The Kintyre Forum

I was given a Kodak SV710 Digital Photo Frame for Christmas - 7" - ideal present for displaying photos of Kintyre.

However, I was very disappointed as the photos had to be reduced (so I thought) to 480 x 230 (that's what it said on the box) reducing images that small from over 2,000 pixels made them look awful. The manual that came with the frame does not give any information on what pixels sizing to reduce to......

I have been playing around this evening and discovered that the ideal pixel size is 2555 x 1345, you may have to crop your image to that size, selecting the best part of the photo for display, but it is worth it .......superb quality images now - much happier bunny !!.

Hope this helps for anyone else trying to make their "huge" camera images fit their digital photo frame

Bonnie Lass wrote:I was given a Kodak SV710 Digital Photo Frame for Christmas - 7" - ideal present for displaying photos of Kintyre.

However, I was very disappointed as the photos had to be reduced (so I thought) to 480 x 230 (that's what it said on the box) reducing images that small from over 2,000 pixels made them look awful. The manual that came with the frame does not give any information on what pixels sizing to reduce to......

I have been playing around this evening and discovered that the ideal pixel size is 2555 x 1345, you may have to crop your image to that size, selecting the best part of the photo for display, but it is worth it .......superb quality images now - much happier bunny !!.

Hope this helps for anyone else trying to make their "huge" camera images fit their digital photo frame

Digital Photo Frames are great presents - I bought one for the wife's birthday and subsequently bought one for parents for Christmas and my brother who is abroad. Ideally it said reduce to 480 x 234 screen resolution (that however is the actual screen size). I also played about with some photos and ended up cropping most of them at 960 x 600 (480 x 300). Didn't fit the screen exactly but allows for better size photos without losing too much. 2555 x 1345 works out at 960 x 505 which I find loses that bit more (mine were mostly photos of people). But as you say 2555 x 1345 works out perfectly in terms of fitting the screen size.

One of the main reasons I chose to crop my photos to a lower resolution was to allow more photos which load faster. Do you find the quality reduces drastically if you reduce the pixel sizing? (Realising I have 2GB memory cards so no way I am going to fill these so may resort to adding high resolution photos!!! )

As you say ideal for storing photos of Kintyre - I added plenty of good ones from our day on the beach at Muasdale.

The quality doesn't change at all, I mark out the size I need on the image before cropping, then move the new box over the original photo till it looks right, usually have to leave out a bit of land and sky - but can live with that - then just crop and store at the new size, quality same as original.

Bonnie Lass wrote:The quality doesn't change at all, I mark out the size I need on the image before cropping, then move the new box over the original photo till it looks right, usually have to leave out a bit of land and sky - but can live with that - then just crop and store at the new size, quality same as original.

Does the quality reduce if you crop to 960 x 505 ? (which is 2555 x 1345 but reduced pixels). Have to agree, for landscapes the sizing will work really well. Thanks for the tip. Instead of asking you about the reduction of quality I should just try it myself!

Example below :-

Original:


Re-sized for photoframe:

That`s a baaaaaaaaad example!

We`ve never reduced ours, just put them on as they were, and they`re fine.

That's a very odd aspect ratio. Most digital cameras shoot at a ration of either in 4:3 or 16:9 (width vs height).

Resizing images to fit the photo frames ration is pretty much guaranteed to make a mess of the quality.

My camera is 4:3 - but the images didn't fit the screen, if I just put the card straight into the Frame, most of the bottom part was missing - cutting off feet/buildings/foreground - was easier to mark out a box to the size required, place over the area of importance (omitting some of the top and bottom) and crop, the example has not lost its quality and everything is now balanced in the frame.

Bonnie Lass wrote:My camera is 4:3 - but the images didn't fit the screen, if I just put the card straight into the Frame, most of the bottom part was missing - cutting off feet/buildings/foreground - was easier to mark out a box to the size required, place over the area of importance (omitting some of the top and bottom) and crop, the example has not lost its quality and everything is now balanced in the frame.

Thanks for the sizes - now adding landscape photos to perfection.

On the subject of digital photo frames, I bought one online last week and thought I'd pass on the details of the company.

They're called Digital Frames Direct and their website is http://www.digitalframesdirect.com.

They've got a lot of different sizes and styles. I ordered one and it's superb. Delivery was reasonable and very prompt - no silly surcharges for where we live.