Kodak stuns with world's first 7.6-inch OLED picture frame

We figured it was coming, now sure enough, Kodak just let loose a new picture frame based on CMEL's new mass-produced, 7.6-inch OLED panels. Ultra-thin as you'd expect and wireless as you'd hope, the new 800 x 480 pixel Wireless Frame should be ready for the holidays sporting 2GB of internal storage, integrated audio, a 30,000:1 contrast, 180-degree viewing angle, and photo service compatibility with Flickr and others. Unfortunately, it's got a price you'd expect from this nascent display tech: $999. Sparky, had better be worth it.

[Via OLED-Display]

[Brian @ Sep 17th 2008 1:56AM]

Gorgeous frame.

Outrageous, but expected, price tag.

I guess Kodak isn't making these for me. :(

[Muhammed @ Sep 17th 2008 2:12AM]

omg 7.6 inch OLED !! that display will be sweet , OLED displays are awesome!

[loosely_coupled @ Sep 17th 2008 2:27AM]

Yea, think of an OSX touch tablet with this screen!!

[no_one @ Sep 17th 2008 5:47AM]

I love Kodak and all, but didn't OLED suffer that terrible color gamut loss over just a few weeks? We saw it on that Sony prototype, the blue RGB portion washed out like in a month, it was very noticable, colors were wrong. I hope they fixed that, otherwise I would see this as much bigger issue then the Plasma burnout. Fingers crossed.

[Muhammed @ Sep 30th 2008 6:25AM]

Excuse me? but why was my comment low ranked?

[Muhammed @ Sep 30th 2008 4:21PM]

How about answering me instead of low ranking you pathetic pos?

[Muhammed @ Oct 1st 2008 6:52PM]

you forgot this one bitch...

[Muhammed @ Oct 2nd 2008 7:25AM]

ok, I'm sorry, I was just over-frustrated, don't be mad at me, sorry I called you a bitch.

[BenJI @ Dec 15th 2008 12:42AM]

maybe its becasue ur name is muhammed...

wutever u say they lowrank u.

for this matter they even might low rank this post cuz ur name is mentioned in it..

dude something really random... did u know that muhammed is the most common name in the world?

[)law( @ Sep 17th 2008 2:14AM]

Thats one hot dog...

[Flashpoint @ Sep 17th 2008 6:25AM]

that dog is the Heath Ledger of dogs.

he looks psychotic and he's got what appears to be red lipstick on....or blood.

[warrrennnnn @ Sep 17th 2008 2:15AM]

Wait, the frame stuns people? I think that's worth $999.

"Hey, nice picture, is that your do-ZZZZZZGHTTHGGZZZZZ oww...."

[webon @ Sep 25th 2008 10:19PM]

I Have to do this

don't tease me with your digiframe bro!

[Forcewinder @ Sep 17th 2008 2:17AM]

I thought OLED's were supposed to be on par with current LCD prices...

[MarsOntheRocks @ Sep 17th 2008 6:24AM]

And why would you think that? Eventually it might turn out cheaper than lcd, but almost all technology is enitionaly more expensive than its predecessor...

[ManDude @ Sep 17th 2008 3:34PM]

How do you spell all of the other words in that sentence correctly, and then HORRIBLY misspell "initially" to the point of being unrecognizable?

[Reader @ Sep 17th 2008 2:19AM]

Glad I can look at this at 180 degrees. Dunno what I'd do without that.

[Matt @ Dec 14th 2008 9:43PM]

So do we have to look at the back of the screen to see it at 180 degrees? Or simply turn around to see it? :O

[Adderz @ Sep 17th 2008 2:29AM]

Any picture frame that requires power automatically equals tacky. No thanks Kodak.

[Adam @ Sep 17th 2008 2:30AM]

Hey Thomas... That was a little creepy at the end. My dog Sparkey was actually just put to sleep a week ago (8/13/97-9/5/08). I know it was supposed to a pun, but hey least you've got similar taste in dog names!

-Fox

[Cybergypsy @ Sep 17th 2008 4:01AM]

Nice but a high price !

[gabe @ Sep 17th 2008 4:05AM]

give it a year these will be 400$ and still too much

[kyle allen @ Sep 17th 2008 4:07AM]

that dog looks emo

[Shinigami @ Sep 17th 2008 4:08AM]

$200? 2 please!
$300? I'll take one!

$1000?................ Does it have diamonds? No? Thanks but no thanks.

[Andrew @ Sep 17th 2008 2:23PM]

But, money shouldn't be an issue for a shinigami. Right?

[rob @ Sep 17th 2008 8:03PM]

ya. for that price, you could just buy a brand new laptop and let the screen saver show your pictures folder.

[Johan S @ Sep 17th 2008 4:17AM]

Not worth it .. the resolution is shit. Sony experia has the same resolution in a 3".

[Daza @ Sep 17th 2008 5:24AM]

It's actually got one of the higher resolutions for DPFs. Keep in mind you're not reading text on this thing, so colour representation means a lot more.

[turkeywire @ Sep 17th 2008 8:10AM]

fill her up with 800x480 wallpapers

http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper_beta/downloads/date/mobile_devices/800x480/

[Tharaka @ Sep 17th 2008 1:52PM]

what type of idiot would buy a photo frame for $1000? :S

not for me

[webon @ Sep 25th 2008 10:20PM]

a rich idiot

[francisco @ Sep 17th 2008 4:35AM]

Such a waste of electricity and expensive. if these things would last months on a rechargeable battery and was $100 or less then i would buy one.

[BobbyW @ Sep 17th 2008 7:33AM]

because batteries don't cosume energy??

[Syntax Error @ Sep 17th 2008 4:48AM]

Serious dog is serious.

[rita hainsworth @ Sep 17th 2008 4:49AM]

but does it play DOOM?

[meeee @ Sep 17th 2008 6:09AM]

no. but it can display pictures of you playing doom

[Badger_badger_badger @ Sep 17th 2008 7:29AM]

Hmm, with that price tag you would probably be better off getting a cheap PC and a nice monitor and sticking the monitor on your desk/wall etc.

[iHoppipolla @ Sep 17th 2008 7:47AM]

When it doesn't require the big block of hardware attached to its rear.... Sweet.

Until then...

[Alex @ Sep 17th 2008 9:13AM]

Electronic picture frames are the best!

[Wwhat @ Sep 17th 2008 9:58AM]

What a waste to use an OLED display for a static picture.

[vdogg89 @ Sep 17th 2008 10:20AM]

OLED's are cool, but if you moved the bottom portion up to the back of the display, it would be the same thickness as an LCD. So whats the point?

[Iridium @ Sep 17th 2008 11:49AM]

For $999 it should have a display port that could let you connect it to an external device to use as a small monitor. A lot of display frames can play video now, can this one?

What we really need is a color E-ink display for DFFs. Then you would actually have something usefull.

[Denver_80203 @ Sep 17th 2008 12:17PM]

But, then I couldn't afford a camera.....

[KilgoreTrout @ Sep 17th 2008 12:23PM]

Their marketeers are failures.
If they want to push a grand worth of first OLED frame they should have made it also the first silver digiframe.
It would have found its way into wedding lists, noob bosses' desks, and added the so unfortunately named "wife factor" to its cachet.

[Andrew @ Sep 17th 2008 2:25PM]

At that price why not just buy the Sony OLED TV? It is twice the price but it's also 11", full HD and being a TV, is much more versatile.

As it stands, it's a fail.

[brandon @ Sep 17th 2008 2:45PM]

Actually, I can imagine that a professional photographer might want a few of those around their studio to show off their pictures more accurately (to potential customers).

[T-Bone @ Sep 17th 2008 5:31PM]

What's with the 16:9 ratio? I know it is a popular, but the vast majority of cameras don't take 16:9 pictures. What a great way to waste space on an expensive screen!

[James @ Sep 17th 2008 5:34PM]

So, I'm a bit on the fence of this OLED tech. Every display I see has a massive base, even though the screen is so thin. What's so great about it being thin if the base takes up 10 times the width of the display part?? It's not like you can hang that on the wall, which is what I'd like to do if I had a super thin display. Better yet, give me a tv that has a magnet on it that I can stick on my fridge, with a touchpad so I can pull it off after making dinner & surf the web on the couch, or take notes on in a meeting and then read a book on the plane. You can get the many possibilities of a thin display....

[Jon @ Sep 18th 2008 1:51AM]

How come no one is answering this question? Or even dealing with it? Their is a MASSIVE base attached to this screen, just like the Sony OLED TV. You might as well by a CRT DPF. I understand the picture is excellent, but if there is no space savings as James describes then their is no $1000 premium. They are basing a LOT of the the marketing of this device on how thin it is, when it DOES NOT MATTER because the base is MASSIVE.

The tech is new yes, it carries a premium, yes, but if you are marking a device that takes up 5x or more space as an LCD as a "Super thin" device then something is wrong. It's the equivalent of marketing an "All in one super thin PC" as the lcd, and the tower is just the "Base" of the super thin all in one monitor/PC.

[numpty @ Sep 18th 2008 7:14AM]

Yeah Jon.

I think there must be some sort of Big Base Conspiracy.