About a year ago Sony dropped
three new frames on us of various sizes, each using a 15:9 aspect ratio that, to put it mildly, hasn't exactly captured the LCD market by storm. They're still at it, showing off four oddly ratio'd models, starting with the 10-inch, 1024 x 600 DPF-X1000 that we've
seen before, and the new 8-inch, 800 x 480 DPF-800, both utilizing TruBlack technology to boost contrast ratios and decrease glare. These frames can turn themselves on or off on a schedule to save power, can pull pictures wirelessly with optional Bluetooth adapters, sport HDMI output, and have BIONZ processors so that you can remove creepy redeye right from the frame. The 7-inch DPF-D72 loses the fancy processing, the TruBlack coating, and drops the resolution to 800 x 480. Finally, the stripper 7-inch DPF-A72 model has a lowly 480 x 234 resolution and ditches nearly all the features of its forbearers. It is, however, the cheapest, expected to come in under ¥10,000 ($100), while the D72 will be around ¥20,000 ($200), the X800 around ¥30,000 ($300), and the range-topping X1000 at ¥40,000 ($400, if you haven't figured out the conversion by now). All should hit tidy Japanese bookshelves late next month.
posted March 25th 2009 8:38AM
I can't really get excited about digital photo frames. Even for the price of the cheapest model, I can get a sackful of photos printed and mailed to my door (next day) and a custom-made frame from my local framery. I know it's less convenient, but at least I don't have to hang it next to a power outlet.
Furthermore, all the digital frames that i've seen in person (even the £300 ones) have had disgusting picture quality and disappointing resolution.
Got one? Like it? Please comment below - I'd like to know why.
We might not get it, but digital picture frames are ideal for technophobes. They just want something that works, not something that requires a reboot and stuff. Most of them expect to just plug in their memory card and for the pictures to magically appear.
I actually bought a Sony picture frame (£70) for an old relative of mine. She is happy with it. Sure she can get a netbook, but netbook costs more, and doesn't blend in with your furnitures.
More bezel pleeeeeez
I just will never understand the market for these things. WAAAY too expensive for what they do. Hell, for $300 just buy a net book and put a slideshow on it.
aaagh, but is it a sony netbook?
I said $300, not $3000
I am still waiting for one with a resolution of at least 1920x1200 in a 10 inch screen. As a photographer the low dpi of such low resolution screens would drive me nuts though this Sony does have a very appealing appearance.
I really like the idea of picture frames that can change the picture with the press of a button.
But I just can't justify 10 to 40W power consumption (or even more, I don't kow) for one of these
things - and it's really not about the money but about the energy waste.
Once there are color e-Ink digital photo frames with decent resolution that run on batteries for years with one charge
(provided you don't change the picture every two minutes), I'll be the first to buy one,
even if they cost 400$...
I bought a frame for my elderly mother who lives in a nursing home. She loves to look at the pictures her family takes, you can mail her a card, or bring one in during a visit. There is only so much wall space.
what???
i can get a 22" flat screen for $300, why pay that for a lowres 10" frame?? doesnt make sense!
I have the Sony DPF-D70 and whilst it is only 800x480, the screen quality is superb, it'll happily take a multitude of cards (including some internal memory) and comes with a remote control - which is useful occasionally, but not essential.
I just exported the last 5 years of landscape pictures in Picasa into 800x840 which takes up only about 200MB and stuck it on a 512MB card. The thing cycles the pictures randomly every minute and looks great in my sitting room (once you find the option to turn off the glowing Sony logo).
Downsides? The auto-on/off option doesn't differentiate between weekdays and weekends, which means that it plays 10am-midnight every day even though for 5 days of the week I'm not back until 6pm. I cannot put it on a wall timer either because you cannot power on the frame just by turning on the power. Apart from that, I have no other complaints.
It cost me £69 in a department store sale. It's normally £79. Not a cheap as the Kodak which was my first choice - but came in black whereas the Kodak only came in white.
I'm very happy with it. Buying a bunch of photo frames and printing out a load of pictures wouldn't be half as good as I wouldn't know which ones to use and it would clutter up the house.
Why do they insist on making most of these frames 16:9? My camera takes 4:3 pictures and I want a digital frame that matches.
Tell a man that there are 8.3 billion stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him that the paint on the bench is wet, and he'll touch to be sure.
Tell the average engadgeter that fluffy stuff like cushion sets cost upwards of $100 and he wont cringe. (No, he wont even bother checking if his girl spent twice as much when she visited the fancy new store with her girlfriends). But tell him that a HD res photo frame costs upwards of $100 and well..see the remarks above.
Guys, if you want a cheap cheap electronic photo frame, (or a dozen of them), you know where to get them. They wouldn't be labelled Sony or Samsung or Philips...but you sure can find them for a quarter of the price, or lesser. And better still, I've seen some that don't even have a label on the bezel !
But when it comes to electronics, why do we keep looking for maxing out on functionality or value-for-money or featuring etc etc when (even during the recession period), we blow money on several non-tech but "lifestyle" thingies - like iPOD socks and fancy mobile phone covers or wallets or stuffed toys or rugs and carpets ....
Think again. Be less harsh on the geek industry. Feel good.