|
Forum: General Photography
11-02-2022, 04:54 PM
|
| |
Manufacturers by definition, manufacture. When the broadcast video aspect ratio transitioned to 16:9, there were no displays in stock. The need was there and so they manufactured their panels wider out of necessity. If there were a market for a different aspect ratio Ie. square display, for photographs only, they would surely accommodate. It can't be much more difficult to manufacture a square display than a widescreen. One is simply taller than it is wide.
The poor quality of the panels used in Photo Frames and the fragility of the electronics is a matter of choice for manufacturers and is why, in their current form, they will never be more than a novelty item. If, as their name implies, they were truly a serious photo-centric device, the quality of both the displays and electronics could be improved to match those in the finest tablets. Improving the materials used and altering the screen geometry to a more photo friendly square shape could turn a novelty item into a useful photographic tool.
As for the suggestion to use two screens, well that's just not very practical for a number of reasons. Imagine telling an avid reader that he should buy two e-readers to get a more accurate feeling of reading a real book. Besides, you would have to segregate images by aspect ratio and route them to the correctly oriented display. Not to mention that watching your vacation photos would be like watching a tennis match. No thanks.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
11-02-2022, 08:45 AM
|
| |
I can only speak for myself but Digital Photo Frames have always been a bit of a disappointment for me. They have never lived up to my expectations for a photo-centric viewer. After all, they are the only devices purportedly designed specifically to display still photographs. They can be used separate and apart, to free up your other devices. They are portable, provide a much larger image than your camera’s display and the images themselves are quite stunning. So, what’s not to like?
I believe that the designers of Digital Frames missed the chance to set their product apart from other photo capable viewing devices on two separate occasions. First, when they elected to stick with the 4:3 aspect ratio format, which was the video broadcast standard for displays at the time, and again, when they expanded their offerings to include the newer 16:9 aspect ratio widescreen video format. If they had only given more consideration to the fact that their device would be used primarily in the slideshow mode, they might have learned a lesson from the film photography era and altered their design to better fit the intended subject matter.
Prior to digital displays, there were two primary methods of viewing photographs, as prints or as slides. Prints were viewed individually, the finest of which were often enlarged and placed into a decorative frame for more permanent display. This was perfect…. for displaying a single print. Slides, on the other hand, were usually viewed in sequence, as a group. Unlike the decorative frame, which only held a single print, in a single orientation, with a single aspect ratio; the slide projection screen had to be able to accommodate multiple images with multiple aspect ratios and in multiple orientations.
As anyone who has ever set up an analog slideshow can tell you, the screen had to be extended as high as it was wide so that the images could fit the full width or height of the screen in either direction. In other words, the screen was set up in a square format. So, in a nutshell, current Digital Frames use the same design, right down to the decorative frame, which is most suitable for viewing individual photos, instead of using a square display that can accommodate multiple photos in their various orientations and aspect ratios.
Personally, I would much rather have a square, frameless photo viewer that I could either hold in my hand to swipe through large images of both orientations or be able to stand/wall-mount the device, with a decorative frame as an option. The ability to view photographs as large as possible in both orientations would definitely renew my interest in owning a portable standalone photo viewer.
Oddly enough, to transition from 4:3 to a 16:9 aspect ratio, the screen width had to be increased by 25%. To convert a 4:3 to a 1:1 square screen instead, the height must be increased by exactly the same 25%. Perhaps one day Digital Frame makers will decide to fully commit to still photography and use a square format that is suitable for displaying photographs in all of their iterations.
Attached are two drawings that illustrate the difference in screen efficiency and image sizing on same-sized widescreen and square displays for a selection of commonly used aspect ratios and orientations. The numbers should speak for themselves.
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
03-01-2022, 05:38 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
02-11-2022, 10:18 PM
|
| |
Taken at the fountain in front of the Library of Congress, across from the Capitol building in Washington D.C. The water droplets appear to be flung from the statue as if she had just tossed her wet hair back. The illusion is that the statue caused the water to to fly from the bathing woman's hair.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-24-2018, 01:20 PM
|
| |
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.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-24-2018, 09:17 AM
|
| |
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.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-23-2018, 09:55 AM
|
| |
normhead, Correct me if I'm wrong, the resolution of a display is set in stone by the manufacturer. The screen resolution is fixed, however, if an image does not occupy the entire screen, the effective resolution is reduced because not all of the available pixels are utilized for the image. The smaller the image, the less effective resolution. Using a square display, which allows both orientations to be displayed in the same size, ensures that the resolution of both orientations is equal. For example, on a square display both orientations occupy 75% of the display and therefore use 75% of the max screen resolution for both. The same 4:3 images on a 16:9 display occupies 75% of the screen for horizontal and 42% for verticals, with the max screen resolution reduced accordingly. Assuming that both displays have the same surface area (i.e. 16X9" and 12X12", both 144 sq. in. of area), the effective resolution of the square display must be higher than the widescreen display simply because image size is equal for horizontal images and 33% larger for verticals on the square screen.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-22-2018, 05:39 PM
|
| |
In discussions about using a square display for viewing "photographs" , not movies, not netflix, not computer apps, just photographs, I always hear," but you have black bars all the time on a square". Like black bars on a video display is something new. Unless the content matches the aspect ratio of the display exactly, there will be bars. That means that on a 16:9 display, there will be black bars for 3:2, 4:3,1:1 and every aspect ratio except 16:9. The only difference is how much display is covered by the bars for each specific aspect ratio and orientation. Now that we have established that there will be bars, can we please concentrate on the images rather than the unused space. As photographers, you would think we would spend more time concentrating on the images themselves rather than on the blank canvas around them. That is the equivalent to obsessing over the parts of an album page that is visible between the photos. The whole object of a square photo display is to use this blank space in such a way as to maintain consistent image size, independent of the orientation of the display or the images. The fact that this cannot be accomplished on a rectangular display without physically rotating the display to obtain the largest image is apparent. Although I never shoot square images, (nor does anyone else for lack of a square sensor) I have cropped specific images to square, but not many. Instagram users might find the format useful though.
---------- Post added 06-22-18 at 08:13 PM ----------
What a novel idea. Rotate the display for the largest image. Seriously! I guess my question is, if you had a choice, would you prefer to be an active participant in your slideshow to maintain consistent image size, or just hit play and watch. How would you maintain consistent image size regardless of orientation for multiple images on a rectangular display? View all of the horizontal images first and then rotate the display to view all of the verticals the same size? A square display for rectangular images is the only solution to eliminating the size disparity between images of different orientations.
Pivoting the screen does not maximize the resolution, it simply increases the magnification of the image by aligning the longest side of the screen with the longest side of the image. Zooming in does not change an image's resolution.
---------- Post added 06-22-18 at 08:27 PM ----------
Thank you for recognizing some of the potential that a square display would offer photographers. Now we have a digital photo album/editing tablet. And all images are presented equally, no matter the framing.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-22-2018, 10:29 AM
|
| |
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.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-22-2018, 09:00 AM
|
| |
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.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-22-2018, 05:59 AM
|
| |
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.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-21-2018, 09:20 PM
|
| |
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.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-21-2018, 03:54 PM
|
| |
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.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-21-2018, 12:57 PM
|
| |
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.
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.
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.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-20-2018, 05:26 PM
|
| |
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.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-20-2018, 03:36 PM
|
| |
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.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-20-2018, 12:56 PM
|
| |
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.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-20-2018, 10:43 AM
|
| |
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!
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-20-2018, 09:41 AM
|
| |
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.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
02-18-2018, 07:29 PM
|
| |
I've got to say that I thought there would be more than just me interested in such a device. I mean, you've got to backup your photos anyway, why not on a device that offers what I perceive to be a more consistent treatment of the images. It is some consolation knowing that, even though the poll was small, at least a third of the participants saw some merit in the idea. It may not be for everyone to have a separate viewer dedicated to photos, but then not all avid readers own a Kindle.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
02-18-2018, 05:51 PM
|
| |
Steve, Do you think for a minute that if there was a demand for a square photo viewer that Sony or Samsung for example, couldn't run off a couple of hundred thousand square panels? If the demand were there, it would simply add another product to their line. As for custom software, if current software can rotate an image on a screen, downsizing when necessary, couldn't it rotate the image without downsizing? If the screen could be divided equally into squares instead of rectangles, couldn't it do the same for multiple images? The only software adjustment needed is to remove the current step of downsizing images to fit within an oblong shape.
You have to understand that I have no intention of building a square photo viewer in my garage, but I would love to license my patent to someone with the wherewithal to do it. Call it a backup photo drive with a better photographic viewing option. The photographic equivalent of an e-reader.
As I've said before, the frame is optional. I only used the Digital Photo Frame as an example because it is the only current device that is specifically designed for viewing photographs and in that capacity I think it is a disappointment.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
02-18-2018, 02:06 PM
|
| |
Steve, the cost of the display material (LCD/LED etc.) is determined by the total surface area, not the shape or the diagonal measurement. As such, as long as the surface was identical in area the price would be the same. ie. 16X9 inch is equal in area to 12X12 inch and should cost the same.
Sal
|
|
Forum: General Photography
02-18-2018, 09:00 AM
|
| |
Mark, Thanks for conducting the poll and deciphering the results. I still seem to be in the minority when it comes to valuing consistent image sizing above all else. I honestly thought that being a visual art photographers would be more concerned with the images themselves rather than the unused screen surrounding them. It seems that the majority of respondents are concentrating on the hole in the donut instead of the whole donut. Thanks again for your help.
Sal
|
|
Forum: General Photography
02-05-2018, 09:00 PM
|
| |
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.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
02-05-2018, 05:46 PM
|
| |
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.
|
