[leekil]

A complete explanation of how the square photo display design works can be found in U.S. patent 9,396,518.

In one sense, it is a good idea, but in another sense, not so good given the current landscape of computer displays. Certainly you could make a square display, but given that almost all display screens are rectangular, perhaps the only device using this square display would be the digital photo album. It would need to be a specialized display because of its shape, and you might not benefit form any economies of scale compared to if it was using a standard rectangular display that might already be produced for other devices. Plus, most people already have devices on which they are perfectly happy to view photos -- computers, tablets, phones, all of which display photos now. So it is somewhat of an uphill battle to 1) produce such a device and 2) get people to adopt/purchase it.

If you want to display all photos at the same size, you might be better off with a piece of software that would display photos at a constant size, never using the full size of the screen. So on the rectangular screen of this device, a portrait-orientation photo would go clear to the top; but a landscape-orientation photo would not sue the full width of the screen, in order to keep it the same size as the portrait photos. Now, you might say, "But you're wasting a lot of the screen!" Yes, but with the square display, you are *always* wasting the corners (unless you happen to have square photos)...

[photoptimist]

I don't think the square would present any problem with sharing. How the sent images are presented is a function of the viewing device and how it processes the images. The recipients just wouldn't have the advantage of consistent image size for both orientations unless their device were square. For instance, photographs sent to a horizontally oriented rectangular device would still be viewable but, the short side of the screen would restrict the size of vertical shots just as it does now. Conversely, photos shared with a square device would benefit from its photo friendly design.

An album is more than a sequence of images. Every good album that I've seen uses some kind of page layout that combines one or more images with other graphics and text. That layout is typically formatted in a landscape rectangle suited to typical rectangular screens. Users of this electronic album system would need to create two layouts: one for regular screens that everyone has and one square layout that few few people have.

Also, the prevalence of touchscreens in phones, tablets, laptops, and even wall-mounted displays invites the viewer to zoom, pan, and scroll is they want to see parts of the image at higher resolution. That reduces any aspect ratio disadvantage.

[Sal R]

An album is more than a sequence of images. Every good album that I've seen uses some kind of page layout that combines one or more images with other graphics and text.

That is where we have a different view. All of the physical photo albums that I own are just that, a sequence of images in a book. There may be a hand written note here and there but, mainly just photos. Page layouts that combine images, text and graphics are more closely related to a scrapbook or a published photo book, both of which require thought and assembly. By my way of thinking, a photo album is an album that contains photos.

That layout is typically formatted in a landscape rectangle suited to typical rectangular screens. Users of this electronic album system would need to create two layouts: one for regular screens that everyone has and one square layout that few few people have.

I can only speak for myself but, when I share photos there is no page layout involved. The recipient must determine how they will be viewed/stored/shared/used on their particular viewer. If I share a page with photos text and graphics, I don't consider it photo sharing, because it's not.

Also, the prevalence of touchscreens in phones, tablets, laptops, and even wall-mounted displays invites the viewer to zoom, pan, and scroll is they want to see parts of the image at higher resolution. That reduces any aspect ratio disadvantage.

I believe that the same features available in other devices would naturally be incorporated in a digital photo album. Zooming does not increase resolution, it only increases magnification, the resolution is what the resolution is. As far as the aspect ratio disadvantage being reduced, as long as the display is some rectangular shape, it can do nothing to equalize the size of differently oriented images, no matter their aspect ratio.

[Sal R]

With respect Sal, I think you have this concept back to front: The square display is not the foundation of the album, the display is the derivative. The album in it's electronic form is the foundation. The screen is the means to view the data, no more. Attached to the screen may be the software interface that ensures that various shaped and sized photos display correctly on the screen, so as to fully utilise the maximum number of light emitting diodes that form part of the screen. The screen is the canvas, the software is the enabler. Together, the screen and the software makes possible maximum utilisation of the screen.

Mark,except for responding to further replies to this post, I will refrain from posting on this issue again per your request.

You may be right that the software is the foundation but, in keeping with the architectural theme, a square display is the keystone. Without it, the software cannot overcome the limitations put on image size by the geometry of the display, it can only attempt to compensate for the screen's asymmetric shape by downsizing images to fit when necessary.

I think your belief that the cost to produce a square display would be excessive, in a different reply, may not be correct. The cost of displays are primarily determined by the surface area of the screen, not the diagonal measurement. That being said, since a 1:1 square display is 25% larger in area than a 4:3 display, a 25% increase in price would be a starting guesstimate. They might be a little more expensive initially to cover retooling but, the switch from 4:3 to 16:9 was certainly more involved. Besides, 4:3 displays are gradually disappearing anyway, essentially replaced by the multi-purpose widescreen format. If I had my way, which obviously I don't, there would be two display formats, widescreen for video and computer use and square for digital photographs.

PS: I'd take 7% of a market consisting of everyone who has a camera anytime. Leaves a lot of room to grow.

[MarkJerling]

Mark,except for responding to further replies to this post, I will refrain from posting on this issue again per your request.

You may be right that the software is the foundation but, in keeping with the architectural theme, a square display is the keystone. Without it, the software cannot overcome the limitations put on image size by the geometry of the display, it can only attempt to compensate for the screen's asymmetric shape by downsizing images to fit when necessary.

I think your belief that the cost to produce a square display would be excessive, in a different reply, may not be correct. The cost of displays are primarily determined by the surface area of the screen, not the diagonal measurement. That being said, since a 1:1 square display is 25% larger in area than a 4:3 display, a 25% increase in price would be a starting guesstimate. They might be a little more expensive initially to cover retooling but, the switch from 4:3 to 16:9 was certainly more involved. Besides, 4:3 displays are gradually disappearing anyway, essentially replaced by the multi-purpose widescreen format. If I had my way, which obviously I don't, there would be two display formats, widescreen for video and computer use and square for digital photographs.

PS: I'd take 7% of a market consisting of everyone who has a camera anytime. Leaves a lot of room to grow.

Before someone else comes up with a similar Idea Sal, I'd suggest you start an Indiegogo campaign (Or similar - but see Indiegogo: Crowdfund Innovations & Buy Unique Products) and get this thing off the ground. You've been talking about it since 2016. I'd say it's time to get it made.

[MarkJerling]

One question I have: Your graphical interface appears to sort images in order of whether they be horizontal or vertical images and following that, whether they be of the 3:2, 4:3 or 1:1 format. What does the system do for images that fall outside those formats? 4:5, 4:1 or 10:1 springs to mind.

[Sal R]

One question I have: Your graphical interface appears to sort images in order of whether they be horizontal or vertical images and following that, whether they be of the 3:2, 4:3 or 1:1 format. What does the system do for images that fall outside those formats? 4:5, 4:1 or 10:1 springs to mind.

The aspect ratios that I cited, 3:2, 4:3 and 1:1 correspond to the two most common aspect ratio sensors and square Instagram cropped images, or a square sensored camera like the Hasselblad V1D if it ever develops into a production model. To answer your question, a 4:5 crop would fill the square screen in one direction and fill 4/5 ths of the screen in the other, in both portrait and landscape orientations. As for the 4:1 and 10:1, you're joking, right? Both, 4:1 and 10:1 would be photos that resembled a comic strip. Imagine a 10X10" screen with a 10:1 image that filled the screen in one direction and is only one inch wide in the other. It wouldn't look appreciably different on a 16:9 display. In any event, I doubt that we'll be seeing sensors in those aspect ratios anytime soon.

Thanks for the info on the crowdfunding site. I am hoping to license my patent to someone like a Sony or Samsung who already has expertise in the area of electronic display devices. That is only going to be possible if they see a demand for such a device. After a four year battle with the patent office I thought that convincing photographers to accept the new, orientation neutral display design was going to be the easy part. You would think that at my age I would have known better.

[sergeremy]

If i were to use a digital display, square would seem the most logical to me. But I'd rather display a print...

[Sal R]

If i were to use a digital display, square would seem the most logical to me. But I'd rather display a print...

So would I, but in the digital age the primary method of viewing photographs is electronically. Since only a small portion of images ever make it to print anymore, some improvement in viewers seems to be warranted. Not all of my shots are print worthy but all of them are view worthy.

[LensBeginner]

It surely beats pivotable displays...
Most monitors are engineered with the human FoV and movies in mind, so 4:3 displays are less common nowadays.

[photoptimist]

PS: I'd take 7% of a market consisting of everyone who has a camera anytime. Leaves a lot of room to grow.

Except it is 7% of self-selected enthusiast photographers and they are only 2% of the camera market. Smartphone sales are 98% of the camera market (25 million standalone cameras sold in 2017 versus 1,400 million smartphones).

The challenge in marketing this product is that it's specialized device with only limited functionality that will cost as much (potentially more to cover the display design and retooling costs) than a general device (tablet) with almost universal functionality (Android/IOS apps).

[Sal R]

Except it is 7% of self-selected enthusiast photographers and they are only 2% of the camera market. Smartphone sales are 98% of the camera market (25 million standalone cameras sold in 2017 versus 1,400 million smartphones).

The challenge in marketing this product is that it's specialized device with only limited functionality that will cost as much (potentially more to cover the display design and retooling costs) than a general device (tablet) with almost universal functionality (Android/IOS apps).

The cameras in most smartphones are capable of producing more than adequate 8X10 prints and stunning image files for electronic viewing. This satisfies the needs of most picture takers and may be the only camera that some people will ever own. The old photography saying that "The best camera is the one you have with you" is fulfilled by smartphones, because it seems that no one leaves home without one.

Admittedly, a square photo display device is specialized and has limited functionality, but no more than any e-reader whose sole purpose is to provide a better reading experience than is possible on the average computer or tablet display. Granted it might not be for everyone, but there are some photographers who might appreciate a more consistent viewing option than is currently available. I believe a side by side comparison of a slideshow on a square and rectangular screen would prove more satisfying on the square, with its consistent image size and unrestricted image placement capability. Whether it would prompt anyone to purchase one remains to be seen.

[normhead]

I have great photo albums displaying on my TV during "beer hour". Tess and I sit and watch albums , with usually 500 to 700 images go by on our 55" square screen while having abeer and a snack. Many images evoke memories of times gone buy. Algonquin Park is 7000 sq. km, and we have been in the park 35 days year average for the last 10 years. SO we can remember places we've been or do the "where do you think that was taken" game if neither of su remembers. The 55 inch screen is so big orientation doesn't really matter. We just see th image that aren't 9:16 with black bars on the screen. The images are huge even if square, 26 inches deep. Honestly, you can wait for someone to come out with a square orientation in the future or just get on with your life. Your choice. But talking to guys like me about square photo albums isn't going to make them happen. I'm happy with what I have.

And since avery high percentage of my images are landscapes or shot in horizontal format, many of them look a lot better cropped 16:9 that they did eve 3x2. Many boring uninteresting skys have been reduced in size.

Here you go. My digital photo album in action with one of my own images going buy 7 seconds per image.


There's no square display that would give me a 48 inch horizontal and if there was it wouldn't fit the space I have for it.

So, you can dream about what you want, or figure out how to make what's available now, that's your personal preference. Mine is to make the best of what is out there now, and decide what to do about a square screen when one actually exists. But I'm guessing it will be a no go. When out TV is not acting as photo album we watch netflix and sports on it. And since this device originally sold for $1600, (we paid about half that, it's was released almost 4 years ago) I wonder what you're thinking the original cost of the square screen would be. If it were to be 48 inches horizontal and vertical, the cost could easily be expected t be well over 8 grand, and if it wasn't 48 inches wide, I'd be viewing my ranges at smaller size than I now view 95% of my image.

Honestly, I ouwldn't pay for that, and seriously, you probably wouldn't either. Just go out and shop to find out how much these big screen cost, then double the price of the most expensive one. That would be the minimum you could expect to pay for such a specialty item. More like 4 times the cost, so $8000 -$15000 dollars. Thanks but no thanks.

I'm going into a bit more detail this time. I have a digital slide show. I'm planning to have the park people in sometime to suggest it for a display at the visitor's centre. I think it's that good. What are you holding out for.

And would you really pay what it would cost if it were $8,000 to $15,000. Or are you talking about one of those little cheap $75 4x6 viewers?

[Sal R]

I have great photo albums displaying on my TV during "beer hour". Tess and I sit and watch albums , with usually 500 to 700 images go by on our 55" square screen while having abeer and a snack. Many images evoke memories of times gone buy. Algonquin Park is 7000 sq. km, and we have been in the park 35 days year average for the last 10 years. SO we can remember places we've been or do the "where do you think that was taken" game if neither of su remembers. The 55 inch screen is so big orientation doesn't really matter. We just see th image that aren't 9:16 with black bars on the screen. The images are huge even if square, 26 inches deep. Honestly, you can wait for someone to come out with a square orientation in the future or just get on with your life. Your choice. But talking to guys like me about square photo albums isn't going to make them happen. I'm happy with what I have.

And since avery high percentage of my images are landscapes or shot in horizontal format, many of them look a lot better cropped 16:9 that they did eve 3x2. Many boring uninteresting skys have been reduced in size.

Here you go. My digital photo album in action with one of my own images going buy 7 seconds per image.


There's no square display that would give me a 48 inch horizontal and if there was it wouldn't fit the space I have for it.

So, you can dream about what you want, or figure out how to make what's available now, that's your personal preference. Mine is to make the best of what is out there now, and decide what to do about a square screen when one actually exists. But I'm guessing it will be a no go. When out TV is not acting as photo album we watch netflix and sports on it. And since this device originally sold for $1600, (we paid about half that, it's was released almost 4 years ago) I wonder what you're thinking the original cost of the square screen would be. If it were to be 48 inches horizontal and vertical, the cost could easily be expected t be well over 8 grand, and if it wasn't 48 inches wide, I'd be viewing my ranges at smaller size than I now view 95% of my image.

Honestly, I ouwldn't pay for that, and seriously, you probably wouldn't either. Just go out and shop to find out how much these big screen cost, then double the price of the most expensive one. That would be the minimum you could expect to pay for such a specialty item. More like 4 times the cost, so $8000 -$15000 dollars. Thanks but no thanks.

I'm going into a bit more detail this time. I have a digital slide show. I'm planning to have the park people in sometime to suggest it for a display at the visitor's centre. I think it's that good. What are you holding out for.

And would you really pay what it would cost if it were $8,000 to $15,000. Or are you talking about one of those little cheap $75 4x6 viewers?

I will not try to convince you that size doesn't matter, particularly when it comes to slideshows. I did notice that the picture of your setup was done with a full screen image. Could it be that using a vertical image on the TV would have not been aesthetically pleasing because of all of the screen that has to be masked on either side? What about a 3:2 horizontal image with 25% of the screen masked, even though it was shot horizontally? Could you browse through your photo library on your TV by swiping through pages of images, and tap to select a single image? There are advantages to having a portable device to use as an electronic photo viewer. When it comes to viewing photographs on an electronic display, size isn't the only thing that matters, shape is also important, particularly if it affects the size of your images. No one is suggesting a square screened photo album sized to compete with a 55" flatscreen display that you can also watch netflix or sports on, so your cost estimates, even if accurate, do not apply.

[normhead]

I will not try to convince you that size doesn't matter, particularly when it comes to slideshows. I did notice that the picture of your setup was done with a full screen image. Could it be that using a vertical image on the TV would have not been aesthetically pleasing because of all of the screen that has to be masked on either side? What about a 3:2 horizontal image with 25% of the screen masked, even though it was shot horizontally? Could you browse through your photo library on your TV by swiping through pages of images, and tap to select a single image? There are advantages to having a portable device to use as an electronic photo viewer. When it comes to viewing photographs on an electronic display, size isn't the only thing that matters, shape is also important, particularly if it affects the size of your images. No one is suggesting a square screened photo album sized to compete with a 55" flatscreen display that you can also watch netflix or sports on, so your cost estimates, even if accurate, do not apply.

We'll just have to differ. My square and portrait images look fine to me. Size does matter. As i said, by far the majority of my images actually benefit from a 16:9 crop. The black bars on the side are not a distraction at all, and in no way decrease the enjoyment of the images.

I'm hear your arguments, but you don't seem to have my experience. They sound a little hollow to me.

No one is suggesting a square screened photo album sized to compete with a 55" flatscreen display that you can also watch netflix or sports on, so your cost estimates, even if accurate, do not apply.

You seem to be suggesting that there is something wrong with more functionality. I'd actually rather see a square image at 26 inches x 26 inches on screen that can also do 16:9. After all, a square screen is only going to be good for square pictures, for most of your images that aren't square, you get the same black bars I do.

So you tell me, how many of your images are square? What percentage of your own images would actually benefit from this technology? And don't even try and tell my it's OK to have black bars on horizontal and portrait images but not on square ones. (I know, you already did but don't do again, please.)

There simply is no image size that isn't going to be a problem for some type of image. The question becomes what is the best compromise. For a landscape or pano photographer 16:9 is really convenient. What type of photographer do you envision using mostly square? SHouldn't the orientation of your display device be consistent with the format that's most convenient for you images? In 10 years of shooting and craft shows we had one series of 3 images in square frames.

If you produce a lot of square images, I can see your point of view. But I won't believe you do until you tell me you do, it would just be odd. The only frames that actually fit the images involve custom cropping and custom frames. And I really can't see custom digital frames. Triple my estimated cost if you're going that route, if it can even be done.