Kodak produced a camera with an OLED screen in 2003, but although the screen was well received (much better viewing angle than LCD, for instance) nobody else copied it, AFAIK, which leads me to wonder what the life is like. Not sure I'd want to spend £500 to find out...
At that price I would at least expect an aspect ratio to match the majority of photos - i.e. 4:3, or 3:2 at a pinch. Besides, with OLED they can't even claim the economies of scale argument normally used to justify that aspect ratio for conventional LCDs.
So instead of a conventional picture sitting in a frame and consuming nothing, you have this eating electricity day and night? At least put a PIR sensor on it so it switches to standby when no-one's around!
Resolution is key on these frames, and 800 x 480 seems pretty woeful. And hasn't Kodak solved a problem that doesn't really exist? Memory is so cheap and small that getting lots of pictures onto a frame is easy, neat and inexpensive. If they were going to lose wires, the power cable is the one to eliminate. Rechargable frame, perchance? Oh, and it costs around four times what it should to be even remotely attractive. Other than that, a winner! Erm....
ffs... what the point is there producing a wide photo frame... especally with a resolution as poor as that!!!
I Made the mistake of getting a wide LCD photo frame (I just read the size, not aspect ratio when ordering)and no amount of cutting and trimming makes photos fit well... all my images are now displayed with nice black borders by the sides... yippie!
and £600 for the privillage?? er... no thanks!!! oh... and the thing looks crap too!
Logitech Harmony ONE Advanced Universal Remote
Logitech Harmony 1100 Remote Control
Logitech Harmony 700 Universal Remote (LCD, 6 Devices)
Logitech Harmony 900 Universal Remote (LCD Touch Screen, Macro Control, 15 Devices)
Panasonic DMW-BCG10 Replacement Battery
Kodak launch world's first wireless OLED frame
It'sa Mea... Mario
How frickin' much? #
Posted Wednesday 17th September 2008 11:04 GMT
Jeeze.
James Pickett
Longevity #
Posted Wednesday 17th September 2008 11:04 GMT
Kodak produced a camera with an OLED screen in 2003, but although the screen was well received (much better viewing angle than LCD, for instance) nobody else copied it, AFAIK, which leads me to wonder what the life is like. Not sure I'd want to spend £500 to find out...
David Gosnell
Stupid aspect ratio #
Posted Wednesday 17th September 2008 17:08 GMT
At that price I would at least expect an aspect ratio to match the majority of photos - i.e. 4:3, or 3:2 at a pinch. Besides, with OLED they can't even claim the economies of scale argument normally used to justify that aspect ratio for conventional LCDs.
Anonymous Coward
Waste of energy #
Posted Thursday 18th September 2008 11:04 GMT
So instead of a conventional picture sitting in a frame and consuming nothing, you have this eating electricity day and night? At least put a PIR sensor on it so it switches to standby when no-one's around!
Sam Tana
Resolution #
Posted Thursday 18th September 2008 12:02 GMT
Resolution is key on these frames, and 800 x 480 seems pretty woeful. And hasn't Kodak solved a problem that doesn't really exist? Memory is so cheap and small that getting lots of pictures onto a frame is easy, neat and inexpensive. If they were going to lose wires, the power cable is the one to eliminate. Rechargable frame, perchance? Oh, and it costs around four times what it should to be even remotely attractive. Other than that, a winner! Erm....
Matt
oh... like most photos are widescreen... #
Posted Thursday 18th September 2008 14:54 GMT
ffs... what the point is there producing a wide photo frame... especally with a resolution as poor as that!!!
I Made the mistake of getting a wide LCD photo frame (I just read the size, not aspect ratio when ordering)and no amount of cutting and trimming makes photos fit well... all my images are now displayed with nice black borders by the sides... yippie!
and £600 for the privillage?? er... no thanks!!! oh... and the thing looks crap too!