Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Software

Homemade Digital Picture Frames? 148

kato writes: "I've been searching for months for the right parts to make a digital picture frame for my wall. I'm not trying to mount an entire PC in a frame, so I think an old laptop would be overkill. I've heard about devices such as the Audrey made by 3COM, the AOL Touchpad made by Gateway, the Cieva picture frame, and a few others, but each has its faults. Some are impossible to find, some require a service, and some aren't yet "hacked." I'd like the price to be cheap (under $100), the picture to be about 10" diagonally, and to be able to connect to the device (modem or network). Now that the MIT flea market is over, I'm stuck trying to find the parts online. I'm leaning towards the AOL Touchpad, which runs Mobile Linux, but no one has posted any attempts on how to get rid of AOL. Anyone have any ideas or success stories?" An earlier question pointed out this site, but I suppose buying one would take all the fun out of it. You also need to watch out for "subscription to our service required" frames...
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Homemade Digital Picture Frames?

Comments Filter:
  • by Matey-O ( 518004 ) <michaeljohnmiller@mSPAMsSPAMnSPAM.com> on Sunday November 11, 2001 @09:01AM (#2550577) Homepage Journal
    I never understood the draw for digital picture frames. When they're GIVING away photo quality printers with computer purchases and a full resolution printout amortises to about $2 a page, the only thing that DPF gives you is a wipe to another picture...and a power reuirement.

    Buy a $60 dollar printer, and when the cartridges dry up, pitch it. You're out less money, and the pictures work everywhere but in the dark. (Okay, TWO benefits to a digital picture frame.)

    Pick the right paper, and the photos will last a heckuva lot longer than the DPF will.
  • How about .... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dustpuppy ( 5260 ) on Sunday November 11, 2001 @09:04AM (#2550581)
    putting a second video card in your PC and connecting an old monitor (or a new LCD monitor for that matter) to it?

    Sure not quite what you were after, but you would get a large picture at a relatively low cost.

  • by trilucid ( 515316 ) <pparadis@havensystems.net> on Sunday November 11, 2001 @09:09AM (#2550583) Homepage Journal

    Buy a $60 dollar printer, and when the cartridges dry up, pitch it. You're out less money, and the pictures work everywhere but in the dark. (Okay, TWO benefits to a digital picture frame.)

    Well, there's a few problems with that approach. Number one, ink cartidges ain't cheap (and could, after a while, add up to more than the cost of a device). Second, you lose the ability to cycle through pictures on the fly.

    I may just be a wierdo for thinking so, but a big advantage of the digital device would be the ability to incorporate it into some "instant room theming" system. Perhaps coding dynamic theming apps has just gone to my head, but I think it'd be cool.

    Besides, we already know how to click "File -> Print -> Ok", but the fun is in the hackery of something to suit our own purposes. I could buy pre-built Lego models too, but that wouldn't be very nifty.

  • by torquil ( 228219 ) <torquil@rockbridge.net> on Sunday November 11, 2001 @09:36AM (#2550618) Homepage
    Ok, when you buy these cheap LCD-devices. You are getting crappy DSTN displays, which you can't even view unless you are directly in front of them. Doesnt sound like a very good picture frame to me, so if you want a quality picture frame i think you are going to have to buy an active matrix display for it(ones below 15" can be had for under $150.) A DSTN on something you want people to look at around the room should at least be visible to them from more than 1 angle. Otherwise you are just a "stupid person with too much money and all these novelty toys that don't actually do anything". Just my opinion...
  • by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Sunday November 11, 2001 @11:02AM (#2550731) Journal
    This sort of reminds me of the arguments seen against almost any new technology.

    Usually there is cost vs perceived benefit. Why would anyone want a computer, for example? and indeed, only people with a high end need for the advantadges would be early adopters.

    All you need is to go to someplace like vintagecomputerads.com [vintagecomputerads.com] to apreciate the costs of the machines vs the benefits. For many folks, the costs in money and learning curve were not sensible.

    Now the arguments of the media lasting long are valid, and I cannot imagine that these things are going to be cheap yet.

    The side effect of all of this is the walking into the loss of material over time as things get lost and purged. No more going through old drawers and finding childhood pictures long forgotten. A floppy disk found in a desert cave would be unreadle, unlike the Dead Sea Scrolls.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 11, 2001 @04:01PM (#2551441)
    I disagree.. it's $89 for christs sakes, some of your guys are really cheap, the screen is perfectly adequate for a home controler and picture frame especially when you apply the hack to enable increased colour depth [3rdmoon.com].

    It's certainly not worth $499, but $89 is (was) a good price... some sites were asking $150 for the surplus audrey LCD's.

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer

Working...