Gigantor 15-inch digital photo frame brings the value

We've seen a lot of digital photo frames try to make an impression, tacking on every possible feature from WiFi to 20GB hard drives to SideShow in a bid to capture the public's imagination, but really the only feature that ever stands out is a big-ass screen -- which is exactly why the Gigantor 15-inch frame caught our eye. With a decent 1024 x 768 resolution, expansive memory card support, IR remote and the ability to hook up a USB hard drive for even more storage, the Gigantor has a pretty middle-of-the-road feature set -- until you factor in that huge display and $249 pricetag. Looks like the age-old debate of features vs. size isn't getting settled anytime soon, eh?

[NHAnimator @ Aug 2nd 2007 8:14AM]

Godzilla can come and destroy my city any day.

[JeffDM @ Aug 2nd 2007 8:16AM]

XGA is "decent"? That's now just the lowest budget resolution you can get in anything. I think it looks grainy at anything closer to arm's length, not something I want on my own desk.

[beq @ Aug 2nd 2007 10:08AM]

I think XGA (1024x768) is a good resolution for a 15" photo frame. Remember 15" desktop monitors back in the day (!) used to run at SVGA or XGA. Many 14"-15" laptops today still use XGA, and I don't think they really look "grainy" (though I myself would opt for a higher res on a laptop)...

Gear Digest (re Tom's Hardware) reviewed five 7" photo frames a few days ago, and most of them run at 480x234 resolution (the $200 most expensive one runs at 720x480).

[Simon @ Aug 2nd 2007 8:30AM]

Nice, finaly a step in the right direction, but as Jeff pointed out it's still not realy "decent".

I especially dislike those huge bezels they always put around them. Though the Gigantors bezel at least isn't "huge", I'ld like it even smaller.

Anyway, still the best option seems to DIY, buy a cheap TFT, make your own bezel, put a mini Linux on the back and you'ld have something far superior to all the commercial offering ... if I just had the time to do it ;)

And about the features, I realy don't get why they bother. It's a photoframe, it's supposed to display still images. Put in a well-configurable slideshow mode and drop anything else. That's my take on it ...

[spam_from_engadget @ Aug 2nd 2007 9:51AM]

> still the best option seems to DIY, buy a cheap TFT, make
> your own bezel, put a mini Linux on the back and you'ld
> have something far superior to all the commercial
> offering

I've done something like this with a nano-ITX board. The new pico-ITX boards would be even better.

> I especially dislike those huge bezels they always put
> around them

There's a trade-off between extra bezel size and extra depth; the guts have got to go somewhere. I have seen one DIY frame with less bezel and more depth, and it stuck about 15 cm out from the wall. The nano-ITX heatsink design is not ideal from this point of view.

> It's a photoframe, it's supposed to display still
> images. Put in a well-configurable slideshow mode and
> drop anything else.

I disagree; I think that a well-designed way of browsing your photos using a remote is essential. For example, I have GPS tags for many of my photos, so you can browse them against a zoomable world map. None of the commercial offerings comes close to this yet.

[Kent @ Aug 2nd 2007 9:19AM]

Is everyone crazy regarding the digital picture frames???

They are a very cool idea and I would love to have one, but they all lack the most crucial solution: E-ink!! (or similar technology)

Since, who wants a photo frame that :
- Works like a lamp? "honey can you turn off the pictures, I can't sleep..."
- Needs cables?? "hmmm... nice place for a picture, but how are we getting a cable there?"
- Or, have to be turned on/off regularly to save batteries... should you now "turn on" your "paintings" when you have visitors etc? come on...
- Pulls electricity constantly! in these days... after all a normal LCD/TFT pulls like a lamp (albeit low-energy), would you leave them on 24/7??

All these things could be solved very nicely with E-ink type of technology, why haven't anyone done something like that yet?
Probably too expensive yet I guess... but, until that happens this whole digital picture frame thing is pretty useless I think..

[Tony @ Aug 2nd 2007 9:27AM]

Damn, you make some bl00dy good points! I was all excited about finally seeing a "high-res" and cheap photo frame, but I don't want it any more after reading your comment!

[Z @ Aug 2nd 2007 12:46PM]

I know E-Ink has been shown in full color - I think up to 12-bit color depths if I'm not mistaken (maybe more by now), but I'm not certain how large they can make those screens. You're right, though... they *should* go this direction.

Until then, these photo frames need to have settings embedded into the OS that allows a person to program them to shut off automatically at a certain hour, and back on at another. I've only seen one frame that can do that, and virtually all the rest don't.

[Cal @ Aug 2nd 2007 3:34PM]

I know exactly how you get rid of these problems, you put these digital images onto some kind of material which doesn't emit light or drain power, like paper, but maybe make it glossy, then put this into a frame...

[blackfeather @ Aug 2nd 2007 12:08PM]

But can it draw stairs?

[blackfeather @ Aug 2nd 2007 12:08PM]

Do you have to hold it above your head and shake it to make the next picture display?

[silverblackvoid @ Aug 2nd 2007 12:51PM]

i agree with u kent

[Paul @ Aug 2nd 2007 2:26PM]

I love how Godzilla's in ur city, pwnin ur n00bs in that picture.

[I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ Aug 2nd 2007 2:47PM]

Last time I checked, I could get a glass picture frame and one developed photograph to fill it for about $10 or less. For $250, that's a whole wall full of 25 photographs all in their own frame. But for those of you into digital and don't care for the old fashioned way, I find a photographic screen saver is cheaper and does the same exact job as the more expensive standalone digital picture frame units.

[I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ Aug 2nd 2007 2:50PM]

Last time I checked, I could get a glass picture frame and one developed photograph to fill it for about $10 or less. For $250, that's a whole wall full of 25 photographs all in their own frame. But for those of you into digital and don't care for the old fashioned way, I find a photographic screen saver is cheaper and does the same exact job as the more expensive standalone digital picture frame units.

[t-bone @ Aug 5th 2007 6:55PM]

You guys must have exceptional eyesight. I have a laptop with a 15-inch screen and 1024x768 resolution and it looks just fine.

[Greenster @ Aug 8th 2007 9:48PM]

I'd like to second that - I have a 10.4 inch LCD digital photo frame that I got from here:

http://www.digivista.com.au/

It has 640x480 resolution (VGA) but even with that relatively low res, you still can't see pixels on the photos - even if you stare hard and up-close...

Also, its power usage is 10W, much lower than a standard table lamp as someone commented above...
Cheers,
Henry