Patent Grant
7044617
1. Field of Invention
This invention relates to display devices, specifically to ways to minimize the effect of shadows on display devices.
2. Objects and Advantages
In the display of items for retail or non-retail purposes, it is important that the item be displayed in such a way that it appears attractive. When merchandise is displayed, the sale is often dependent on the effectiveness of the display in keeping the viewer's focus on the merchandise. This is particularly true in the case of eyeglasses, whether they be corrective glasses or sunglasses, because there are a large number and variety of glasses to display at one time. With such a wide number of eyeglasses and styles displayed at once, it is important that the viewer be able to focus on the eyeglasses themselves with as little distraction as possible.
The display of sale items is best accomplished with illumination adequate to draw attention to the merchandise being offered, but such illumination often results in considerable shadows being cast by the merchandise itself and/or display devices being used to support the merchandise. As an example, when eyeglass frames are displayed on a panel illuminated by spot or flood lights, the eyeglass frames and the holders being used to support them typically cast numerous shadows against the background panel. These shadows are unsightly and distract attention from the merchandise.
It is therefore a primary object of the present invention to provide a display device that allows items to be displayed with minimum impact from shadows caused by the items or their placeholders or support means.
A further object of the invention is to provide a display device that is simple, lightweight, and rugged in construction, is inexpensive to manufacture from readily-available materials, and is capable of a long life of useful service with a minimum of maintenance.
3. Prior Art
In previous display devices, either artificial light of natural light was used to illuminate the display items. The problem was that the light illuminating the display items also cast noticeable shadows upon the display background. These shadows were caused by the display items or the item support holders blocking some portion of the light and thus creating shadows. The shadows decreased the effectiveness of the display by drawing attention away from the display items. This invention overcomes that flaw by utilizing a translucent panel property positioned apart from a background panel to “absorb” or diminish the shadows cast by the display items or their support/placeholders.
This invention relates to a device and method for the presentation of objects which minimizes the impact of shadows on the display. Display objects are attached upon or placed in front of a panel of translucent material. The panel of translucent material is affixed to or positioned in relation to an opaque panel or wall surface. The spacing between the translucent panel and the opaque panel or surface is critical to minimizing the impact of shadows cast by the display materials or supports onto the translucent panel. The display items can be illuminated by natural or artificial light.
The character of the invention, however, may be best understood by reference to one of its structural forms, as illustrated by the accompanying drawings, in which:
Referring to
The display device also includes a translucent panel, indicated generally by the reference numeral 10. The translucent panel is affixed to the background panel 12 so that a gap of between 1 and 185 mm separates the translucent panel 10 from the background panel 12. Stand-off mounts 14 are used to provide support for affixing the translucent panel to the background panel and establishing the distance between the two panels.
In this embodiment, overhead lighting 18 is provided as part of the display. Item supports 16 affixed to the translucent panel support eye frames as shown in
The inventors discovered that by using a translucent panel made of Plexiglas® and positioning the panel between 1 and 150 mm from the background panel, shadows cast on the Plexiglas panel were minimized and in some cases non-detectable to the naked eye. Spacing between the translucent panel and the background panel is critical.
Experimentation with different materials led the inventors to utilize a form of Plexiglas® for the translucent panel. This material was readily available from a commercial source and further minimized the effect of the shadows in relation to other materials.
The Plexiglas® used by the inventors is Plexiglas® Frosted Acrylic Sheet. It is manufactured by ATOFINA Chemicals, Inc. Plexiglas® Frosted Acrylic Sheet has the frosted look throughout the entire acrylic structure which makes it more effective than other “surface frosted” materials tested. There may be other sources of frosted Acrylic sheet available that are frosted throughout.
The thickness of the Frosted Acrylic Sheet tested was 0.236 inches (6 mm) and sheets are available in thickness ranging from 0.08 inches (2 mm) to 0.472 inches (12 mm).
The inventors discovered that the background panel should be opaque and that white surfaces achieved the best results in minimizing the effect of shadows (see quantification of results below).
In the embodiment of the present invention shown in
The embodiment of
The embodiment in
Quantification of Results
An experiment was designed to quantify the effectiveness of the display device in reducing the shadows cast on the translucent panel. A display device similar to the one shown in
The tester first measured the effect of panel separation by using a white background panel spaced 0.75 inches (19.1 mm) behind the translucent panel. The display apparatus utilized for testing purposes was similar to the display shown in
A GE Type 217 Light Meter was used to take the light readings. The Type 217 light meter is a pocket size, color and cosin-corrected, three-scale meter capable of directly reading illuminance from 10 to 1,000 footcandles. The light meter was first used to measure (in footcandles) the light incident on the translucent panel in three different areas: 1) top of the of panel, 2) middle of the panel and 3) bottom of panel. These first three measurements were taken directly under one of the lights and the results were tabulated. A piece of cardboard was then used to create a shadow and a light meter reading was taken in the same three areas (top, middle and bottom of translucent panel) to compare the light meter readings for the “shadow area”.
The results from these measurements are shown in Table 2 in the “Under Light” column. The light meter readings are naturally highest at the top of the panel due to the close proximity to the light source. The test was then repeated with the measurements taken between the two light sources and at the same relative positions from the light source. These results are also shown in Table 2 for comparison purposes in the “Between Lights” column. Table 2 reflects the data obtained with the panels separated by 0.75 inches (17.4 mm).
Table 3 shows the data for the measurements taken on the translucent panel with the white background panel spaced from 0.75 inches (17.4 mm) to 6 inches (152 mm) behind the translucent panel. All of these readings were taken directly under the light as previously described.
Table 4 shows the measurements taken for the same display setup as utilized in obtaining the data in Table 3 but with the readings taken between the lights instead of directly below one light.
The tests were then repeated to quantify the effects of the color of the background panel on the shadows cast on the translucent panel. Three additional colored panels were chosen and tested: black, silver and tan. The complete results from these tests are shown in the tables 5 and 6. Table 5 shows the results from measurements taken directly below one of the lights and Table 6 contains readings taken between the lights.
To summarize the results, the readings were categorized by whether they were a “light”reading or a “shadow” reading. All top, center and bottom readings were then averaged for all measurements taken under the light and between the lights. These are shown in Table 7 below. The next step was to quantify the overall effect of the different color background panels and the distance between panels on the shadow cast on the translucent panel.
The “shadow strength” was defined as the ratio of the (average light reading minus the average shadow reading) divided by the average light reading. This gives a general indication of the percent reduction in light due to the shadow. If a reading of 30 foot candles was taken at a spot either under a light or between the lights and a subsequent reading of 22 was taken after a shadow was cast at the same spot on the translucent panel, the “shadow strength” would be (30−22)/30=27%. The shadow reading indicates that the amount of light has been reduced by 27%. Thus the available light after the shadow was cast on the translucent panel was 73% of the non-shaded light. If a light reading of 30 foot candles was taken and a subsequent shadow reading of 26 foot candles taken, then the shadow strength would be (30−25)/30=17%. Here the shadow cast on the translucent panel resulted in 83% of the non-shaded light. Thus the “shadow strength” gives an indication of how much light has been reduced by the shadow. The larger the “shadow strength” percentage, the darker the shadow.
As mentioned previously, the purpose of this display device is to minimize the effect of the shadows cast on the translucent panel. Thus, the lower the shadow strength, the more effective the display device.
This application claims priority from U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/454,975 filed Mar. 17, 2003. The contents of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/4554,975 are fully incorporated herein by reference.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3694945 | Detiker | Oct 1972 | A |
| 4184194 | Shofu | Jan 1980 | A |
| 5758585 | Latchinian | Jun 1998 | A |
| 6041948 | Filipak et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6443317 | Brozak, Jr. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6625913 | Prade | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6662503 | Cowell et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6915914 | Farrand | Jul 2005 | B1 |
| 20030064814 | Stephan et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20040184268 A1 | Sep 2004 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 60454975 | Mar 2003 | US |
