Source: Tom's Guide US | Keywords: digital, photo, frame | Themes: Digital Cameras
- 4. Westinghouse DPF-1411, $168
- 5. Kodak OLED Wireless Frame, $999
- 6. More on this topic
5. Kodak OLED Wireless Frame, $999
Unfortunately, Kodak couldn’t get their act together and ship us one of their new OLED picture frames for review, but we couldn’t pass up the opportunity to tell you about it anyway. This frame represents the highest-end of pricey digital photo frames, and if Organic Light Emitting Diodes really do take off, we’re sure to see them in more than one model of frame.
OLEDs are lights composed of organic compounds that don’t require backlighting and that draw very little power. They’re known for high resolution and bright colors. OLEDs can be housed in the thinnest of thin panels, which means they’re very tempting to manufacturers of flat screens. Kodak’s frame is 7.6 inches, 800 x 480 pixels, and supposedly features a contrast ration of 30,000:1. Kodak has made lots of noise about the excellent viewing angles of this frame, as well as the fact that it contains 2 GB of internal storage, plays music and video, and all the Wi-Fi features we’d expect in an ultramodern frame. It is also 0.4 inches thin.
Kodak has done its best to make this frame available in time for this holiday season, but its still hard to buy. Every time we check, it is out of stock. Seems like more of a design concept than an actual product to us, but Kodak, we’d still love to check it out to decide if it comes anywhere close to being worth a grand.
- Previous page Westinghouse DPF-1411, $168
- Next page More on this topic
Its amazing how fragile technology is getting. Back in the day them black and white pictures were tough, and always there. Now, our pictures are all digital, on digital frames, etc. If we have a large war that wipes out all technology, we lose so much.. even our own pictures.. The more technology we get, the more fragile our society and way of living becomes.
I fail to see the point. I take pictures at 8MP (3264 x 2448) in RAW format then post-process them. I Think that resolutions and sizes discussed above are worthless. With such sizes even a bad picture would look sharp. I take Macro pictures of insects and enjoy looking at hidden details; which such small resolutions this is impossible.
$3 for an 12" x 18" print seems like a much more suitable solution.
NOTE: why hasn't someone just sold a regular 19" LCD display in a frame with some memory for $300. It would be much more feasible then.
I've owned 4 different frames over the past 3 years; they keep getting better. The most recent purchase, a Pandigital 10" frame ($165 or so at my local Costco) is fantastic. The screen is the best I've seen, very vibrant and easy to see at multiple angles. It doesn't have built in wireless...I'm anxious to try the Samsung SPF-83V wireless frame when I can see it local.
I agree, with the first poster, this is the most unneeded tech out there. Think of the waste produced to make these, the electricity it takes to keep it powered, and yes, the fragility of the data in such a format. I still think that photos worth framing, should be printed on a quality paper and framed in a legitimate frame.
IMO, it is far more costly for a person to run slide-shows on a computer than it would be to have it on a digital frame. One way or the other (lcd or Paper) resources will be used & the potential for waste will always exist. A digital frame has multiple advantages that can be perceived as advantageous on other levels that I can cite if anyone really cares.
Paper is great, but it doesn't change like a dynamic slideshow. Computer-screen slideshows are great, but many people don't keep a computer in the living room (yet). That's why people like digital photo frames--they are entertaining to watch, and they fit in with the decor.
Rachel Rosmarin, Editor of Tom's Guide