Comments on: Why Are So Many Digital Picture Frames 16:9?

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:07:43 +0000

I’ve been putting off buying a digital frame because the ones I’ve looked at specify that the software is only PC compatible and I’m a Mac kind of guy. Is the software only used for special effects or should I know more before I buy? Where can I find out more about this? Thanks.

By: Jackie Hendrick

Jackie Hendrick — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 03:19:05 +0000

Hello, Robert J posted a comment on April 26, 2009, regarding the 4:3 ratio. What frame did you buy and are you still happy with it? Thanks!

By: Wayland

Wayland — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:27:13 +0000

The key feature that I am waiting for and that that no one seems to offer, is a square frame with a 1:1 aspect ratio.

As a photographer I do not feel constrained to always use my camera held horizontally or vertically. I take pictures both ways.

What is the point of a frame that cannot display pictures of both formats at equal sizes?

By: DigiFrame Eric

DigiFrame Eric — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 19:15:36 +0000

Wow, oh wow!!! I had no idea that there actually was an organized/professional website where you could actually get decent relevant information about digital photo frames. I have been following all the progressions of this industry for about a year now. This site is truly amazing as is the insights of all you tech savvy people above. Thank you all.

By: Buzz Lightyear

Buzz Lightyear — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:17:01 +0000

The explanation is simple: the manufacturers figured out that they can repurpose mass-produced 16×9 screens intended for portable DVD players and make digital picture frames. Small 4×3 color LCDs are produced mostly for industrial embedded systems and cost more due to the lower volume.

By: Robert J

Robert J — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:13:45 +0000

I have about 5000 35mm slides which I scanned about 10 years ago when I bought my my first digital camera, a Nikon CoolPix with an aspect ration of 4:3. I bought a smaller digital camera about a year and a half ago (Canon Powershot SD850). I bought the Canon primarily for size when traveling and number of picture that can be taken with one battery charge (over 650). It has an aspect ratio of 4:3. I may be wrong but the majority of simple point and shoot digital cameras are 4:3. So what is my point?

Based on observation, most people I see while traveling have simple and small point and shoot cameras and likely an aspect ratio of 4:3. I bought my digital photo frame with the 4:3 aspect ratio being an ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT. It matched all my digital pictures and only cropped about 5% off each side of my scanned slides.

My family and I like passing it in the kitchen and “remembering” the good times. I have a sampling of 40 years (about 550 pictures) on the memory card with the frame set to show them randomly for about 5 sec. each. I have a hp df820 and feel it was one of the best electronics purchases I’ve made.

By: 8 digital photo frame

8 digital photo frame — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 02:24:36 +0000

The quality of the info is what keeps me on this site, thanks!

By: A. Huisman

A. Huisman — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:03:43 +0000

Uhm… Most widescreen picture frames are 800 x 480 pixels (and yes, the pixels ARE square). That’s NOT 16:9, it’s 15:9!

And hey… That’s between 3:2 (SLR) and 16:9 (most newer consumer camera’s).

Just a question of getting the numbers straight. A lot of manuf. and websites just say 16:9 (maybe the math involved is beyond their reach).

By: Bob J

Bob J — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:06:47 +0000

Would a 16:9 frame be better for a WI-FI
frame for displaying non-photo content?

By: Rob Miller

Rob Miller — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:26:40 +0000

So 4:3 isn’t natural looking but someone’s 4:3 face stretched out to 16:9 is??? If you want to display what most of you have in your pile of digital photos then you want a 4:3. While I agree that this may change in 3 to 5 yrs (or more like 5 to 7 yrs) you’ll be wanting to show them on the 16:9 frames made at that time, not the low resolution crap being marketed in that format now. I agree too that it’s pure marketing. The unknowing are buying an 8″ 16:9 frame totally unaware that it’s approx 1/3 less viewable sq. inches than a 4:3 8″ …AND… They will end up wasting 1/3 of that space on any unedited 4:3 digital photo. This will leave most people viewing at a size of just about 43% of the same sized (as marketed) 8″ 16:9 vs. 8″ 4:3 frame. Bottom line: If you’re confused at all by the advice on this page then you surely want a 4:3 frame.

By: MikeT

MikeT — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 19:30:08 +0000

16:9 was made by the movie studios to do 2 things: get people back into the theaters (away from the scourge of television) and frame an image as to how we look at motion. For instance; when you look at a room, your vision naturally moves across the room. We have to think to look up or down. 16×9 framing IS great for wide landscapes, poor for closer in. 16×9 is great for group shots, lousy for just 3 people. Solution: crop! Easy to do for a physical print, leaves a lot of blank space on a landscape 16×9 frame and has a small image to boot. Studio professionals us 120 film, a square format and crop. 4×3 gives a good middle ground (not too much excess framing).

By: Dale

Dale — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 07:32:56 +0000

I recently bought a Kodak M1020 (10 in.) frame. The images from my 7 year old Canon Power Shot S300 digital camera look just great on it. I can’t detect any distortion or resizing, the screen is filled with the images, no black bars with “landscape” oriented photos. Thanks to all who posted the good info here. I find my camera / picture frame to be excellent partners. The frame will pay for itself by not needing to buy as much photo paper and printer ink before too long!

By: Max Miller

Max Miller — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 10:25:14 +0000

The standard foto format was 3:2 and still is for most digital cameras. 16:9 is an excellent format for landscape shots and it matches wide screen TVs.
Anyway, decent cameras will allow you to select the format. I would never buy a 4:3 frame, it is not a natural looking format.

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 20:04:09 +0000

While some people insist that “all” of their photos are in 4:3 format, there certainly are digital cameras widch are in wider formats; “35 mm” film is 3:2, with virtually all digital SLR cameras matching that format. Matching the HDTV widescreen format may not be ideal (it’s even wider than 3:2), but it is not unreasonable, and is better in the future for showing HDTV video segments… you’re not still shooting 4:3 video, are you?

By: Lew

Lew — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:23:18 +0000

Having just bought one of these for my mothers Christmas I am also finding this rather annoying.

Every picture we have is the traditional 4:3, in fact I don’t even know why you would want to take a photo in 16:9, the future would surely be 16:10?

Anyways, the photo frame is 16:9 which means it automatically stetches the picture and makes everyone look like Peter from Family Guy. Not handy. Pixel wise, it’s 800×480 which makes it 5:3. Again a problem meaning a simply resizing your photo won’t help.

All in all, a rather stupid product.

By: Erik

Erik — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:40:05 +0000

It’s simple “specs” marketing — A 16:9 screen will have a larger diagonal distance (e.g., 7″, 8″, or 10″) for the same amount of screen area vs. a 4:3 screen.

To illustrate, a 9″ wide x 1″ high screen still has a diagonal distance of 9.06″ but would be useless for displaying a picture.

The average consumer is not going to figure out this marketing trick and get stuck with a frame that doesn’t show their pictures correctly.

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:28:40 +0000

Great article. These 16:9 frames are a little ahead of the times, maybe after the powers that be force us into buying 16:9 cameras and camcorders will they be an appropriate choice – give it another 3-5 years. Staff, cdncc.com