Digital Picture Frames

On 2015-01-21 22:54:10 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2015-01-21 22:40:16 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 21:14:14 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 20:43:23 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-01-21 04:02:07 +0000, "Mayayana" said:

--- snip ---

I originally thought of an album, perhaps two images per page, but
when m*short_list* came out as large as it had I realised and album
was not the answer. Why so many? Well one of the first goes back to
2002. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../LR--00068.jpg
Hand held with available light, Sony 505, 5 MP. And they go on from
there.

--- snip ---

I had second thoughts after I posted the above: surely the camera was
a F707, not a F505. After all the F505 was only 2.1 MP and surely that
shot of the Sydney Town Hall organ was not the product of a 2.1 MP
camera?

So I queried the posted image using the Exif tab on the Firefox tool
bar and it comes up with "Sony DSC-F505" with a tab which linked to
DPReview at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf505/

The image certainly seems to think it is the product of an F505.

It certainly seems to be the product of a Sony DSC-F505:
http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropboxuserconten t.com%2Fu%2F31088803%2FLR--00068.jpg
or
http://tinyurl.com/nxdlnou

So

then I went to*my* photograph of *my* camera which I used when I
eventually sold it. See
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC1813.jpg It clearly
isn't the same as the one shown in DPReview link for the F505.

Why should it be? You posted a shot of a DSC-F707, not a DSC-F505.

So I went to DPReview on the subject of the F707 and there was a picture
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf707/ which is but a different
view of mine. So Sony got their firmware data wrong when they made the
F707. I wonder how many other times this kind of thing has happened?
I've never heard of it before.

Perhaps you should have checked dpreview specs for the DSC-F505 and
compared them with the F707;
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf505

Checking the specs for both it seems the largest natural size for
DSC-F707 images is 2560x1920, and for the DSC-F505, 1600x1200. So it
looks like regardless of the camera used, the image you posted has been
resized at some time to 3114x4200.

As to which camera it was shot with, did you own the F505 in 2002 when
the shot was taken?

What may have happened on this occasion may have stemmed from the fact
that the F707 was a development of the F505. It may be they took a
whole block of code from the F505's ROM and planted it without further
checking in that for the F707. But still ...

Makes you think about the possible problems of building fully
autonomous cars. :-)

I think the lesson here is, Sony is not to be trusted.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

nospam:
then repurpose an old laptop.

Eric Stevens:
So - when you can't answer my original question, you change the
question.

Easy, fellow. Your question included this:
I'm looking for a 10"~12" screen with a good dynamic range and a
colour gamut at least as large as sRGB. Is there such a thing?

Let me spell it out for you. Digital picture frames are passé, killed
off by the iPad. If an iPad is too small, a laptop may be your best
choice. If a laptop is too intrusive, a Mac mini hidden away with just
the display showing is a good alternative. If the advantage of the iPad
or laptop is not apparent, I will state it: they're powerful.
multi-function computers that can do much more than just sit there and
play slideshows.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 18:05:40 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The iPad serves very well as a portfolio. Using Lightroom Mobile the
image files take up very little space, and they can be presented
manually or as a slide show.

I would like something a little larger than an iPad screen, if I can
find such a thing.

then repurpose an old laptop.

So - when you can't answer my original question, you change the
question.

i did no such thing.

old laptops make for a perfect digital picture frame since they're not
useful for much anymore and the display is larger than an ipad, which
is *exactly* what you asked for.

as usual, you are arguing just to argue.

Digita frames are not the same as laptops. I thought you would have
noticed.

Have you ever seen anyone hang a laptop on a wall?

Hmm. I wonder why they don't?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 20:24:23 -0500, Davoud wrote:

nospam:
then repurpose an old laptop.

Eric Stevens:
So - when you can't answer my original question, you change the
question.

Easy, fellow. Your question included this:
I'm looking for a 10"~12" screen with a good dynamic range and a
colour gamut at least as large as sRGB. Is there such a thing?

Let me spell it out for you. Digital picture frames are passé, killed
off by the iPad. If an iPad is too small, a laptop may be your best
choice. If a laptop is too intrusive, a Mac mini hidden away with just
the display showing is a good alternative. If the advantage of the iPad
or laptop is not apparent, I will state it: they're powerful.
multi-function computers that can do much more than just sit there and
play slideshows.

All of which is obvious. But all I want is the display and the ability
to feed it images. I don't want a multifunction computer.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:19:58 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-01-21 22:54:10 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2015-01-21 22:40:16 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 21:14:14 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 20:43:23 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-01-21 04:02:07 +0000, "Mayayana" said:

--- snip ---

I originally thought of an album, perhaps two images per page, but
when m*short_list* came out as large as it had I realised and album
was not the answer. Why so many? Well one of the first goes back to
2002. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../LR--00068.jpg
Hand held with available light, Sony 505, 5 MP. And they go on from
there.

--- snip ---

I had second thoughts after I posted the above: surely the camera was
a F707, not a F505. After all the F505 was only 2.1 MP and surely that
shot of the Sydney Town Hall organ was not the product of a 2.1 MP
camera?

So I queried the posted image using the Exif tab on the Firefox tool
bar and it comes up with "Sony DSC-F505" with a tab which linked to
DPReview at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf505/

The image certainly seems to think it is the product of an F505.

It certainly seems to be the product of a Sony DSC-F505:
http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropboxuserconten t.com%2Fu%2F31088803%2FLR--00068.jpg
or
http://tinyurl.com/nxdlnou

So

then I went to*my* photograph of *my* camera which I used when I
eventually sold it. See
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC1813.jpg It clearly
isn't the same as the one shown in DPReview link for the F505.

Why should it be? You posted a shot of a DSC-F707, not a DSC-F505.

So I went to DPReview on the subject of the F707 and there was a picture
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf707/ which is but a different
view of mine. So Sony got their firmware data wrong when they made the
F707. I wonder how many other times this kind of thing has happened?
I've never heard of it before.

Perhaps you should have checked dpreview specs for the DSC-F505 and
compared them with the F707;
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf505

Checking the specs for both it seems the largest natural size for
DSC-F707 images is 2560x1920, and for the DSC-F505, 1600x1200. So it
looks like regardless of the camera used, the image you posted has been
resized at some time to 3114x4200.

As to which camera it was shot with, did you own the F505 in 2002 when
the shot was taken?

What may have happened on this occasion may have stemmed from the fact
that the F707 was a development of the F505. It may be they took a
whole block of code from the F505's ROM and planted it without further
checking in that for the F707. But still ...

Makes you think about the possible problems of building fully
autonomous cars. :-)

I think the lesson here is, Sony is not to be trusted.

The resizing would be by LightRoom. I've never owned a 505, only the
707. But the thot plickens.

When I use the Exif tool (Jeffrey's Exif Viewer) in Firefox I receive
much the same as you, except that the words "Sony DSC-F505" are
highlighted and form a link to the DPReview page for the F-505. Your
screen shot just has the letters in standard black.

I have now run the image through Exiftool which I have on board my
machine. This reports as in
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...Untitled-1.jpg plus a
whole lot more of the same. All that this reports "SONY" and
"CYBERSHOT". No mention of a model number that I can see.

So we have three different exif viewers which give different results.
Maybe it was premature of me to blame the problem on Sony?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 18:05:41 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I originally thought of an album, perhaps two images per page, but
when m*short_list* came out as large as it had I realised and album
was not the answer. Why so many? Well one of the first goes back to
2002. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../LR--00068.jpg
Hand held with available light, Sony 505, 5 MP. And they go on from
there.

--- snip ---

I had second thoughts after I posted the above: surely the camera was
a F707, not a F505. After all the F505 was only 2.1 MP and surely that
shot of the Sydney Town Hall organ was not the product of a 2.1 MP
camera?

So I queried the posted image using the Exif tab on the Firefox tool
bar and it comes up with "Sony DSC-F505" with a tab which linked to
DPReview at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf505/

according to exiftool, http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/
there is no sony f505 (or f707) anywhere in the exif data of the above
image.

the relevant tags a
Make : SONY
Camera Model Name : CYBERSHOT
Date/Time Original : 2002:08:05 12:32:20
Create Date : 2002:08:05 12:32:20

I've just done the same thing and reported much the same.

So then I went to*my* photograph of *my* camera which I used when I
eventually sold it. See
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC1813.jpg It clearly
isn't the same as the one shown in DPReview link for the F505. So I
went to DPReview on the subject of the F707 and there was a picture
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf707/ which is but a different
view of mine. So Sony got their firmware data wrong when they made the
F707. I wonder how many other times this kind of thing has happened?
I've never heard of it before.

sigma is well known for reusing rom chips and does it regularly in
their lenses.

What may have happened on this occasion may have stemmed from the fact
that the F707 was a development of the F505. It may be they took a
whole block of code from the F505's ROM and planted it without further
checking in that for the F707. But still ...

or the utility you're using to read exif data is wrong.

As I have just posted in reply to Savageduck we have three different
versions of Exiftool which give three different answers.

Makes you think about the possible problems of building fully
autonomous cars. :-)

completely irrelevant.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:

Yes. That has occurred to me. How long will they last before they die
of old age? (Apart from battery)

Original iPad 1 here. Works perfectly well.

--
Nige Danton - Replace the obvious with g.m.a.i.l

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The iPad serves very well as a portfolio. Using Lightroom Mobile the
image files take up very little space, and they can be presented
manually or as a slide show.

I would like something a little larger than an iPad screen, if I can
find such a thing.

then repurpose an old laptop.

So - when you can't answer my original question, you change the
question.

i did no such thing.

old laptops make for a perfect digital picture frame since they're not
useful for much anymore and the display is larger than an ipad, which
is *exactly* what you asked for.

as usual, you are arguing just to argue.

Digita frames are not the same as laptops. I thought you would have
noticed.

i never said they were.

Have you ever seen anyone hang a laptop on a wall?

you never said anything about hanging anything on the wall. as usual,
you are moving the goalposts.

you only asked about digital picture frames.

digital picture frames are commonly placed on a table, and an old
laptop works well for that. an old desktop and a display also works
well for that (and can be a media server at the same time). the display
sits on the table (or hangs from the wall, doesn't matter) with the
computer tucked into a drawer. obviously you'll need a small computer
to tuck it into a drawer but there are lots of small computers. if you
are stuck with one of those behemoth towers then you'll need to find
some space for it (or get something smaller).

Hmm. I wonder why they don't?

actually, they do.

http://lifehacker.com/5177762/turn-a...all-mounted-co
mputer
Why settle for a digital picture frame when, in the same wall space,
you could mount an entirely functional computer/slideshow player/TV
tuner?

http://www.insidemylaptop.com/make-d...rame-from-old-
laptop/
I have made this digital picture-photo frame from an old Toshiba
Satellite laptop. This project took me half a day but the result was
very rewarding. My new 14? digital photo frame works just great and I
have tons of space for all my pictures.

http://johndunning.com/yalpf/
So the solution I settled on was to strip down an old laptop, build
it into a custom-made frame, and then run my own custom software to
download and display the photos. Four years later, the picture frame
is still running just fine, having downloaded 3,937 photos so far
(which I can tell from the logs it uploads every day).

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I'm looking for a 10"~12" screen with a good dynamic range and a
colour gamut at least as large as sRGB. Is there such a thing?

Let me spell it out for you. Digital picture frames are passé, killed
off by the iPad. If an iPad is too small, a laptop may be your best
choice. If a laptop is too intrusive, a Mac mini hidden away with just
the display showing is a good alternative. If the advantage of the iPad
or laptop is not apparent, I will state it: they're powerful.
multi-function computers that can do much more than just sit there and
play slideshows.

All of which is obvious. But all I want is the display and the ability
to feed it images. I don't want a multifunction computer.

What in the world gave you the idea that you would get an answer in
this newsgroup that addressed your question as you stated it?

it was answered as he stated it.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I have now run the image through Exiftool which I have on board my
machine. This reports as in
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...Untitled-1.jpg plus a
whole lot more of the same. All that this reports "SONY" and
"CYBERSHOT". No mention of a model number that I can see.

exactly what i saw when i used exiftool, which is the only tool to
trust for exif data.

So we have three different exif viewers which give different results.
Maybe it was premature of me to blame the problem on Sony?

yes it was.