Jessops Digital 7" Photo Frame with Interchangeable Surrounds - £22.50 collect instore @ Jessops - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
264Expired

Jessops Digital 7" Photo Frame with Interchangeable Surrounds - £22.50 collect instore @ Jessops

£22.50 @ Jessops
To get this price use discount code: DIGITALFRAMES10 Can't decide what colour your digital frame should be? Not to worry as the this Jessops model comes supplied with black, white and pink surroun… Read More
millarcat Avatar
[mod] 7y, 5m agoFound 7 years, 5 months ago
To get this price use discount code: DIGITALFRAMES10

Can't decide what colour your digital frame should be? Not to worry as the this Jessops model comes supplied with black, white and pink surrounds that you can change according to your taste.

In addition this widescreen model accepts SD, SDHC, Memory Stick, Multimedia and xD cards as well as having USB 2.0 connection. A table stand and keyholes for wall mounting are also provided.

Specifications

* Card Type: SD, MMC, MS, MS Pro, xD (MS Duo and MS Pro Duo compatible with optional adapter).
* Computer connection: USB 2.0
* File Format: JPEG
* Resolution: 480x234 pixels
* Aspect Ratio: Widescreen
More From Jessops:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
millarcat Avatar
[mod] 7y, 5m agoFound 7 years, 5 months ago
Options

All Comments

(31) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
Is this good? I'm not very technical:roll:
1 Like #2
It's not the best Resolution: 480x234 pixels

more is better
#3
Thanks:thumbsup:
Rep on its way:)
#4
The resolution is very low, in fact many phones offer a better resolution although it is cheap - may be a good choice for someone elderly who doesn't have great eyesight and wouldn't benefit from a higher resolution display. If possible it would be best to check out in store first.

John
#5
Johnmcl7
The resolution is very low, in fact many phones offer a better resolution although it is cheap - may be a good choice for someone elderly who doesn't have great eyesight and wouldn't benefit from a higher resolution display. If possible it would be best to check out in store first.

John


res is fine - try looking at a 7 inch image on your monitor of that res
39.99 high res 8 inch one though is really good so this probably decent
#6
brilly;6959900
res is fine - try looking at a 7 inch image on your monitor of that res
39.99 high res 8 inch one though is really good so this probably decent


The resolution is dire - even my mobile phone screen at less than half the size has a better resolution and my 4.5in monitor has a resolution several times higher at 1024x600.

John
#7
Agreed this resolution is close to perfect for a 7" frame you should have no
problems seeing anything on it well worth the price. :thumbsup:
#8
Johnmcl7
The resolution is dire - even my mobile phone screen at less than half the size has a better resolution and my 4.5in monitor has a resolution several times higher at 1024x600.

John

nono, you THINK the res is dire... that is your mistake.
guess you spend alot of time cleaning your mobile phone screen - sounds like you will be leaving streaks from your nose on it.
#9
brilly;6966158
nono, you THINK the res is dire... that is your mistake.
guess you spend alot of time cleaning your mobile phone screen - sounds like you will be leaving streaks from your nose on it.

The resolution is extremely low by any standard definition, particularly the amount of pixels per inch. The 4:3 resolution (the most common aspect ratio for digital cameras) is around 312x234 which is less than 0.1MP displayed resolution. By comparison a printed 7x5 (around the same size) at 300 ppi is around 3MP and most computer screens (including smaller netbooks) have screens capable of 1MP resolution or more.

While you imply your eyesight is poor, mine certainly isn't as I don't need to 'have my nose on the screen' to be able to take advantage of far higher resolutions. Even on the supposed 'high resolution' photo displays with a 480 pixel vertical resolution, the lack of detail on a 7in frame is quite noticeable leaving images relatively soft unless standing at the other side of the room.

As I said above, technically this is a poor screen resolution (in comparison to other picture frames, computer screens and printed resolution) which may be suitable for without great eyesight who's not going to notice the lack of resolution and therefore it would be best to check the screen out in person first.

John
#10
Johnmcl7
The resolution is extremely low by any standard definition, particularly the amount of pixels per inch. The 4:3 resolution (the most common aspect ratio for digital cameras) is around 312x234 which is less than 0.1MP displayed resolution. By comparison a printed 7x5 (around the same size) at 300 ppi is around 3MP and most computer screens (including smaller netbooks) have screens capable of 1MP resolution or more.

While you imply your eyesight is poor, mine certainly isn't as I don't need to 'have my nose on the screen' to be able to take advantage of far higher resolutions. Even on the supposed 'high resolution' photo displays with a 480 pixel vertical resolution, the lack of detail on a 7in frame is quite noticeable leaving images relatively soft unless standing at the other side of the room.

As I said above, technically this is a poor screen resolution (in comparison to other picture frames, computer screens and printed resolution) which may be suitable for without great eyesight who's not going to notice the lack of resolution and therefore it would be best to check the screen out in person first.

John


lots of blah blah there
1st comparison vs a printed picture is irrelevant, you are talking about examples of a digital frame. what digital frame will have higher effective resolution than a print?

this frame is prob around 17square inch with 112320pixels ~ 6600 per square inch

a 19 inch monitor running 1280*1024 has 1310720 pixels over approx 170 square inches ~7700 per square inch

less than 20% difference (EXTEMELY LOW!!! oh noes) in effective resolution - the monitor is more than plenty for looking at photos and the frame is plenty.

as you want to repeat yourself:
"res is fine - try looking at a 7 inch image on your monitor of that res"

of course its always best to check instore but its a simple check to put an image of the frames size and resolution on screen and look at it from suitable distance for an idea.

heck even if it was rubbish where is the massive res frame for 22quid you are recommending?
#11
There are various high resolution monitors that have a higher resolution than equivalent print which is why I'm sure you deliberately chose a low resolution monitor for comparison - a 19in 1280x1024 monitor has one of the lowest pixel densities of computer monitors which makes it a poor example to choose as an indication of average pixel density unless of course you're trying to dig yourself out of a hole. 19in monitors at are available in resolutions up to 1920x1200 as are 15.4in panels. Moving up the market Sony produce panels that are nearly half the size of this panel with over double the resolution producing a pixel density four times higher.

I already explained I have looked at 7in digital picture frames at various resolutions hence why I'm posting, on an 800x480 picture frame the lack of detail is very obvious - any fine detail is simply gone be it hair, skin texture, grass or foliage. Dropping to a much lower resolution is hardly going to improve it especially as the panel at that resolution is a poor quality one. Attempting to simulate the resolution on a computer screen is relatively worthless unless you have a poor quality, low resolution monitor as you're unlikely to be able to provide a similar pixel density and the computer screen will be a different panel entirely and gives no indication of actual quality.

There's no point saving money buying a cheap digital frame if it can't do the job, I've made the mistake myself previously and it's not one I'd repeat - a low resolution poor quality panel just makes photos look poor themselves, making any money spent on it a complete waste. There's a range of 480p panels which while still only offering basic resolutions can offer substantially better quality for around 15 pounds more. There's some real junk on the digital photo frame market which is why caution should always be taken and poor specification should not simply be dismissed especially on a public forum which is very bad form. Buyer beware.

John
#12
Johnmcl7
There are various high resolution monitors that have a higher resolution than equivalent print which is why I'm sure you deliberately chose a low resolution monitor for comparison - a 19in 1280x1024 monitor has one of the lowest pixel densities of computer monitors which makes it a poor example to choose as an indication of average pixel density unless of course you're trying to dig yourself out of a hole. 19in monitors at are available in resolutions up to 1920x1200 as are 15.4in panels. Moving up the market Sony produce panels that are nearly half the size of this panel with over double the resolution producing a pixel density four times higher.

I already explained I have looked at 7in digital picture frames at various resolutions hence why I'm posting, on an 800x480 picture frame the lack of detail is very obvious - any fine detail is simply gone be it hair, skin texture, grass or foliage. Dropping to a much lower resolution is hardly going to improve it especially as the panel at that resolution is a poor quality one. Attempting to simulate the resolution on a computer screen is relatively worthless unless you have a poor quality, low resolution monitor as you're unlikely to be able to provide a similar pixel density and the computer screen will be a different panel entirely and gives no indication of actual quality.

There's no point saving money buying a cheap digital frame if it can't do the job, I've made the mistake myself previously and it's not one I'd repeat - a low resolution poor quality panel just makes photos look poor themselves, making any money spent on it a complete waste. There's a range of 480p panels which while still only offering basic resolutions can offer substantially better quality for around 15 pounds more. There's some real junk on the digital photo frame market which is why caution should always be taken and poor specification should not simply be dismissed especially on a public forum which is very bad form. Buyer beware.

John


why would i be digging myself out of a hole im not in?
i am trying to show a standard monitor setup which many use and is fine.
even if you want to go to your higher res screens even if you have double the pixel density id not call a 22.50 frame 'EXTREMELY POOR' just because its lower.

there are also some real 'oooh low spec' scaremongers that just spout whatever they feel like which is very bad form.

all a person needs to do is simulate the frame on screen as i said to see if they are happy with the detail.

thanks for the better frame at the same price also i didn't know that you can spend more on something to get a better product ..thats unheard of.
have fun
#13
cezne
Is this good? I'm not very technical:roll:


In short, no. Spend a bit more and get a 8" with 800x600 res instead.
(Before brilly goes off on one i've had one and it looked crap :thumbsup: )
#14
I bought a frame with the same resolution as this to give as a gift to an elderly relative, although it is fine for them I was not impressed! If you're viewing from quite a distance it's okay but anything closer than a couple of meters and you will notice the images pixcelating and also the lack of displayable colour range leads to banding in some areas. If you can afford the difference in price buy a higher res frame.
#15
I was given a 7" screen with the same resolution as this (480 x 234) recently and the picture definition is pretty awful. Pictures are noticeably pixelated and faces are almost unrecognisable on some pics. Definitely worth getting a higher res screen IMHO.
#16
Go look at a cheapest 7" digital frame in any shop (usually around £25-£30). Chances are it's the same resolution as this. If that looks OK to you then this will be fine.
#17
I got a clearance cheapo Polaroid rebadged Photo Frame from Sainsbury, was this resolution and the picture quality was really poor, whilst this sort of resolution is "ok" for Portable DVD players, statically viewing JPEGS a higher resolution really is a must else photos look really washed out lacking any sort of definition. Needless to say it went back.
#18
I brought the Kitvision 7" one for sale at play for £17.99 and was not expecting a great picture but it looks greast to me.

So much so that it was meant to be a Xams pressie but the missus has decided she's keeping it!!

Gone for the £34.99 Coby DP800 8" High Resolution for the present instead, wants the betting the missus will prefer this one now!!! :roll:
#19
Johnmcl7
The resolution is extremely low by any standard definition, particularly the amount of pixels per inch. The 4:3 resolution (the most common aspect ratio for digital cameras) is around 312x234 which is less than 0.1MP displayed resolution.
It is even worse than that. I have one that is clearly driven with TV (NTSC) based timing, so the logical resolution is 320x234, which is then blown up to 480x234 (I thought it was 412x234, but lets not be too critical). Consequently the usable resolution for 4:3 images is 234x234 - and you loose more sharpness in the scaling process.

I am not saying this applies here, but it is a common trick amongst the very cheap picture frames. The resulting picture quality is horrible when it comes to detail.
#20
The resolution is 76ppi with a dot pitch of 0.34.

This is slightly lower than a typical desktop monitors 85 to 98 ppi, much lower than a hires laptop.

Handy : http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html
#21
Read through all the posts...keeping it short - no blah blah please - can anyone recommend a decent digital photo with at least 8" frane and high resoution
#22
RedDwarfIsCool
Read through all the posts...keeping it short - no blah blah please - can anyone recommend a decent digital photo with at least 8" frane and high resoution


http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/536250/8-high-resolution-digital-picture-f
#23
RedDwarfIsCool
Read through all the posts...keeping it short - no blah blah please - can anyone recommend a decent digital photo with at least 8" frane and high resoution


jessops 8 inch high res one, old one was a which best buy and its really good (also has some internal storage ~ 400 photos or so) is 39.99 atm and i think there is a 10% voucher for 36 total would be a good buy imo.
#24
Thanks Goonieman and Brilly...both equally good recommendations. I might just get the play.com one - only because my nearest Jessops is 20miles away. Will make a good Christmas present for the wife
Appreciate that.
#25
technojunkie
I was given a 7" screen with the same resolution as this (480 x 234) recently and the picture definition is pretty awful. Pictures are noticeably pixelated and faces are almost unrecognisable on some pics. Definitely worth getting a higher res screen IMHO.


Here Here, agree with that :-D
#26
going to go for that play one too!cheers for the post
#27
Brilly:
No feedback on the play.com frame having a random feature? Def want a random/shuffle feature. Do you know if the frame you recommended at Jessops has such a feature
#28
RedDwarfIsCool
Brilly:
No feedback on the play.com frame having a random feature? Def want a random/shuffle feature. Do you know if the frame you recommended at Jessops has such a feature


yeah i dont know about the play one but the 8inch jessops with 256mb internal memory (old model) definitely has one.

new 8 inch version may not have it any more as the 10 inch lost it between versions for some reason.
#29
Thanks again brilly,
I'll have a nosey at the Jessops frame at the weekend. Was interested in the 10" one too....hmmm but I know the wife will want a random feature.
Cheers
#30
RedDwarfIsCool;7005092
Thanks again brilly,
I'll have a nosey at the Jessops frame at the weekend. Was interested in the 10" one too....hmmm but I know the wife will want a random feature.
Cheers


Be careful to check it is a proper random feature - some go through the pictures in a seemingly random order but they go through the same sequence every time. If you have a large collection of photos loaded this can mean you don't get to see many of those higher in the sequence unless the frame is on 24/7

John
#31
Johnmcl7;7005476
Be careful to check it is a proper random feature - some go through the pictures in a seemingly random order but they go through the same sequence every time. If you have a large collection of photos loaded this can mean you don't get to see many of those higher in the sequence unless the frame is on 24/7

John


That is a good point there John and I know what you mean. Thanks for the heads up on it - going tomorrow to check it out. If I buy it I will post a review for others

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!