Sony DPF-D92 9-Inch LCD WVGA 15:9 Diagonal Digital Photo Frame (Black)

This frame is better than most, however, I cannot give it 5 stars because:

the 15:9 aspect ratio (which is almost 16:9, the widescreen movie format) is no good!!! Most digital pictures are 4:3 or 3:2, therefore you will have significant areas of the screen wasted as black bars all the time!

the resolution 800x480 is not good enough! The pixels are rather large when you hold the frame in your hands.

red color is too saturated, and there is no control to adjust it. Skin tones come out unnatural.

the black frame looks disproportionally wide this just looks ugly.

Looking at DPF-D92 and DPF-D80 side by side, the D80 looks way better.

What an incredible, clear frame. Loads of options for accepting various digital media or you can load up the internal storage. Very flexible for photo viewing as well. My first frame was defective (a line of vertical bad pixels) but Amazon's groovy return policy got me hooked up with a perfect one within a few days. This is the best frame I have seen for picture quality and flexibility.

Buy Sony DPF-D92 9-Inch LCD WVGA 15:9 Diagonal Digital Photo Frame (Black) Now

i like:

1. i put film scanned and dsc pictures into it, all displayed well.

2. the internal 1GB memory holds more than 1000 (probably 2000) pictures if you choose to transfer picture from USB to photo frame internal memory

3. 15:9 LCD won't be a problem because there's a "fit to screen" display mode in this frame, thus fills the full LCD. some cuts may apply though

4. remote control is of good build quality (SONY's remote is always good quality)

i don't like:

1. buzzer is noisy, i then turned it off

conclusion: great value

Read Best Reviews of Sony DPF-D92 9-Inch LCD WVGA 15:9 Diagonal Digital Photo Frame (Black) Here

This is our second Sony digital photo frame, both bought for parents. We love the simplicity, easy to use nature. The picture quality is wonderful. When the first gift was such a success, we planned on buying the second for my parents, they both love them. We have already sent new pictures to the first frame to keep it up to date. The newest frame holds considerably more pictures, I won't tell my siblings or else we will do all of the scanning and editing.

The second frame was bought at Amazon, it is larger, and better price.

Want Sony DPF-D92 9-Inch LCD WVGA 15:9 Diagonal Digital Photo Frame (Black) Discount?

I recently bought this frame and a Kodak D830 8" frame. After comparing the two with the same pictures, I'm returning the Sony.

It's not all bad. Build quality is first-rate. It feels heavy, substantial, solid, and expensive. The look is chic and minimalist, and it has a simple remote. Color balance is above average. There's a slight green push in the highlights and the gamma curve clips the higher whites. The only user-adjustable setting is the LCD brightness. From a distance of more than three or four feet, though, most pictures look pretty decent.

To me, the purpose of an LCD frame is to have an easy way to browse pictures without a computer. The Sony falls down here for two reasons: usability and image quality. The interface is not user-friendly at all. I'm a computer geek and I found it frustrating. The remote helps simply by having buttons with labels, but there's no way I'd ask my Grandma to figure it out.

Glare is a problem with the glass over the LCD. If you're holding the frame like a printed picture in a typical room, you'll see yourself and the lights around you in the glass. Contrast doesn't appear to be improved relative to the D830, so the glass is just a stylistic affectation. The aspect ratio is wider than any conventional picture, so if you set the frame not to crop, you'll always have some unused LCD area on each side. If your pictures are tightly-framed, cropping will cut off people's heads. The D830's screen is slightly taller and about an inch thinner than the Sony. Actual area is very similar despite the 1" difference in specification.

Things don't improve with the LCD itself. This panel has lowest color depth of any I've seen. Most TN panels are 6-bit and use clever rendering tricks to approximate the other 2 bits for smooth gradients. Sony doesn't seem to bother here; gradients look very much like those in a 256-color GIF. It's not obvious from a distance, but you can see dithering patterns if you're holding the frame. An exacerbating factor is that the presentation software has an awful resampling algorithm. There's no subpixel blending or antialiasing for curves, so every picture will have jagged edges. On shots with low detail, you might just notice it around someone's ears or the like. On high-detail shots or those with hard edges, it's a mess. The jaggies on my fireworks pictures are visible from over five feet away. I've posted a sample picture.

Perhaps as a result of the above, detail suffers. The Kodak frame only has 120 pixels of vertical resolution over this Sony, but you'd never know it on a comparison. The difference in detail is at least a factor of two, and the Sony's presentation is obviously pixelated. This is a deal-killer.

This Sony frame was about $30 more than the Kodak at Best Buy. Given that and the Sony name, the LCD's performance is inexcusable. I've given it three stars for the sake of build quality, color balance, and appearance from a distance. I can't think of any reason to buy it over the Kodak, which looks just as chic in white when the frame is removed, has a vastly superior user interface, and a screen that's as close to a photograph as any I've seen save for the one in HP's 12" frame.