#294948 - 09/03/2007 19:52
Digital photo frames
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12338
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
Does anyone here have a digital photo frames themselves? Do you know someone who does? The reviews of these are pretty sparse, and I'm not sure there are even any decent ones available at any price range. Has anyone heard of any good ones?
It seems like it would be possible to build one yourself with a little hacking (which I'm sure I'd be terrible at).
_________________________
Matt
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#294949 - 09/03/2007 20:00
Re: Digital photo frames
[Re: Dignan]
|
veteran
Registered: 08/05/2000
Posts: 1429
Loc: San Francisco, CA
|
I'd love to have one too. I want it to auto download my (and my flickr friends) flickr photos. I haven't seen any that fit that bill very well...
I guess hacking one would be pretty easy for some folks, but not for a clutz like me.
- Jon
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#294950 - 09/03/2007 20:02
Re: Digital photo frames
[Re: jbauer]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12338
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
Ooo, I could have sworn I read about one that could grab photos from online. I can't remember if flickr was mentioned though...
_________________________
Matt
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#294951 - 09/03/2007 20:18
Re: Digital photo frames
[Re: Dignan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
I spent a very long time researching them for Christmas gifts a few months back, and I came to the conclusion that the technology is just entirely too expensive and unrefined to justify it. For $300, you get about a 7-8" diagonal screen, crappy software, limited organization capabilities, and resolution in the 600-700 pixel wide range, which IMHO doesn't cut it for that price. If it was $50, sure. Or, if it was $300 and you got something like 1024 pixels across.
That being said, Engadget mentioned a few Philips models a couple months ago that seemed to be a little bit better in terms of price:specs ratio. Not sure if those are out yet, but they seemed like the next step in bringing the prices down to reasonable levels.
There was a company a while back that was selling half-decent frames very cheaply, but they were tied to their online monthly service for storing the photos. I don't know if they're still around. You can also find some high end models that have a ton of features and big, high res screens, but the specific brands come and go every year or so, and the prices are out of my range, certainly.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#294952 - 09/03/2007 20:49
Re: Digital photo frames
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
|
If you have the capability to take apart a notebook and stick its guts behind a store-bought frame, then taht seems to be the way to make the best final product. At least "best" in terms of appealing to the people in this forum. Starting with an older Mac notebook, you can get a decent screen, wifi and the software built into the OS would be enough to run your image slideshow. Using nothing but the picture screensaver you can have a very nice transitioning slideshow using that panning and zooming Ken Burns effect and easily add images to a shared folder. The other benefit of this otherwise stock system is you can set the energy saver to shut the machine down and turn it back on again at specific times. No need to keep it running during the night when you're asleep or during the day if you're not home. To have a more complicated schedule you'll need third-party software to set up multiple on/off periods. Theonly reason I haven't done this already is because I haven't been able to find a machine at my sweet spot. $100. It's only going to get easier because the older machines are coming down in price all the time. I'd like to make one for my parents, so maybe I can put something together at the end of the summer and then hold it for Christmas for them.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#294953 - 09/03/2007 21:08
Re: Digital photo frames
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14493
Loc: Canada
|
Quote: For $300, you get about a 7-8" diagonal screen, crappy software, limited organization capabilities, and resolution in the 600-700 pixel wide range, which IMHO doesn't cut it for that price. If it was $50, sure. Or, if it was $300 and you got something like 1024 pixels across.
Actually, the current price is around $100 (USA or Canada) for a 7" diagonal widescreen. Close, but I really want a BIG display for photos, so I just use a diskless linux box with a regular 15" or 17" LCD monitor.
Cheers
-ml
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#294954 - 10/03/2007 00:40
Re: Digital photo frames
[Re: Dignan]
|
member
Registered: 06/04/2000
Posts: 158
|
I bought a couple of the Philips units as Xmas gifts. They work really well for that application - ability to send photos easily to remotely located, low-tech, relatives. I configured the units before sending them, setting them to slideshow mode and to power on/off automatically at certain times. Now every few months I send out an updated CF card, they just swap out the cards and send me back the old one for re-use. Works really well, quality of the screen is perfectly acceptable for this use.
Regards
Mark
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#294955 - 10/03/2007 05:40
Re: Digital photo frames
[Re: Dignan]
|
addict
Registered: 18/02/2002
Posts: 658
|
After I did my research, I found that there are a ton of them out there, and they are mostly crappy. Like Tony mentioned, I heard that the Philips units were pretty decent. The resolution doesn't bother me so much as the fact that I just don't think they are worth the price. The ones that are around $100 just plain suck as far as resolution goes. Also, IMHO, most of the frames themselves are ugly. For some reason, a lot of them have these huge ugly plastic borders around the actual screen. This makes the screen look even larger and the thing ends up not really looking like a frame at all. This one that I saw recently on Engadget looks pretty cool.. I like the fact that you can connect over wifi.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#294956 - 10/03/2007 11:30
Re: Digital photo frames
[Re: visuvius]
|
old hand
Registered: 07/01/2005
Posts: 893
Loc: Sector ZZ9pZa
|
I think the frame you guys are after is the eStarling. It can display photos from an RSS feed over WiFi, so that pretty much supports Flickr feeds, Google Picasa, or even something you code yourself. It says you can 'email photos to it' which is quite interesting. I hope it is smart enough so you can set it to check any POP/IMAP server you like and not just hardcoded to an eStarling proprietary system. I can imagine a situation where a hacker breaks the eStarling mail server and sends out a horrific Internet meme photo to each user... It has a big ugly plastic frame and an 'eStarling' logo on the front of it. Probably expensive too. Still, its by far the best one I've come across.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#294957 - 10/03/2007 12:45
Re: Digital photo frames
[Re: sein]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote: The eStarling LCD screen has a resolution of 480 x 234.
Yeah, I don't think so.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#294958 - 10/03/2007 12:49
Re: Digital photo frames
[Re: wfaulk]
|
old hand
Registered: 07/01/2005
Posts: 893
Loc: Sector ZZ9pZa
|
Quote:
Quote: The eStarling LCD screen has a resolution of 480 x 234.
Yeah, I don't think so.
Urgh, lame.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#294959 - 10/03/2007 12:55
Re: Digital photo frames
[Re: visuvius]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote: Also, IMHO, most of the frames themselves are ugly. For some reason, a lot of them have these huge ugly plastic borders around the actual screen. This makes the screen look even larger and the thing ends up not really looking like a frame at all.
I think where all these companies go wrong is obsession over the "frame" part. IMO, they should be producing a raw display that's 5" by 7" so that the user can put it in any frame he wants, just like a real picture.
But you're saying to yourself "but, Bitt, a photo is a thin sheet of paper while this thing would be a thick piece of glass." True, but most frames come with a sheet of glass in them. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of problems with my idea, but I think that one of the biggest problems is that the people building these things couldn't design a decent-looking picture frame if their life depended on it. So leave that to the people who do it for a living.
Another idea would be to use e-paper. Of course, I don't think that there's any full-color e-paper yet. Just black-and-white. So that may be the future.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|