Quick heads-up please: I'm looking for a digital photo frame which can
display pictures at good quality (ideally, comparable to a decent PC
monitor) at under £100. No movie playback, audio, CCTV or such frills:
just nice pictures at good resolution, brightness, viewing angle etc.

It's to be a present for a non-technical person so it needs to Just Work -
to be able to put in an SD card or USB stick and display the pictures on
it in a pleasing random order.

Any pointers to good makes/models/suppliers?

tia

--
John Stumbles

This sig intentionally left blank

Any pointers to good makes/models/suppliers?

I notice a lot of frames are not 4:3 aspect ratio - often some widescreen
type ratio, therefore 'standard' 4:3 images from compact cameras usually get
stretched to fit, and look rubbish. Also many frames have a resolution of
480x234 or similar, which often look grainy.

I bought 2 of the 12" 'Pictorea' frames from ebuyer before Christmas, 1 as a
present for my 89YO grandmother.

Link to product range
http://www.ebuyer.com/search?store=7...67&subcat=2486

These are pretty cheap for the size, and 800x600 resolution (12" model) and
4:3 ratio. Picture quality is excellent, my only complaint would be that
there is no random playback order - same every time.
I loaded a 2GB card with hundreds of images and posted a frame off to her
for Christmas. It seems it's the best present she's ever received by the
remarks I get on every phone call - no complications, just plug in and go
and she's over the moon with it.

I kept the 2nd frame for myself and have today ordered the 15" model
(1024x768 resolution) for another relative's upcoming birthday. I expect it
will be the same reaction again.

Alan.

John Stumbles wrote:
Quick heads-up please: I'm looking for a digital photo frame which can
display pictures at good quality (ideally, comparable to a decent PC
monitor) at under £100. No movie playback, audio, CCTV or such frills:
just nice pictures at good resolution, brightness, viewing angle etc.

It's to be a present for a non-technical person so it needs to Just Work
- to be able to put in an SD card or USB stick and display the pictures
on it in a pleasing random order.

Any pointers to good makes/models/suppliers?


We bought a 12" Pictorea from ebuyer recently, it's pretty simple and the
display quality is good.

On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 21:52:03 -0000, AlanD wrote:

I notice a lot of frames are not 4:3 aspect ratio - often some
widescreen type ratio, therefore 'standard' 4:3 images from compact
cameras usually get stretched to fit,

They are more likley to be 3:2 (ie standard photo 6 x 4 inches ratio)
rather than 16:9. Streching to fit isn't on, hacking a bit off top
and bottom better, but there should be a pillar box mode as well
IMHO.

With the abilty to store huge numbers of images on an SD card there
really ought to be some form of navigation system built in so you can
find photos of Hols '97 or Winter '10 etc...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 3 Feb 2010 21:32:37 GMT, John Stumbles
wrote:
Quick heads-up please: I'm looking for a digital photo frame which can
display pictures at good quality (ideally, comparable to a decent PC
monitor) at under £100. No movie playback, audio, CCTV or such frills:
just nice pictures at good resolution, brightness, viewing angle etc.

It's to be a present for a non-technical person so it needs to Just Work -
to be able to put in an SD card or USB stick and display the pictures on
it in a pleasing random order.

Any pointers to good makes/models/suppliers?


You can pay an awful lot for a digital photo frame, or not very much
at all. The cheaper ones have low resolution, typically 480 x 234
pixels, and in my opinion are not worth having.

You can get frames from 7" upwards that have higher resolution,
typically 800 x 480 pixels. They are the ones to go for.

You don't have to pay upwards of £100 for a Sony, there are good
quality high resolution frames at less than half that price. I
suspect there are very few manufacturers of the LCD screen component
(probably three at most) and therefore very little variation between
the dozens of different brands of digital photo frame using the same
LCD screen.

Some backlights are brighter than others giving better image quality.
So it would be wise to look at several different brands before making
up your mind.

However, if you are prepared to take a risk on mail order (you can
always return it for a refund) this inexpensive offer caught my eye:

http://tinyurl.com/ya4gpju
or:
http://www.misco.co.uk/applications/...546&CatId=2516

On 03/02/2010 23:40, Bruce wrote:

You can pay an awful lot for a digital photo frame, or not very much
at all. The cheaper ones have low resolution, typically 480 x 234
pixels, and in my opinion are not worth having.


snip

Yup. I just wish these cheap devices could have had VGA, DVI or CVBS
inputs so they could have a dual life as a small cheap video monitor.

7-inch VGA monitors cost lots more money compared with similar size
digital picture frames.

e.g.
http://linitx.com/viewcategory.php?catid=185&pp=115,185


--
Adrian C

Adrian C wrote:
On 03/02/2010 23:40, Bruce wrote:

You can pay an awful lot for a digital photo frame, or not very much
at all. The cheaper ones have low resolution, typically 480 x 234
pixels, and in my opinion are not worth having.


snip

Yup. I just wish these cheap devices could have had VGA, DVI or CVBS
inputs so they could have a dual life as a small cheap video monitor.

7-inch VGA monitors cost lots more money compared with similar size
digital picture frames.

e.g.
http://linitx.com/viewcategory.php?catid=185&pp=115,185



The Toshiba one I have only sorts alphabetically, so you can't guarantee
chronological order. I changed the file names on all 3 gig's worth to
001.jpg etc with a useful bit of freeware called Renamer

In article , Stuart
Noble writes
Adrian C wrote:
On 03/02/2010 23:40, Bruce wrote:

You can pay an awful lot for a digital photo frame, or not very much
at all. The cheaper ones have low resolution, typically 480 x 234
pixels, and in my opinion are not worth having.


snip

Yup. I just wish these cheap devices could have had VGA, DVI or CVBS
inputs so they could have a dual life as a small cheap video monitor.

7-inch VGA monitors cost lots more money compared with similar size
digital picture frames.

e.g.
http://linitx.com/viewcategory.php?catid=185&pp=115,185



The Toshiba one I have only sorts alphabetically, so you can't guarantee
chronological order. I changed the file names on all 3 gig's worth to
001.jpg etc with a useful bit of freeware called Renamer

Bulk Renamer is another good one for that, lets you add a YMD prefix
based on creation date among other powerful features, also freeware.

On displaying video on the picture frames, I think they are using uber
cheap screens that will show still images perfectly well but wont
respond well to moving images. I'm hoping it will be come the next must
have feature on them too.
--
fred
BBC3, ITV2/3/4, channels going to the DOGs

On 3 Feb, 23:04, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 21:52:03 -0000, AlanD wrote:
I notice a lot of frames are not 4:3 aspect ratio - often some
widescreen type ratio, therefore 'standard' 4:3 images from compact
cameras usually get stretched to fit,

They are more likley to be 3:2 (ie standard photo 6 x 4 inches ratio)
rather than 16:9. Streching to fit isn't on, hacking a bit off top
and bottom better, but there should be a pillar box mode as well
IMHO.

I run a Perl script that uses ImageMagick to trim the images to the
correct aspect ratio (portrait format excepted) and then resize to the
exact pixel size of the photo frame. This operates on all pictures in
a directory.

This makes the pictures display without stretch or black edges and
makes the resultant files much smnaller so more pics can be stored.
Load times are perhaps faster too, and I suspect that the resampling m
ay be done better with ImageMagick.

Pete

AlanD wrote:
Any pointers to good makes/models/suppliers?

I notice a lot of frames are not 4:3 aspect ratio - often some widescreen
type ratio, therefore 'standard' 4:3 images from compact cameras usually get
stretched to fit, and look rubbish. Also many frames have a resolution of
480x234 or similar, which often look grainy.


Does anyone sell a frame that is square like a slide projector screen so
that it will display landscape and portrait photos at the same size?

Andrew

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember John Stumbles
saying something like:

Any pointers to good makes/models/suppliers?

Have a look on www.dealextreme.com

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On 3 Feb 2010 21:32:37 GMT, John Stumbles
wrote:
Quick heads-up please: I'm looking for a digital photo frame which can
display pictures at good quality (ideally, comparable to a decent PC
monitor) at under £100. No movie playback, audio, CCTV or such frills:
just nice pictures at good resolution, brightness, viewing angle etc.

It's to be a present for a non-technical person so it needs to Just Work -
to be able to put in an SD card or USB stick and display the pictures on
it in a pleasing random order.

Any pointers to good makes/models/suppliers?


You can pay an awful lot for a digital photo frame, or not very much
at all. The cheaper ones have low resolution, typically 480 x 234
pixels, and in my opinion are not worth having.

Start saving now for an iPad and use that :-)

On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 12:53:23 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On 3 Feb 2010 21:32:37 GMT, John Stumbles
wrote:
Quick heads-up please: I'm looking for a digital photo frame which can
display pictures at good quality (ideally, comparable to a decent PC
monitor) at under £100. No movie playback, audio, CCTV or such frills:
just nice pictures at good resolution, brightness, viewing angle etc.

It's to be a present for a non-technical person so it needs to Just Work -
to be able to put in an SD card or USB stick and display the pictures on
it in a pleasing random order.

Any pointers to good makes/models/suppliers?


You can pay an awful lot for a digital photo frame, or not very much
at all. The cheaper ones have low resolution, typically 480 x 234
pixels, and in my opinion are not worth having.

Start saving now for an iPad and use that :-)

That only has a 1024 * 768 resolution - same as my very first laptop
from 1996 ... which had a larger screen, too

On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 12:53:23 -0000, "whisky-dave"
wrote:


"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
On 3 Feb 2010 21:32:37 GMT, John Stumbles
wrote:
Quick heads-up please: I'm looking for a digital photo frame which can
display pictures at good quality (ideally, comparable to a decent PC
monitor) at under £100. No movie playback, audio, CCTV or such frills:
just nice pictures at good resolution, brightness, viewing angle etc.

It's to be a present for a non-technical person so it needs to Just Work -
to be able to put in an SD card or USB stick and display the pictures on
it in a pleasing random order.

Any pointers to good makes/models/suppliers?


You can pay an awful lot for a digital photo frame, or not very much
at all. The cheaper ones have low resolution, typically 480 x 234
pixels, and in my opinion are not worth having.

Start saving now for an iPad and use that :-)


Looks like you may have finally found a use for the iPad!

Send an email to Steve Jobs - this is probably just what he has been
looking for. ;-)

On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:04:40 GMT, pete wrote:

Start saving now for an iPad and use that :-)

That only has a 1024 * 768 resolution - same as my very first laptop
from 1996 ... which had a larger screen, too

And could probably have more than one program running at a time. I
find it amazing that the iPhone has taken off with such a limitation
and on the orginals no cut 'n paste and a fairly poor camera. Shows
what marketing can do...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 3 Feb 2010 21:32:37 GMT, John Stumbles
wrote:



Any pointers to good makes/models/suppliers?

I got a 10in Linx one from Staples for £64 a few weeks ago. Default
display format is widescreen which stretched my 35mm-origin images but
it is possible to over-ride that so they display properly. Portraits
are small, though. The images look good and the frame knows if it is
in portrait mode, turning the images accordingly. One feature I liked
the sound of until I found how it had been implimented is the ability
to set timers to turn it on and off so I thought I'd set it to turn
off at night and back on in the morning. Turned off ok, turned on too,
but displaying the menu so restarting the images has to be done by
hand. Images are displayed in alpha/numeric orde; there are a dozen or
so transitions and they can be set to be used randomly.

On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:41:30 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:04:40 GMT, pete wrote:

Start saving now for an iPad and use that :-)

That only has a 1024 * 768 resolution - same as my very first laptop
from 1996 ... which had a larger screen, too

And could probably have more than one program running at a time. I
find it amazing that the iPhone has taken off with such a limitation
and on the orginals no cut 'n paste and a fairly poor camera. Shows
what marketing can do...


Think of it as an iPod Touch with added phone, and that's about all it
is. The camera is poor, the lack of features compares to a Windows
CE, Android or Symbian OS phone is poor, but it is still a desirable
product, mainly because it is based around an iPod and has a very
clever (if counter-intuitive) web browser.

So I was looking forward to the iPad, but it is even poorer on
features than the iPhone and not desirable at all. Even though I am a
big fan of Apple (I use a MacPro, MacBook and an iPhone 3G) I really
cannot see the purpose of the iPad.

I would have welcomed an iPhone with a larger screen, say about 7"
diagonal, for easier web browsing and perhaps to replace my Windows XP
netbook, but the iPad is far too big and loses the phone and camera
features. Plus, there's no Ethernet and no USB sockets. I don't want
to have to depend on 3G and wireless (which I refuse to have at home).

It has all the bad points of the iPhone and none of the good ones. It
is too big, has a very vulnerable screen, a lousy on-screen keyboard,
no phone, no camera, no hard drive ...

What on earth is the point of it?

On 03/02/2010 21:32 John Stumbles wrote:

Any pointers to good makes/models/suppliers?

Computer Shopper arrived today:
Best Buy: Jessops 8" @ £49 (also recommended 10.4" @ £69), free delivery
Ultimate Buy: deep breath..... Sony DPF-X1000N @ another deep breath... £223

-6% at Quidco/TopCashBack
-5% with code VOUCHERCODESUK

HTH

--
F

On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:16:40 +0000, F news@nowhere wrote:
On 03/02/2010 21:32 John Stumbles wrote:

Any pointers to good makes/models/suppliers?

Computer Shopper arrived today:
Best Buy: Jessops 8" @ £49 (also recommended 10.4" @ £69), free delivery


I agree, the 8" looks good and it has 800 x 600 pixels resolution
which is very good for the price. The 10.4" also has 800 x 600 pixels
so would not look any better, just bigger.


Ultimate Buy: deep breath..... Sony DPF-X1000N @ another deep breath... £223


That has 1024 x 768 resolution and HDMI output so you can view the
slideshow on a flat screen TV. Breathtakingly expensive, though!

On 05/02/2010 19:12 Bruce wrote:

I agree, the 8" looks good and it has 800 x 600 pixels resolution
which is very good for the price. The 10.4" also has 800 x 600 pixels
so would not look any better, just bigger.

10.4" arrived today. Easy to set up, looks good, picture quality excellent.

Even plays an mp3 while the slideshow runs!



--
F

F wrote:
On 05/02/2010 19:12 Bruce wrote:

I agree, the 8" looks good and it has 800 x 600 pixels resolution
which is very good for the price. The 10.4" also has 800 x 600 pixels
so would not look any better, just bigger.

10.4" arrived today. Easy to set up, looks good, picture quality excellent.

Even plays an mp3 while the slideshow runs!


Shudder. whatever rocks your boat...

F wrote:
On 05/02/2010 19:12 Bruce wrote:

I agree, the 8" looks good and it has 800 x 600 pixels resolution
which is very good for the price. The 10.4" also has 800 x 600 pixels
so would not look any better, just bigger.

10.4" arrived today. Easy to set up, looks good, picture quality excellent.

Even plays an mp3 while the slideshow runs!


Is is possible to alter the time between image changes?

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:12:51 +0000, F news@nowhere wrote:
On 05/02/2010 19:12 Bruce wrote:

I agree, the 8" looks good and it has 800 x 600 pixels resolution
which is very good for the price. The 10.4" also has 800 x 600 pixels
so would not look any better, just bigger.

10.4" arrived today. Easy to set up, looks good, picture quality excellent.

Even plays an mp3 while the slideshow runs!


A result! ;-)

On 08/02/2010 12:26 The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Shudder. whatever rocks your boat...

I didn't say I used it...

--
F

On 08/02/2010 12:36 PJ wrote:

Is is possible to alter the time between image changes?

Fast, medium, slow: 3, 5, 10 seconds according to Computer Shopper (I've
not timed them).

--
F

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember F news@nowhere saying something
like:

10.4" arrived today. Easy to set up, looks good, picture quality excellent.

Even plays an mp3 while the slideshow runs!

Mmmm... tasteful.