the images were displayed in the same size for both portrait and landscape photos.

I once more thought about this because I remembered a very simple slide show function in Capture One Pro that I really like. It does what a projector does and works as follows. Maybe that's something you'd like too (I don't know if Lightroom or other software can do it that way).

• create an output recipe with longer edge smaller than the height of the screen. A typical size could be 1000px for my 1920 x 1200px monitor
• select this recipe for output on the screen
• select soft proof function (spectacles icon) - the effect in combination with the slide show function may not be commonly known!
• select all images that you'd like see in a slide show manner
• start the slide show viewing (cmd <)

The monitor works as the canvas. It starts fully black and then all selected images are shown in their native aspect ratio one after the other on the black background and always with the longer edge of 1000px. No cropping, no special masking. In my opinion the switch from one image to the next appears more harmonious than using full height and width for only one special aspect ratio that fills the whole screen. To drop some pixels for this viewing apearence really doesn't bother me.

P.s. Guess you don't own Capture One. Just for fun you could download a trial version if you'd like to see how it appears.