Manage updates with the Download App
-
"16:9 aspect ratio a deal-breaker"
2.0 starson by jljohnson1984Pros: Great display quality
I got to like the fact that no remote is neededCons: 16:9 aspect ratio...read on
Summary: I have also purchased this...but will most likely return it. What some reviewers have spun as a "movie-friendly 16:9 aspect ratio" is actually...ridiculous. This is a PICTURE frame... if it plays the occasional movie, great... but there is no big push I know of in the digital photography industry to 16:9 aspect ratio for PHOTOS. Now for the main reason you have purchased this frame, you must compromise the display of your 10,000 or so precious 4:3 ratio family photos for the .00001% chance you will be playing an HD Mpeg file... That is not a feature, or a mere drawback... it is a mistake and a deal-breaker. I already have an HD television. Trust me, if you have a large computerized photo collection like myself, you will not like how much gets cut off when this frame displays them, and the Fit To Frame option is not a suitable answer, as the large black bars on the side of each picture look... terrible. And just imagine how strange portrait-oriented pictures look this way! The 2009 Techie Big Whoops Award goes to Kodak. Too bad...because there is a lot to like about other aspects of this frame, mainly the display quality, which is very nice. Shame.
- 4 replies to this review
-
The biggest pro of this digital frame for me was that it is 16:9. The original reviewer just doesn't get the big picture (pun intended). Look, I also have 1000s of older digital pictures in 4:3. For those, I purchased a 4:3 digital frame. I now shoot exclusively in 16:9, and for those newer pictures I purchase 16:9 frames. It's that simple folks! Why do I now exclusively shoot 16:9? For the same reason camera manufacturers now offer this option. Gone are the days of the whole family gathering around tiny photo albums. Now our 16:9 HD TVs have become the modern viewing choice, whether streaming or USB etc. - and WOW what a difference it makes! There are now much better choices for viewing photos. Time to move on and stop complaining that your square head doesn't fit in a round hole!
-
Thanks for drawing attention to the aspect ratio problem. There is a new Kodak frame Kodak Easyshare D1030 with the aspect ratio 4:3 that you would be interested in. In fact, since I am from Poland, not from the USA, let me tell you that I think you are being too harsh to your US designers. I am using a digital SLR camera and it shots pictures with the aspect ratio 15:10 which is quite close to 16:9. Although the pictures don't exactly fit in the extended 16:9 frame and have to be cropped the crop looks really nice with landscapes. For me it would be no use to buy a frame with the aspect ratio 4:3 since I don't use that format in my camera. But the conclusion is it is a good point to consider the aspect ratio of the pictures taken by your camera (SLR or standard) before you buy a digital frame.
-
What a shame. When a compnay takes this kind of decision I always wonder the wisdome of the decisoin maker -probably marketing personnel! We as a country are losing on manufaturing ground but at least we should compensate on intelectual grounds, for heaven sake! Dispite of well intention to buy American product I seem to end up buying foreighn products for one or other reson - mainly quality or thoughtless design.
-
An excellent point. My first criteria for photo frames is whether it has a 4:3 display to match the pictures taken by almost every digital camera on Earth. Most seem to be 16:9, perhaps because the same surface area (and price) of LCD has a longer diagonal measurement if the frame has a 16:9 aspect ration than if it has a 4:3 ratio. The frame sounds bigger to the buyer, for the same price, so who cares if it's less useful?
Write a Review
Online Stores
| Store | Promotions | In Stock | Price | Total Cost | Initial Sort Order |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | Yes | Ship: TBD Tax: TBD | $140.00 | ||
| See all prices | |||||
