Hi Folks,
I’m getting my Pa a digital photo frame for x-mas. I’m in the process of preparing the pictures for uploading to the unit and I’m wondering:
Should they be 72 dpi?
Will these frames re-size my pics automatically?
What (physical) size should the photos be?
I’ve no problem editing the photos to make them optimum… just don’t know what optimum is.
Many thanks and Hoppy Halidays!
John
I can only use the one I bought as an example -
My one resized the pictures (dimensions and file size) automatically.
If your photos are not the same ‘shape’ (same ratio of width to height) to the frame then you’ll either get black lines at the top and bottom or left and right. Or the unit will crop. You may be given a choice.
So I think all you’ll need to do is make sure your pictures are the same ratio as the unit for them to look right. 4:3 is the standard (non-widescreen monitor). 16:9 or 16:10 if the unit is a widescreen model.
Again, it all depends on what frame you buy.
To add to Lobsang’s comments about aspect ratio: 4:3 is the standard for virtually all digital point and shoot cameras. DSLR’s have a ratio of 3:2
Except for Olympus SLR’s, which also use the 4:3 ratio. (But they tart it up a bit by calling it the ‘four-thirds system’.)
[ol]
[li]Read the digital frame manual[/li][li]Create some test images and upload them to the frame[/li][li]Lather, rinse repeat until you have achieved the optimum conditions you desire[/li][/ol]
A danger of using too large a size of image, even if the frame resizes it for you, means fewer images that you can upload.
If the frame is anything like mine it will produce an optimal file size. It shouldn’t matter how big the starting image is.
What model are you going to get?
I got a friend a Portable USA 10.4 inch frame (now $120 from Amazon), and although reviewers at Amazon talked about having to resize the pictures, I just loaded the original camera files, unchanged, onto an SD card and plugged it into the frame. No resizing, no reframing. And everything worked fine.
As Lobsang says, if the images are a different ratio, you’ll get black bars on the edges. However, I don’t agree with him about the need to reformat the images for the frame. I mean, you can if you want, but why bother? A lot of work for a little (or no) gain.
Also, this frame allowed you to rotate vertical pictures without using an editing program.
So if it’s a decent frame, you really shouldn’t have to do anything. Just copy the original files onto whatever memory chip you’re using. As for space, if you use a 2 or 4 GB chip, you shouldn’t have a problem with space. It should hold almost a thousand large files.
Lobsang: what frame do you have, and are you sure it’s actually changing the file? Why would it do that, rather than just display the original one you give it? That seems to require a level of computing power unnecessary for the simple job of displaying an image.
I had photos ranging from 8x10 down to a cropped 1x2. All I did was scan them at 600 dpi and save them as .jpg. The frame did everything else.
I’m sure I could have scanned the larger ones at a lower resolution, but why bother to change settings? The card still has plenty of capacity.
Presumably, like LCD monitors and televisions, these frames have a specific resolution, i.e., a specific number of horizontal and vertical pixels.
It seems to me that the best practice is to edit your photos so that their resolution is the same as that of the frame. So, for example, if the frame resolution is 1024x768, then resize your pictures to that size as well.
Doing this should mean that the frame doesn’t have to stretch OR squash the image at all in order for it to fit. When digital images are stretched or squashed, there is often a little bit of visible distortion, even if it’s something as minor as jagged “straight” edges. In my experience, it’s nearly always better to resize it yourself in a proper image-manipulation tool like Photoshop or PaintshopPro or GIMP.
I bought two this Xmas. Both had 512Mbinternal memory and I uploaded about 300 pics to each.
Didn’t shrink, crop, or do anything to any of them. Most of my pics are about 1-2 Mb
Grabbed a beer and watched each one ‘play’.
No problems whatsoever.
Great invention. Mum in England will love it. 
I agree with this. I do the same thing when converting photos for use as desktop ‘wallpaper’, to avoid any need for the computer to re-sample the image to fit. Maybe this is unnecessarily anal, most people probably wouldn’t notice any difference, but I’d know it wasn’t quite right, and that would bug me.
Enables you to fit more images on the limited file space. What would be the point of storing a 3000x2000 image when the player can only display at 800x600? Might as well resize.
And it’s possible the resizing is being done by software before it gets to the player. (It’s a model you can plug into a PC to transfer the images)