Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #14417 in Consumer Electronics
• Brand: Yuraku
• Model: 7" PHOTO FRAME
• Released on: 2007-10-18
• Dimensions: 153.54" h x 190.94" w x 110.24" l, 2.20 pounds

Manufacturer's Description
Check out this easy to use and handy digital photoframe! This 7" white framed digital photoframe give you ease of usage and the convenience of viewing photos directly via a SD/MMC/MS/XD card.

Customer Reviews

Poor Display
The frame is sturdy and looks magnificent, the power cable tucked away out of view and it can be presented portrait or landscape, it costs 43 squid

BUT

The display is awful, truly awful. Even at this price i was expecting a decent display on paper the specs are superb which is why i thought i'd give it a go. It's disappointing because i was really looking forward to it.

2 stars because its well put together and very cheap.

I am now agreeing with all of the other reviews of cheaper frames - you need to spend more to get reasonable quality

digital photo frames
quality not as good as it looks on your computer, picture not clear, looks very cheap.

Cheap and cheerful
First of all, why are all of the cheap frames 16:9 aspect ratio when all digital cameras take their photos in 4:3? I'd kind of resigned myself to this, as all of the 4:3 frames were well over my budget, but it's still irritating. Cropping loses a fair chunk off the top and bottom of each picture - fine on most, but you lose important detail on some and it's useless for rendering portrait images (you lose most of the top and bottom as it stretches the image to reach the sides.) Turning off cropping means you have black bars on either side of the screen. Presumably it means that portrait images work correctly though (I haven't tried it yet.)

I bought this for my mother, so she can have a slideshow of pictures of her grandson. I've taken it out of the box and loaded a spare SD card with loads of pictures to see how it goes. We already have a 4:3 aspect one from last Christmas that cost £100. I'd expected things to have improved a bit, but our old one is superior to this in almost every respect.

Picture quality could be better, but it's certainly adequate. Close-up, there's a hint of flicker and you can even occasionally see the scan lines (I think it's interlacing the picture, and not as a particularly high refresh rate either.) But from the distance it's likely to be viewed from, it's fine.

The only real annoyance is that, having loaded an SD card with about 300 pictures and stuck it in the slot, I find that it doesn't show the images in order. It's not even random either - it starts from the beginning, but every so often seems to skip back and show a picture that it's already done. Having let it cycle through, it seems to get to about half way through the photos I've put on it, and then go straight back to the beginning. I'm obviously going to have to put a lot less pictures on the card.

I think I'd go with the sentiments of others in that it does the job, just about, but if your budget will stretch to a better model, go for it.