Can anyone compare IQ 8" to Linx 8" digital photo frame

Hi, is anyone able to help me compare these two frames?

I have an IQ 9" digital photo frame (from Jessops, but it has a dead
pixel so they are allowing me to return it and swap it for the new
model, the Linx 8" digital photo frame.

I cannot find any reviews for the IQ 8", and very limited number for
the Linx, so is anyone able to help me out?

The Linx seems to be a widescreen as opposed to the IQ's 4:3 ratio. Is
this better for photographs? Also, should the Linx be able to play AVI
videos if it says it supports MPEG1/2/4?

Any help very much appreciated,

Cheers,

Toby.

That meant to read IQ 8" (not 9").

wrote:
Hi, is anyone able to help me compare these two frames?

I have an IQ 9" digital photo frame (from Jessops, but it has a dead
pixel so they are allowing me to return it and swap it for the new
model, the Linx 8" digital photo frame.

I cannot find any reviews for the IQ 8", and very limited number for
the Linx, so is anyone able to help me out?

The Linx seems to be a widescreen as opposed to the IQ's 4:3 ratio. Is
this better for photographs? Also, should the Linx be able to play AVI
videos if it says it supports MPEG1/2/4?

Any help very much appreciated,

Cheers,

Toby.

I have a 'widescreen' Digital Picture Frame. My wife bought it for me
for Christmas. I would NOT have bought a widescreen as I know of no
cameras that produce pictures with 16:9 aspect ratio. There is a switch
to change to display 4:3, which is better, but the setting is not
retained (the ONLY one that isn't) after power cycle. sigh.
Go for the 4:3, or (if you can find one) 3:2. WHY doesn't someone just
design a frame that manages to display a normal 1200x800 picture at 6x4
aspect ratio? Don't these guys even LOOK at the picture sizes that are
'normal' for photography?

Now, to your issue. Why are you worried about a singly pixel problem?
Most of the time the viewer will be several feet from the picture frame,
and a single dead pixel will be quite unnoticeable.

Ron Hunter wrote:
[]
I have a 'widescreen' Digital Picture Frame. My wife bought it for me
for Christmas. I would NOT have bought a widescreen as I know of no
cameras that produce pictures with 16:9 aspect ratio.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz1/

35 - 350mm image stabilised zoom, 5MP etc. etc. 234g almost
pocket-sized.

David

David J Taylor wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
[]
I have a 'widescreen' Digital Picture Frame. My wife bought it for me
for Christmas. I would NOT have bought a widescreen as I know of no
cameras that produce pictures with 16:9 aspect ratio.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz1/

35 - 350mm image stabilised zoom, 5MP etc. etc. 234g almost
pocket-sized.

David


But it gets that mode by just cutting pixels from the top and bottom. I
can do that by cropping. It is NOT a native 16:9 sensor.

Ron Hunter wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
[]
I have a 'widescreen' Digital Picture Frame. My wife bought it for
me for Christmas. I would NOT have bought a widescreen as I know
of no cameras that produce pictures with 16:9 aspect ratio.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz1/

35 - 350mm image stabilised zoom, 5MP etc. etc. 234g almost
pocket-sized.

David


But it gets that mode by just cutting pixels from the top and bottom.
I can do that by cropping. It is NOT a native 16:9 sensor.

Oops. It's the LX2 which has a 16:9 native sensor...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx2/

David

David J Taylor wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
[]
I have a 'widescreen' Digital Picture Frame. My wife bought it for
me for Christmas. I would NOT have bought a widescreen as I know
of no cameras that produce pictures with 16:9 aspect ratio.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz1/

35 - 350mm image stabilised zoom, 5MP etc. etc. 234g almost
pocket-sized.

David


But it gets that mode by just cutting pixels from the top and bottom.
I can do that by cropping. It is NOT a native 16:9 sensor.

Oops. It's the LX2 which has a 16:9 native sensor...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx2/

David


The numbers don't really match up as 16:9, but thanks for the
information. The point is that the vast majority of cameras produce
either 3:2 or 4:3 aspect ratio pictures. Installing a 16:9 screen in a
digital picture frame seems to indicate that they found the 16:9 screens
from a manufacturer of small DVD players and converted them for picture
frame use. NO problem with that, but WHY default to 16:9? Beats the
crap out of me.