|
Just stumbled on these digital frames at Target today on clearance...
DUAL SCREEN 7-inch digital frames, regularly priced at $138.99, marked down to only $34.74!!!
...cheaper than single screen 7-inchers.
Bought all six that were left at the Marysville, WA store... 
sorry, Marysville neighbors-- these will make GREAT Christmas gifts! Hope people can find these at other locations...
Quick Summary is created and edited by users like you... Add FAQ's, Links and other Relevant Information by clicking the edit button in the lower right hand corner of this message.
Saw this and passed. Check out the display if they still have it up; the low resolution (480x234) makes pictures too pixelated for a large 7" screen.
saw this as well but passed. they had tons of other digital photo frames on clearance. It was a mad house at Target for me today! x-mas shopping for 2008 and 2009 is taken care of 
Just did a quick search of 7" digital frames and 480 x 234 seems to be a common resolution being sold, including a Pandigital one at Target and a Sunpak one listed in another post here at FW for $36... I may just have to open one and test it out, but at under $35 I still think this is a pretty good buy as gifts, especially for older relatives who aren't so picky or tech-savvy. Comes in pretty classy packaging, so I immediately thought of getting these as gifts that look like I spent way more! 
It's a great price when compared to the previous price, but I have to agree... That resolution doesn't much cut it with today's hi-res cameras. The degredation would be way too much. With 2 and 3 megapixels cameras of a few years ago, I'm sure that was a totally passable resolution.
On another note... It just seems to me that these picture frames generally cost WAY more than they should across the board.
Fyi, I did the math on a 7" 480X234 frame as compared to your typical 15" 1024X768 LCD monitor (which most people wouldn't find low res).
To have the same pixel density as a 15" LCD monitor would be, a 7" 16:9 wide frame would be about 520*290.
So while 480X234 is a little low it is not nearly as bad as people are making it out to be.
AlanS17 said:It's a great price when compared to the previous price, but I have to agree... That resolution doesn't much cut it with today's hi-res cameras. The degredation would be way too much. With 2 and 3 megapixels cameras of a few years ago, I'm sure that was a totally passable resolution.
On another note... It just seems to me that these picture frames generally cost WAY more than they should across the board.
I hate to sound mean but I find your post utterly useless.
A 3 megapixel 4:3 image would be 2000X1500 pixels which is already way beyond what any digital photoframe would be able to display natively. So that image would already be shrunk to something like 1/25 of the size. The fact that newer cameras have higher resolution sensors has absolutely NOTHING to do with how the image will look on the frame because they're all getting scaled down a huge amount anyway.
Besides you should know that the megapixel resolution of the image has nothing to do with the FOV of the lens you're using and the size of the real life area you captured. You're basically looking at the same objects, there's just twice as many pixels making up the objects. You're going to have to scale down the image radically anyway to fit any frame so all those extra pixels are wasted. The only 'advantage' to having those extra megapixels may be that you can zoom in more on resultant images and see finer details,..... however that's only useful if for some reason you'd rather have a digital frame of someone's crotch rather than their whole body.
In other words, the resolution you took the image at has little to do with how it will look on the frame. What you should be careful of is the aspect ratio you pick for your photos because you'll likely have to crop the photos to match the aspect ratios of frames.
There's another much nicer memorex digital frame that I saw for a little more but with a 800x480 res
quickfingerz said:There's another much nicer memorex digital frame that I saw for a little more but with a 800x480 res
That's a frame you actually want to keep and show off. 800x480 is enough resolution that things don't look blocky.
isn't there a dedicated target clearance thread?
MarksManB said:isn't there a dedicated target clearance thread?
Bingo!
I bought this at my target 2 weeks ago for this price. The displays aren't ultra sharp, but they certainly aren't blocky or bad to look at. People are just obsessed with resultion. This frame will look fine to 99% of people.
MarksManB said:isn't there a dedicated target clearance thread?
Why would I want to go through the entire target thread if I am only interested in getting a digital photo frame?
With the rolling thunder option on the target clearance thread you only have to look at the first few posts. everything that people post with ~'s get moved to the front on the post. This is a repost cause it was already posted there.
Cheers.
thanks op bought a display for 25 and some change
shadowwar said:With the rolling thunder option on the target clearance thread you only have to look at the first few posts. everything that people post with ~'s get moved to the front on the post. This is a repost cause it was already posted there.
Cheers.
Thanks for the heads up OP. Although I went to Target last night to pick up a frame and these were still marked at $119. Good luck to those that got them.
lzpoof said:Fyi, I did the math on a 7" 480X234 frame as compared to your typical 15" 1024X768 LCD monitor (which most people wouldn't find low res).
To have the same pixel density as a 15" LCD monitor would be, a 7" 16:9 wide frame would be about 520*290.
So while 480X234 is a little low it is not nearly as bad as people are making it out to be.
Sorry you found my post completely useless, but so is this one. Maybe the pixel density is also similar, but you're not going to go showing 1/4 of an image, either. Cut away 3/4 of that full screen image on your 15" monitor and this is what you have left. Over the same size screen, it would only be about 1/4 the resolution of your 1024X768 monitor. The only redeeming feature for the frame is that it's so much smaller that people might not notice.
I realize a 2MP or 3MP is still too high for this frame, but at least the degredation would be lower when compared up against its size. How's this for a useful, to-the-point statement...
By any measurement, by any comparison, from any angle... this frame's resolution is too low to produce satifactory results.
Too bad many here disparaged this frame without ever having seen it. I was able to get a handful of them to give as gifts and after hooking one up to check it out I can tell you that the picture quality is just fine. In fact everyone who has come over and seen it wants one for themselves especially after hearing how much it cost. I'm currently using a SD card that was taken at 7.1MP and the resulting display is more than "satisfactory" as were the results with cards from the kids 3MP cameras.
Once again it just goes to show, don't pay attention to the naysayers or the arbitrary red ratings, go get one and check it out for yourself. Hell, you've always got 90 days to decide if it's good enough for you and if not take it back.
Sorry to bring this back from the dead but IF anyone finds or has an extra one of these for this price please contact me as I would love to pick this up. Our local Targets still have this for $139.99. Will of course cover the cost of shipping and something for your time.
Thanks
Greg
|
 |
|
|
