What Would an Electronic Photo Album Look Like?

Sal R · 06-20-2018, 09:41 AM - **3 Likes**

I read a very interesting article recently on the origins of digital photography. It was about Mr. Steven Sasson, the Kodak engineer credited with inventing the digital camera, which in itself is a fascinating story. The part of the article that captured my attention came afterward, when Mr. Sasson had the task of demonstrating his invention to audiences made up exclusively of Kodak employees. (A patent had yet to issue and the invention was still considered confidential)

The title of the demonstration alone, “Film-less Photography” must have raised some eyebrows among an audience whose livelihood depended almost entirely on film-based photography. I’m sure that there must have been a huge sigh of relief when they viewed the initial images. The camera was, after all, still in the proof of concept stage and the images were considerably less than film quality. The prototype camera weighed eight pounds and the .01 megapixel black and white images were viewed on a standard analog television set.

Still, the potential was there so there were the obvious questions after the demonstration. “Why would anyone ever want to view their pictures on a TV set?” “How would you store these images?” and most interesting to me, “What would an electronic photo album look like?”

You have to realize, this was the 1970’s. The only commercially available electronic displays were television sets and computer monitors, both of which were analog devices with a picture tube (CRT) for the display. “What would an electronic photo album look like”, if a “portable” television set weighed forty pounds? Good question! But that was then and this is now and yet, the question still remains.

In an age where nearly everyone has a cell phone and nearly every cell phone has a camera, it is estimated that over one trillion photos are taken annually. For most of us, our photos are scattered all over the place: on phones, Facebook, hard drives, DVD’s, shoeboxes, albums and the cloud. Since only a small portion of digital photographs ever make it to print now, it seems only natural that some method of consolidating and viewing these electronic images on a single device is overdue.

That such a device does not already exist is surprising, especially when you consider all of the advances made in electronic display technology over the past 40 years. (Can you imagine an iPad or a Kindle using a cathode ray tube (CRT) display?) The most likely reason there is still no dedicated electronic photo album is that no one has successfully addressed the image sizing problem that asymmetrically shaped displays introduce when viewing digital photographs. The problem is not a technological one any longer, it’s geometric.

Electronic display designs are asymmetrical because their primary purpose has always been to display video content. Any other use, such as computer applications or photographs, is a secondary design consideration. At their heart, electronic displays are meant to be used hands free in a horizontal position and are usually proportioned to fit either 4:3 full screen or 16:9 widescreen video content. This poses no problem at all when used for computer applications because their content works well in the horizontal format.

The problem arises when an asymmetrical display is used to view rotating asymmetrical photographs. Unlike video, which is normally confined to the horizontal plane, photographers capture images in two planes, both horizontal and vertical. The fact that the sides of an asymmetrical display are unequal prevents differently oriented photographs from being displayed in the same size. The most obvious example of this incompatibility is evident in the vertically oriented photos we see occasionally on the evening news. They occupy one-quarter of the center of the screen, while the remaining three-quarters of the screen is filled with a blurred copy of the image.

The key to eliminating the size disparity between differently oriented photographs is to develop a photo display device with four equal sides. In a word, square. By simply increasing the size of a typical 4:3 aspect ratio display by 25% to make it a 4:4 square, photographs would then have the additional headroom needed to rotate on-screen without being downsized.

Additionally, the symmetrical square display, unlike current asymmetrical displays, can be divided into several combinations of equally sized grids for unrestricted placement of multiple same-sized images, irrespective of their orientation.

Imagine an electronic photo album where image size is consistent throughout, regardless of their orientation or placement. Unbelievably, more than 40 years after Mr. Sasson was asked the original question, it would still be a first!

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

Attached Images

tvdtvdtvd · 06-20-2018, 10:16 AM - **3 Likes**

I'm all for a standardized square format, including square sensors and displays. One can always crop to a rectangle,
(or triangle, or octagon, etc), if desired.

Sal R · 06-20-2018, 10:43 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd

I'm all for a standardized square format, including square sensors and displays. One can always crop to a rectangle,
(or triangle, or octagon, etc), if desired.

Keep your fingers crossed tvd. Hasselblad has a concept camera, the V1D, that sports a 75 MP square sensor. If anyone knows square, it's Hasselblad!

tvdtvdtvd · 06-20-2018, 11:06 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Sal R

Keep your fingers crossed tvd. Hasselblad has a concept camera, the V1D, that sports a 75 MP square sensor. If anyone knows square, it's Hasselblad!

Most likely out of my budget, but kudos to Hasselblad for keeping the square format alive.

**RGlasel** · 06-20-2018, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Sal R

Imagine an electronic photo album where image size is consistent throughout, regardless of their orientation or placement. Unbelievably, more than 40 years after Mr. Sasson was asked the original question, it would still be a first!

Paper photo albums that were intended to display a single image per page all had an unequal landscape orientation. The problem then, as today, is how to fit images with differing orientations and aspect ratios to a single display medium. Hence the popularity of photo albums that could display more than one image per page, leaving the layout to the person putting photos in the album. If you want a much enhanced electronic version of those types of photo albums, go to Find your inspiration. | Flickr.

Sal R · 06-20-2018, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by RGlasel

Paper photo albums that were intended to display a single image per page all had an unequal landscape orientation. The problem then, as today, is how to fit images with differing orientations and aspect ratios to a single display medium. Hence the popularity of photo albums that could display more than one image per page, leaving the layout to the person putting photos in the album. If you want a much enhanced electronic version of those types of photo albums, go to Find your inspiration. | Flickr.

You hit the nail on the head when you said that the problem is how to fit images with different aspect ratios and orientations on a single display medium. That is the problem solved by using a square display as the medium. On a square screen, the longest side of an image, whether it is 4:3, 3:2 or 1:1, fits within the screen in any direction. Single images are treated exactly like conventional slides rotating on a projector screen that was proportioned to accommodate an image in either direction. It also offers alternate arrangements of album page (4), film roll (36) and thumbnail (144) image views of same size images, regardless of their orientation.

photoptimist · 06-20-2018, 02:57 PM

Great story!

But the bigger issue is in thinking about the purpose of a photoalbum. Most photoalbums are meant to be shared with family and friends. That means the album must be compatible with the displays that family and friends already have such as smart phones, computers, and internet-connected TVs. An electronic photoalbum that isn't easy to view on existing rectangular devices simply isn't going to be seen.

LensBeginner · 06-20-2018, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd

I'm all for a standardized square format, including square sensors and displays. One can always crop to a rectangle,
(or triangle, or octagon, etc), if desired.

Why not a circle then? the projected image from a lens is circular after all.
I agree that a square is the best approximation though

tvdtvdtvd · 06-20-2018, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by LensBeginner

Why not a circle then? the projected image from a lens is circular after all.
I agree that a square is the best approximation though

I'd be OK with a circular image, but that may not be ideal for hinged devices like a laptop or an articulating screen
on the back of a camera.

MarkJerling · 06-20-2018, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Sal R

Imagine an electronic photo album where image size is consistent throughout, regardless of their orientation or placement. Unbelievably, more than 40 years after Mr. Sasson was asked the original question, it would still be a first!

Electronic photo albums can deal with any shape photo. I think what you mean is "electronic display" We've discussed this before, at length. The market for a square dedicated photo display device is very small. Most people prefer to view photos on those devices they already own - phones, tablets, laptops and TVs.

LensBeginner · 06-20-2018, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd

I'd be OK with a circular image, but that may not be ideal for hinged devices like a laptop or an articulating screen
on the back of a camera.

Haha I know... it was partly provocative, partly tongue-in-cheek

But you never know... foldable displays tomorrow, round displays the day after that.
And magnetic links or whatever in place of the hinges.

Sal R · 06-20-2018, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by photoptimist

Great story!

But the bigger issue is in thinking about the purpose of a photoalbum. Most photoalbums are meant to be shared with family and friends. That means the album must be compatible with the displays that family and friends already have such as smart phones, computers, and internet-connected TVs. An electronic photoalbum that isn't easy to view on existing rectangular devices simply isn't going to be seen.

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.

Sal R · 06-20-2018, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by MarkJerling

Electronic photo albums can deal with any shape photo. I think what you mean is "electronic display" We've discussed this before, at length. The market for a square dedicated photo display device is very small. Most people prefer to view photos on those devices they already own - phones, tablets, laptops and TVs.

I think more specifically, I meant an electronic photo album that utilizes a square display screen as a foundation. I remember discussing this with you before, at length and I still respectfully disagree. I would not suggest that an avid reader give up their Kindle just because they can read a book on any other device on the market, they already know that. They purchased their e-reader for the advantages it offered in light weight, long battery life, glare-free viewing and cloud access to a plethora of books. I don't find it much of a stretch to think that photographers might want a separate device on which to store and access their images, particularly if it offered a significantly better viewing option. Given the choice of viewing a slide show of same-sized, differently oriented images, handsfree or viewing a mixture of image sizes determined solely by the the orientation of the display in relation to the image, which do you think most photographers would prefer? The idea of a square display is easy to reject but, its visually more appealing presentation is hard to deny. But, I could be wrong. I do appreciate your input though, Mark.

MarkJerling · 06-20-2018, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Sal R

I think more specifically, I meant an electronic photo album that utilizes a square display screen as a foundation.

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.

MarkJerling · 06-20-2018, 07:03 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Sal R

Given the choice of viewing a slide show of same-sized, differently oriented images, handsfree or viewing a mixture of image sizes determined solely by the the orientation of the display in relation to the image, which do you think most photographers would prefer? The idea of a square display is easy to reject but, its visually more appealing presentation is hard to deny. But, I could be wrong. I do appreciate your input though, Mark.

We have already established that, of those people polled, only 7% would consider buying such a device. Added to this the dilemma that virtually all screens currently manufactured are of the rectangular type, it means that the implementation cost of the manufacture of a square screen, specifically for your device, could be an expensive exercise.

Since first posting on this forum in 2014, more than 90% of your posts have been about your proposed square frame display. I think you will agree that, as to marketing your concept, this may not be the right venue.
As before, I wish you luck with your invention but I would ask that you cease posting about only this topic.

06-20-2018, 09:41 AM - 3 Likes	#1
Sal R Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 63	What Would an Electronic Photo Album Look Like? I read a very interesting article recently on the origins of digital photography. It was about Mr. Steven Sasson, the Kodak engineer credited with inventing the digital camera, which in itself is a fascinating story. The part of the article that captured my attention came afterward, when Mr. Sasson had the task of demonstrating his invention to audiences made up exclusively of Kodak employees. (A patent had yet to issue and the invention was still considered confidential) The title of the demonstration alone, “Film-less Photography” must have raised some eyebrows among an audience whose livelihood depended almost entirely on film-based photography. I’m sure that there must have been a huge sigh of relief when they viewed the initial images. The camera was, after all, still in the proof of concept stage and the images were considerably less than film quality. The prototype camera weighed eight pounds and the .01 megapixel black and white images were viewed on a standard analog television set. Still, the potential was there so there were the obvious questions after the demonstration. “Why would anyone ever want to view their pictures on a TV set?” “How would you store these images?” and most interesting to me, “What would an electronic photo album look like?” You have to realize, this was the 1970’s. The only commercially available electronic displays were television sets and computer monitors, both of which were analog devices with a picture tube (CRT) for the display. “What would an electronic photo album look like”, if a “portable” television set weighed forty pounds? Good question! But that was then and this is now and yet, the question still remains. In an age where nearly everyone has a cell phone and nearly every cell phone has a camera, it is estimated that over one trillion photos are taken annually. For most of us, our photos are scattered all over the place: on phones, Facebook, hard drives, DVD’s, shoeboxes, albums and the cloud. Since only a small portion of digital photographs ever make it to print now, it seems only natural that some method of consolidating and viewing these electronic images on a single device is overdue. That such a device does not already exist is surprising, especially when you consider all of the advances made in electronic display technology over the past 40 years. (Can you imagine an iPad or a Kindle using a cathode ray tube (CRT) display?) The most likely reason there is still no dedicated electronic photo album is that no one has successfully addressed the image sizing problem that asymmetrically shaped displays introduce when viewing digital photographs. The problem is not a technological one any longer, it’s geometric. Electronic display designs are asymmetrical because their primary purpose has always been to display video content. Any other use, such as computer applications or photographs, is a secondary design consideration. At their heart, electronic displays are meant to be used hands free in a horizontal position and are usually proportioned to fit either 4:3 full screen or 16:9 widescreen video content. This poses no problem at all when used for computer applications because their content works well in the horizontal format. The problem arises when an asymmetrical display is used to view rotating asymmetrical photographs. Unlike video, which is normally confined to the horizontal plane, photographers capture images in two planes, both horizontal and vertical. The fact that the sides of an asymmetrical display are unequal prevents differently oriented photographs from being displayed in the same size. The most obvious example of this incompatibility is evident in the vertically oriented photos we see occasionally on the evening news. They occupy one-quarter of the center of the screen, while the remaining three-quarters of the screen is filled with a blurred copy of the image. The key to eliminating the size disparity between differently oriented photographs is to develop a photo display device with four equal sides. In a word, square. By simply increasing the size of a typical 4:3 aspect ratio display by 25% to make it a 4:4 square, photographs would then have the additional headroom needed to rotate on-screen without being downsized. Additionally, the symmetrical square display, unlike current asymmetrical displays, can be divided into several combinations of equally sized grids for unrestricted placement of multiple same-sized images, irrespective of their orientation. Imagine an electronic photo album where image size is consistent throughout, regardless of their orientation or placement. Unbelievably, more than 40 years after Mr. Sasson was asked the original question, it would still be a first! A complete explanation of how the square photo display design works can be found in U.S. patent 9,396,518. Attached Images

06-20-2018, 06:55 PM	#14
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,402	Originally posted by Sal R I think more specifically, I meant an electronic photo album that utilizes a square display screen as a foundation. 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. Last edited by MarkJerling; 06-20-2018 at 07:39 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Meural - Just another electronic photo frame? Or something more?	UncleVanya	General Photography	8	03-15-2018 10:40 PM
What Cities Would Look Like if only lit by Stars	interested_observer	Photographic Technique	5	11-14-2014 01:58 PM
Release: vBulletin Album EXIF information plugin for member album photos	Adam	General Talk	2	11-10-2011 06:00 PM
Question How to upload album photo to the online photo editor in Pentaxforums	altopiet	Site Suggestions and Help	4	02-16-2011 10:33 AM
How would it look like if the Earth had rings like Saturn?	Gooshin	General Talk	10	12-17-2009 06:50 PM

06-20-2018, 10:16 AM - 3 Likes	#2
tvdtvdtvd Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,665	I'm all for a standardized square format, including square sensors and displays. One can always crop to a rectangle, (or triangle, or octagon, etc), if desired.

06-20-2018, 10:43 AM - 2 Likes	#3
Sal R Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 63 Original Poster	Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd I'm all for a standardized square format, including square sensors and displays. One can always crop to a rectangle, (or triangle, or octagon, etc), if desired. Keep your fingers crossed tvd. Hasselblad has a concept camera, the V1D, that sports a 75 MP square sensor. If anyone knows square, it's Hasselblad!

06-20-2018, 11:06 AM - 1 Like	#4
tvdtvdtvd Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,665	Originally posted by Sal R Keep your fingers crossed tvd. Hasselblad has a concept camera, the V1D, that sports a 75 MP square sensor. If anyone knows square, it's Hasselblad! Most likely out of my budget, but kudos to Hasselblad for keeping the square format alive.

06-20-2018, 11:57 AM	#5
RGlasel Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Saskatoon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,227	Originally posted by Sal R Imagine an electronic photo album where image size is consistent throughout, regardless of their orientation or placement. Unbelievably, more than 40 years after Mr. Sasson was asked the original question, it would still be a first! Paper photo albums that were intended to display a single image per page all had an unequal landscape orientation. The problem then, as today, is how to fit images with differing orientations and aspect ratios to a single display medium. Hence the popularity of photo albums that could display more than one image per page, leaving the layout to the person putting photos in the album. If you want a much enhanced electronic version of those types of photo albums, go to Find your inspiration. \| Flickr.

06-20-2018, 12:56 PM	#6
Sal R Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 63 Original Poster	Originally posted by RGlasel Paper photo albums that were intended to display a single image per page all had an unequal landscape orientation. The problem then, as today, is how to fit images with differing orientations and aspect ratios to a single display medium. Hence the popularity of photo albums that could display more than one image per page, leaving the layout to the person putting photos in the album. If you want a much enhanced electronic version of those types of photo albums, go to Find your inspiration. \| Flickr. You hit the nail on the head when you said that the problem is how to fit images with different aspect ratios and orientations on a single display medium. That is the problem solved by using a square display as the medium. On a square screen, the longest side of an image, whether it is 4:3, 3:2 or 1:1, fits within the screen in any direction. Single images are treated exactly like conventional slides rotating on a projector screen that was proportioned to accommodate an image in either direction. It also offers alternate arrangements of album page (4), film roll (36) and thumbnail (144) image views of same size images, regardless of their orientation.

06-20-2018, 02:57 PM	#7
photoptimist Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,121	Great story! But the bigger issue is in thinking about the purpose of a photoalbum. Most photoalbums are meant to be shared with family and friends. That means the album must be compatible with the displays that family and friends already have such as smart phones, computers, and internet-connected TVs. An electronic photoalbum that isn't easy to view on existing rectangular devices simply isn't going to be seen.

06-20-2018, 02:57 PM	#8
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd I'm all for a standardized square format, including square sensors and displays. One can always crop to a rectangle, (or triangle, or octagon, etc), if desired. Why not a circle then? the projected image from a lens is circular after all. I agree that a square is the best approximation though

06-20-2018, 03:08 PM	#9
tvdtvdtvd Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,665	Originally posted by LensBeginner Why not a circle then? the projected image from a lens is circular after all. I agree that a square is the best approximation though I'd be OK with a circular image, but that may not be ideal for hinged devices like a laptop or an articulating screen on the back of a camera.

06-20-2018, 03:16 PM	#10
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,402	Originally posted by Sal R Imagine an electronic photo album where image size is consistent throughout, regardless of their orientation or placement. Unbelievably, more than 40 years after Mr. Sasson was asked the original question, it would still be a first! Electronic photo albums can deal with any shape photo. I think what you mean is "electronic display" We've discussed this before, at length. The market for a square dedicated photo display device is very small. Most people prefer to view photos on those devices they already own - phones, tablets, laptops and TVs.

06-20-2018, 03:21 PM	#11
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd I'd be OK with a circular image, but that may not be ideal for hinged devices like a laptop or an articulating screen on the back of a camera. Haha I know... it was partly provocative, partly tongue-in-cheek But you never know... foldable displays tomorrow, round displays the day after that. And magnetic links or whatever in place of the hinges.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-20-2018, 03:36 PM	#12
Sal R Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 63 Original Poster	Originally posted by photoptimist Great story! But the bigger issue is in thinking about the purpose of a photoalbum. Most photoalbums are meant to be shared with family and friends. That means the album must be compatible with the displays that family and friends already have such as smart phones, computers, and internet-connected TVs. An electronic photoalbum that isn't easy to view on existing rectangular devices simply isn't going to be seen. 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.

06-20-2018, 05:26 PM	#13
Sal R Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 63 Original Poster	Originally posted by MarkJerling Electronic photo albums can deal with any shape photo. I think what you mean is "electronic display" We've discussed this before, at length. The market for a square dedicated photo display device is very small. Most people prefer to view photos on those devices they already own - phones, tablets, laptops and TVs. I think more specifically, I meant an electronic photo album that utilizes a square display screen as a foundation. I remember discussing this with you before, at length and I still respectfully disagree. I would not suggest that an avid reader give up their Kindle just because they can read a book on any other device on the market, they already know that. They purchased their e-reader for the advantages it offered in light weight, long battery life, glare-free viewing and cloud access to a plethora of books. I don't find it much of a stretch to think that photographers might want a separate device on which to store and access their images, particularly if it offered a significantly better viewing option. Given the choice of viewing a slide show of same-sized, differently oriented images, handsfree or viewing a mixture of image sizes determined solely by the the orientation of the display in relation to the image, which do you think most photographers would prefer? The idea of a square display is easy to reject but, its visually more appealing presentation is hard to deny. But, I could be wrong. I do appreciate your input though, Mark.

06-20-2018, 07:03 PM - 1 Like	#15
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,402	Originally posted by Sal R Given the choice of viewing a slide show of same-sized, differently oriented images, handsfree or viewing a mixture of image sizes determined solely by the the orientation of the display in relation to the image, which do you think most photographers would prefer? The idea of a square display is easy to reject but, its visually more appealing presentation is hard to deny. But, I could be wrong. I do appreciate your input though, Mark. We have already established that, of those people polled, only 7% would consider buying such a device. Added to this the dilemma that virtually all screens currently manufactured are of the rectangular type, it means that the implementation cost of the manufacture of a square screen, specifically for your device, could be an expensive exercise. Since first posting on this forum in 2014, more than 90% of your posts have been about your proposed square frame display. I think you will agree that, as to marketing your concept, this may not be the right venue. As before, I wish you luck with your invention but I would ask that you cease posting about only this topic.