Digital Photo Frames - worth getting?

electric ant

electric ant

electric ant

Associate
Joined
11 Aug 2004
Posts
1,050
Location
Notts
Anyone own one or can recommend any?
Ive seen them range from £30 upwards, is there any difference between a cheaper one and more expensive one, fancy tricks like wifi? TIA:)
 
I have a Philips 7FF2FPA/05 which can be had for around £60 these days. Superb image quality due to it's resolution. Steer clear of low resolution photo frames as these will produce rubbish image quality.
 
Hmm, I'd say the main difference between the cheaper and more expensive ones is that you pay more.

Hope that helps.

Hugs and kisses!
 
Last edited:
Does anyone turn on digital photo frames after the 1st week they get one?

I've seen a few in peoples houses but they are never turned on...
 
bought a sony ericsson w770i or something the other day from vodafone and got a digital picture frame free, apparantly worth 68 quid plus 20 credit...all for 98.00.

update: 7 inch, works good especially for free
 
Ideally I would like a frame that has a 10" display, has WiFi, and can be managed across the internet even through a firewall or proxy. It should be less than $100 (or £50-ish). TBH I haven't really looked for one yet.

Keep up posted with what you come up with there, electric ant.


edit: and there it is: http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=654 $244 (£159). Now just gotta wait for the numbers to drop.
 
Last edited:
I've bought my girlfriend one for Christmas as it happens. The largest differences you'll see between the frames is resolution of the frame, whether it has wireless capability and whether it has any on-board memory. The cheaper frames <£50 will usually be 480x240, with no wireless or on-board memory. >£50 you should get a higher resolution with on-board memory and maybe wireless.

The one I bought cost me £58, 800x600 resolution with 128mb memory. I looked at ones <£50 but to be honest they're not worth getting, you want 800x600 res as a minimum.

Hope that helps :)
 
Yes highly recommended.

I end up buy a friend the cheapest one a few years ago. As it had the best brightness and picture. With things like this you need to go into a shop and have a look, hopefully ones near a window with light on them.

Some were absolutely dire even the big named ones.
 
They are good in general. However i'll go out on a limb and say *ALL* of the cheap models (£35ish) have ridiculous time intervals between the next photo, am talking the max being less than 30 seconds on some of them, which is ******* irratating.

Stand by as i'm gonna have a rant about this purely because I ask myself time and time again how difficult is it to implement a user choice of minutes hell even hours. For me 30 mins would be ideal! It isn't only very distracting watching this thing constantly flick over to the next photo but in turn it looks very tacky in general as it speeds through every photo in a blink of an eye.

Even quite a few of the more expensive makes/models also have a very limited max time to next shot.
 
OK thanks i will look out for the interval time betweeen photos.

I think I will also wait for prices to drop, the wifi ones with rss look good.

Samsung have even developed a processor for them!
http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-s5l2010-media-processor-for-digital-photo-frames-1526218/

"The company claims that the S5L2010 can decode 57-megapixel JPEG images in just one second."


And also OLED ones on the horizon, bit pricy though, the Kodak one is $1000!
http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/17/kodak-stuns-with-worlds-first-7-6-inch-oled-picture-frame/


One pet peeve of mine is large brand logos or writing on the front of the frame which totally distract the eye from the image. I prefer a clean front.
 
Nix said:
Hmm, I'd say the main difference between the cheaper and more expensive ones is that you pay more.!
Click to expand...
Main difference tends to be resolution, brand and looks. You want a nice resolution so it looks nice and sharp, and a good looking one also commands a price, but Welshy seems to have already said that.
 
#Chri5# said:
Does anyone turn on digital photo frames after the 1st week they get one?

I've seen a few in peoples houses but they are never turned on...
Click to expand...

yup, at the end of the day, its a power drain, and 99% of the day won't even be seen. Novelty item and very expensive for a good one at that.

Real picture frame, real pictures and when you want to show your friend pictures, use your ps3, xbox, tv, laptop or, you know actual photo's to show them your photo's.
 
I saw one today and it looked like the picture was INTERLACED. OMG it looked totally crap. Don't know if it was an interlaced GIF (lol) or WTF but seriously go into a shop, the difference between them all is quite striking.
 
drunkenmaster said:
yup, at the end of the day, its a power drain, and 99% of the day won't even be seen. Novelty item and very expensive for a good one at that.

Real picture frame, real pictures and when you want to show your friend pictures, use your ps3, xbox, tv, laptop or, you know actual photo's to show them your photo's.
Click to expand...

Yeah can someone work out How many prints you could get, + the cost of a frame and compare that to a digital frame.
 
Shamikebab said:
I just don't understand the point in them at all.
Click to expand...

I think the point is that people take load sof digital pictures but don't print them as much any more... So these devices allow people to show their pictures... In saying that, in 'olden times' most people did get them printed but then stuck them in an album not in display. So I guess the folk above who buy them but don't switch them on really were one step ahead...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom