Why Are So Many Digital Picture Frames 16:9?
Written on Nov 30, 2008 by Brian and filed under Knowledge Base
We hit on aspect ratio in all of our reviews, but the issue of standard aspect (4:3) vs. widescreen aspect (16:9) is still confusing and as one reader emailed today, “What gives?” It’s an important feature to understand when selecting your frame and for many, a widescreen aspect ratio eliminates a frame from consideration right away.
Before we get more into the discussion, here’s the email we received today from Wayne:
Can y’all tell me why on EARTH so many new frames are 16:9? I hardly see ANY new cameras that are 16:9…and about, oh–say, 0% of my iPhoto library is in 16:9.
What gives?
Wayne’s email isn’t the first comment or email we’ve received on the topic, and like Wayne, we too often wonder about the purpose of 16:9 aspect ratios. When frames use a widescreen like that, it means you have to alter your photos to fit the display, as almost all photos are shot in standard aspect ratio. The easiest ways to do this are on-frame tools like cropping images, or zooming in to fill the screen. But neither option is ideal and in worst cases leads to heads chopped out of pictures and so on.
We think there are two possible reasons for the recent surge in widescreen digital frames. First, and most likely, frame makers are trying to make their product appear cool by appealing to the widescreen phenomenon that is taking place in the HD television space. But unlike DVDs and high-def content from television stations, our pictures are shot almost entirely in standard aspect ratio. So appealing to consumers by trying to seem hip isn’t very helpful.
Another reason we could be seeing certain size frames in widescreen has to do with cost. The panels used for displays in digital frames are the most expensive component. They’re also all stamped from single sheets, so the more panels you can get per sheet, the cheaper the unit cost will be for each. We’ve seen this in the notebook space where a manufacturer will make display decisions based on the number of panels per sheet. While this reason may be less of an issue than the one above, it’s still worth noting as a possibility.
Whatever the reasons, frame buyers are better off going with 4:3 screens right now than the wiescreen alternatives. While Kodak, who is the largest player in teh frame space, still works with widescreen frames, we’re seeing some positive signs of change. Sony, who just released their second generation frames, switched from widescreen to standard, a big move for a company like Sony.
As you shot be sure to consider screen aspect ratio and we’ll make sure to mention it it all of our reviews and in our product database.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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).
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.