http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/ Engadget Comments for AgfaPhoto announces "world's first" HD photo frames http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/Mar 13th 2009 3:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/Mar 13th 2009 4:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/Mar 13th 2009 4:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/Mar 13th 2009 4:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/Mar 13th 2009 4:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/Mar 13th 2009 4:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/
maybe they are taking a hint from Apple's photos. although this is a bit overdone.

either way its about time these frames are higher res. Although I have a 1024x768 15 inch that looks quite nice.]]>Mar 13th 2009 4:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/Mar 13th 2009 4:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/Mar 13th 2009 4:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/Mar 13th 2009 4:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/Mar 13th 2009 4:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/Mar 13th 2009 5:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/Mar 13th 2009 4:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/Mar 13th 2009 5:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/I think for displaying still images most digital photo frames are horribly low resolution compared with printed photos. After all, you wouldn't consider printing, say, a 10inch picture from a camera with less than a 5mp resolution.
However, 5mp equates to a resolution of 1944 x 2592, much much higher than even this "HD" Digital photo frame.
IMO, as far as still images go, the more resolution the better. A 10 inch full colour 1080p e-ink screen is what I'm waiting for :-)]]>Mar 13th 2009 5:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/
Please buy an 42"in LCD TV and hook up with eee pc ;-) there u go, 42" photo frame.]]>Mar 13th 2009 7:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/Mar 13th 2009 8:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/
Why do these photo frames have non-photo aspect ratios?]]>Mar 14th 2009 2:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/Mar 14th 2009 4:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/
You might argue that the kind of imbecile who buys a digital photo frame probably isn't the kind of obsessive who buys a DSLR rather than a compact camera (compact cameras generally take images in TV aspect ratios - 4:3 or occasionally 16:9). But then again, this is possibly a higher-than-average quality photo frame, so maybe they're aiming for that market.

Incidentally, does this Agfa have any actual connection to the old one, or is it like Polaroid where they just sold off the name to a random Chinese importer?


]]>Mar 14th 2009 5:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/13/agfaphoto-announces-worlds-first-hd-photo-frames/It is the same cancer like the laptop-industry DVI-port ignorance recently. ]]>Mar 14th 2009 4:44PM