[LensBeginner]

I create panoramas stitching together multiple shots all the time, so no - not joking. 4:1 is quite a favourite of mine. Here's some reduced size copies of some of my images. The originals are large - 12000 to 16000 pixels (9000 pixels being about the smallest) etc. They make lovely canvasses. The least panoramic of the lot is slightly more than 2:1.

I'd be keen to know how the display will cope with these sort of formats.

uuh... multi-line wrap?

[Sal R]

I'd be keen to know how the display will cope with these sort of formats.

A square device would not be very practical for panoramic photos or widescreen video which would be better served by a 16:9 aspect ratio display. My emphasis was on producing a display that could more efficiently display full-frame 3:2 and 4:3 images because those are the most common aspect ratio camera sensors. Of course, all of the standard image sizes, for 5x7, 8X10, 11X14 photos etc., after cropping could be expanded to fit-on-screen, or fit-in-grid in the case of multiple photo arrangements. Unfortunately, that does not account for beautiful panoramas like those you posted in your reply. That is not surprising since I doubt that you can purchase off the rack photo frames for them either. Drastic crops, though they can produce stunning images, are the exception not the rule in photography and would require custom framing for prints or, in the case of electronic displays, a device that would have very limited usefulness for the majority of photographs.

[Sal R]

I have tried, seemingly in vain, to garner support for my patented idea for a square-shaped, photo-specific electronic viewer. I must admit I am still perplexed as to why many people, especially photographers, don't seem to grasp that, for photographic viewing, a square display has no significant drawbacks.

Compared to current widescreen designs, the square display allows for more efficient use of the equivalent amount of screen space. It allows portrait and landscape photos to be displayed edge-to-edge, in the same size, using less masking for both orientations combined than current designs. Visual proof that it is a more efficient design. It can also be divided equally into several grid arrangements for viewing 4, 36, and 144 images, all properly oriented and displayed on-screen in the same size.

Because the square display itself has no particular orientation, it can be held or mounted in any position without changing its functionality at all. It allows for handsfree slideshow viewing of same-sized, full-frame, 3:2 and 4:3 aspect ratio image files and, by default, any square cropped images. All other crops can be resized to fit edge-to-edge on the screen or within a grid with appropriate masking for the particular crop.

The one drawback to the square display is that it is not suitable for widescreen content, such as video and panoramic photographs. Fortunately, finding a viewer for widescreen content should not be a problem.

Several people have voiced concerns that the cost for such a device would be excessive. When you consider that a 12" square screen is the same size as a 19.5" television screen, and that the image manipulation software required for its functionality is present in even the dumbest of smartphones, I don't believe that the cost has to be outrageous.

Retooling to bring an entirely new product to market for anticipated sales is just the cost of doing business for a manufacturer. You can't sell a product if you don't make it. The real problem is, they won't make it if we don't want it!

Can I get an amen.

[MarkJerling]

A square device would not be very practical for panoramic photos or widescreen video which would be better served by a 16:9 aspect ratio display. My emphasis was on producing a display that could more efficiently display full-frame 3:2 and 4:3 images because those are the most common aspect ratio camera sensors. Of course, all of the standard image sizes, for 5x7, 8X10, 11X14 photos etc., after cropping could be expanded to fit-on-screen, or fit-in-grid in the case of multiple photo arrangements. Unfortunately, that does not account for beautiful panoramas like those you posted in your reply. That is not surprising since I doubt that you can purchase off the rack photo frames for them either. Drastic crops, though they can produce stunning images, are the exception not the rule in photography and would require custom framing for prints or, in the case of electronic displays, a device that would have very limited usefulness for the majority of photographs.

Thanks of the compliment and explanation Sal. For the panoramas, I mostly do them as canvas prints. But yes, can do framed prints behind glass too.

You may wish to amend that patent of yours: The patent shows the processing only dealing with 1:1, 3:2 and 4:3 images. You probably need to include an algorithm to deal with other aspect ratios.

[leekil]

Here's what you need for the panoramas:



LG 38" 21:9 montor

[MarkJerling]

Here's what you need for the panoramas:



LG 38" 21:9 montor

Ooooh. I like it.

[MarkJerling]

Sal and I have been discussing the viewer idea further by PM. We've agreed to post that correspondence here for everyone's input:

Mark,
It is obvious to me that, whether you agree with me or not, at least you have shown enough interest to take the time to actually review my patent. When you get a minute, I would appreciate it if you would take a look at my last post, #48. I think it addresses your suggestion to add algorithms to improve my patent. I am sure that images beyond the standard 4:3 and 3:2 will be covered by the crop and fill-to-screen or fill-to-grid method, as long as the aspect ratio is not one considered widescreen content. I know that you may still feel that I am beating a dead horse but, I really am at a loss as to why more photographers don't see a square display as a better photo viewing option. Thanks for keeping the conversation civil, which seems to be a rarity these days.
Sal

Hi Sal

Thank you for your note. For the benefit of all, I'd ask that we continue this discussion in the forum rather than by PM.

Having looked at your patent (and I'm not a patent expert by any means!) it seems to me that the patent does not mention any formats other than those specific height to width ratios mentioned. Hence my comment. The diagrams which form part of your patent seem to only consider the tessellation of the screen using three main formats. The remainder of the diagrams seem to indicate likely ways to display multiple images on the square screen, depending on user's choice so far as how may images to see at one time.

I don't think you're flogging a dead horse. But, you are most certainly swimming against the tide, to use another analogy.

We now live in a digital age where the PC is almost dead. Future (home) computing will likely evolve more and more into the direction of mobile phone sized devices that will perform all the functions of a PC and using either a phone size display or, with wireless docking, display on or interact with very large screens. In this coming market, you are hoping to sell to some corporation, your patent for a device that, all things considered, is a fairly small screen with limited function other than it's unique tessellation of some very specific aspect ratios, none of which comes close to the standard mobile phone image format of 1:1.77.

Now, consider how infinitesimally small this market is: 1% of the camera market are actual cameras, this being compact digital, DSLRs and mirrorless cameras combined. The other 99% are phones. 1,600,000,000 cameras are phones. That's a staggering number and they're all shooting 1:1.77 format. And most of these fools shoot nothing but selfies in portrait mode.

Added to that, we have the situation of what people already own: In our house, for instance, there are no less than 3 laptops, two with very nice wide-screen displays. We also have three large flat screen TVs. Two of these are smart TVs fully capable of surfing the internet, showing slideshows, streaming Netflix etc. There's also a tablet floating around which we access very occasionally to view news, but it's mainly used by my son for some games and as a Netflix streaming device for the 3rd TV which does not have the net connective capability of the other two. My son also has an Xbox One which is a 4k viewing device in its own right. I mention this not to brag about our great devices. Quite the contrary! We're not technology junkies by any means and none of these items are state of the art. These are all relatively cheap devices. Hell, the one TV was a spot prize at a running event. I have a friend with a $12,000 TV - that's not us! Our refrigerator does not yet scan what we use and contact the shop to replenish the trim milk. But this technology exists - we're just slow on the uptake.

We've not even touched on VR technology. Right now, you can have a VR headset that allows you to view any of your images virtually as if you're standing in the photo. With the right software, you can stand in the image, provide the image was shot with the right sort of camera, and turn through 360 degrees, not only horizontally, but in any direction, walk through a room, look at the wallpaper up close should you want to.

But the point is this: In a "normal" household like ours, with all these large screen options in multiple rooms - Why would we buy a dedicated 12" (or larger for that matter) photo viewer?

So, maybe your "dead horse" analogy is more accurate than my "swimming against the tide" one. I don't mean to be derogatory to your idea. It's just the reality of the fast moving technological world we find ourselves in. Of course, I'd love for you to make money from your idea. As I noted before, you'll very quickly see how well you (or some corporation) is likely to do out of your idea if you start a kickstarter campaign. Maybe you're right, and there's a market. But I can't see Sony or Panasonic or some such similar entity buying your patent - which appears to be what you're hoping will happen, without knowing that there is a market for such a device.

Happy to continue the thread, and always mindful that on Pentax Forums we strive to have polite and friendly discussions, even if we disagree!

Kind regards,
Mark

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your reply. I Appreciate your honesty and have wrestled with many of the questions that you bring up. Maybe you're right, swimming against the tide is a little less graphic than my dead horse analogy. Don't know how to quote and transfer my answer back to the forum from here, but will return to it after this brief PM.

I did want to clarify for you how other aspect ratios would be handled on the square. Nearly every camera sensor made, be it smartphone, DSLR, or medium format, conforms to one of two aspect ratios, 3:2 or 4:3, so that is the starting point for any crop of a photograph. Using my example of a 12" square display and the largest full-frame 4:3 image that will fit on it, which is 9X12, it would go something like this. Crop the 9X12 image to a 4:5 aspect ratio and you get an 8X10 image on a 12X12 display. Since largest side of the image is now 2" short of being edge to edge on the screen the device would perform an operation, which I can only describe in Photoshop terms. Constrain proportions and fit to screen, which done manually would be done using free transform, holding the shift key to maintain proportions and dragging the image to fit the screen. This gives you a 12" image with the appropriate width for the aspect ratio of the crop. The largest 3:2 image that will fit on screen is an 8X12 and when cropped to a 4:5 ratio 8X10 image would again be processed to fit to screen, making it a 12" image with slightly less width than the 4:3 image. Cropping and then resizing images to fit-to-screen, or fit-to grid for multi-image presentations, works for any aspect ratio that you can crop from the basic 3:2 and 4:3 aspect ratio standards.

Sincerely,
Sal

Hi Sal

I understand what you're saying but my comment related to the patent: I don't see that the patent explains how other formats will be handled - hence my comments on that aspect.

Ultimately, I don't believe the majority of mobile phone users will buy a dedicated photo viewing screen. Not unless that screen seamlessly and automatically shared their photos from their phone, should they share that image with some kind of Android or iPhone app. That sort of interaction, complete with editing capability, in an app, is what may make that market buy such a device. (if they see the value in it) They would not care about the square format - but they would care about how "easy" it was to get their images to display on a device.

And, as for the 'photographer' user: Why not just use the screens we have? I know you have decided that there's a benefit in a device that displays portrait or landscape pictures at a similar size, but I suspect most of us don't care! Or, if we care enough - we'd buy a bigger screen so that it does not matter, or turn a tablet through 90 degrees and use it vertically.

If you want me to, I can copy these discussions back to the forum thread.

Kind regards,
Mark

Hi Mark,

I'd would appreciate it if you could copy these discussions back to the forum thread. Maybe it will provide more food for thought on the subject, if people haven't lost interest by now.

I think that it would be a given that a square photo viewer would be equipped with WiFi for easy image transfer, cloud access to on-line photos, the ability to share photos, a basic image editing program and basically any feature that would compliment its functionality as a photo display. I'm sure that there are people who will continue to rotate tablets that they already own, and rightfully so, but some people might appreciate having another option.

Thanks,
Sal