#303775 - 28/11/2007 14:27
Re: Wireless Digital Photo Frames
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Quote:
Quote:
cropping a 48:32 image for a 48:27 screen, so you're losing 5/32
I believe that means you're losing 5/48, which is 10.42%
I'm pretty sure not. Imagine your screen were actually 48x27 pixels, and you were trying to display a 48x32-pixel image. In each 32-pixel vertical column, 5 pixels would be missed out. So the reduction is 5/32. In those horizontal rows which appear at all, all 48 pixels appear.
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303776 - 28/11/2007 15:38
Re: Wireless Digital Photo Frames
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14493
Loc: Canada
|
Quote:
Cropping a 3:2 image for a 16:9 screen is the same as cropping a 48:32 image for a 48:27 screen, so you're losing 5/32 or 15.6%. Likewise, cropping 3:2 for 4:3 is like cropping 9:6 to fit 8:6, so losing 1/9 or 11.1%. So 4:3 is better than 16:9 even for 3:2 originals.
For a 3:2 image on 16x9, the number I get is about 84% coverage (same as Peter).
For a 3:2 image on 4x3, my calculator says 88.8% coverage (same as Peter).
Excluding borders, title bars, and icons etc..
But I much prefer 16x9 for viewing photos, mostly because they tend to be larger screens for the same height/price as 4x3.
Edited by mlord (28/11/2007 15:43)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303777 - 28/11/2007 15:49
Re: Wireless Digital Photo Frames
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Yeah, you're right. I told you my brain wasn't working well.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303779 - 03/12/2007 12:42
Re: Wireless Digital Photo Frames
[Re: ih2]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
|
What about the the $50000 to $100000 you will have to pay someone (or someones) to develop the software to run the frame?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303780 - 03/12/2007 13:22
Re: Wireless Digital Photo Frames
[Re: hybrid8]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
There are, I'm sure, dozens of free RSS screensavers out there for both Windows and Linux.
I don't think it really fits the bill, as an LCD monitor doesn't look much like a photo frame, but, still, those are pretty cool.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303781 - 03/12/2007 14:33
Re: Wireless Digital Photo Frames
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
|
Quote:
There are, I'm sure, dozens of free RSS screensavers out there for both Windows and Linux.
Ok, with the screensaver route it's doable and passable in many instances. I got away with it making the Mac-based frame for my brother. But one really needs more specialized software if the frame is intended for someone who isn't computer savvy. My brother can easily connect to a share on the frame to copy images to it, or remote login using VNC to copy images off a connected USB drive. My parents on the other hand could never do that. 
Using RSS would hopefully give the savvy admin the ability to set up photos remotely on a frame connected to a high speed internet connection, but truthfully, I haven't seen any great programs yet (ones that are great at the slideshow portion of the puzzle). Of course the last time I looked was earlier this year when making the original frame.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303782 - 03/12/2007 23:16
Re: Wireless Digital Photo Frames
[Re: hybrid8]
|
addict
Registered: 25/06/2002
Posts: 456
|
I set up a web-based photo upload (and captioning) engine for my frames without spending anywhere near $100,000 worth of my time.
Maybe I'm just a cheap date.
Granted, what I wrote isn't at all mass-market bullet-proof, and all my scattered family members are quite computer literate. So this proves nothing.
They'd be OK with getting it to work even if it were Comcastically bad. (or near-Microsoftian in its opacity)
Yet, I'd still say that my hardware is the weakest part of this equation (and I'm a hardware guy....)
because I hate having a spinning hard drive on this thing. And I hate that it's running Windows underneath.
I'd like to port it to Linux and have it boot off a USB flash drive and then run entirely in a RAM disk with no whirring spinning things and no writing to Flash (at least not for swap or tmpfiles, anyway).
Maybe someday.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#315934 - 05/11/2008 16:03
Re: Wireless Digital Photo Frames
[Re: music]
|
veteran
Registered: 21/03/2002
Posts: 1424
Loc: MA but Irish born
|
Bringing this back to the top as it is a year on, things have changed and I'm in the market for one for the Mammy so she can fawn over picture of the grand-daughter she'll rarely get to see.
My needs are very similar to what Andy outlined in his first post, easy of use is very important, as I'm not in a position to pop over and debug issue.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#315935 - 05/11/2008 16:35
Re: Wireless Digital Photo Frames
[Re: Phoenix42]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
I'd like to think that things have improved, but I bet they haven't. I did look at Kodak's new frames, they had made three changes:
- added a random order option
- added a stupid not-quite-touch screen (you touch on the border round the screen)
- removed the useful remote
and nothing else
I haven't look at any other new ones though, so who knows, things may have moved on.
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#316212 - 10/11/2008 17:04
Re: Wireless Digital Photo Frames
[Re: andy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12338
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
Kodak also has (or is releasing) an OLED photo frame. Only $999.
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index