Digital photo frames comparison

["Paul Gordon" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Now I think we all know that the Philips digital frame that has been
discus=
sed here previously is pretty much (one of) the best around at the moment.
=
However the price of that one has been slowly creeping up, to the point
tha=
t the best price I know of at the moment is =A3130. There are new ones
appe=
aring every day, at different price points, and with different
specificatio=
ns... the quandary is, how to compare them...

=20

SWMBO started off looking *just* at the display resolution (640x480,
720x48=
0 and so on...), but then I thought, hang on, - that doesn't take into
acco=
unt the screen size as well... - to truly do a qualitative comparison, one
=
would need to work out the number of pixels in a given area - pixels per
sq=
uare inch for example. - Anyone disagree?


First problem, - how to work out the area of any given display? - most
prod=
ucts seem to give just one measurement,  - this I presume is the diagonal
w=
hich is traditionally the measurement given for all kinds of screens. OK,
f=
rom that it is possible to work out the area using Pythagoras' theorem. -
R=
ats, I knew I should have paid attention during O'level maths! - Although,
=
I can honestly say that in the 25 years since I left school this is the
FIR=
ST time I've ever needed to use anything they were teaching in maths
class!=
- So I'll admit it, whilst I can rattle off the rule "In a right
angled tr=
iangle the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of
t=
he other two sides." Yadda-yadda... - how in the heck do I use that to
dedu=
ce the area of a 5.7 inch display?


Any mathematicians care to help me out?


Cheers


Paul G.


=20


=20



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



** Sponsored by http://www.BERBLE.com **
all the Cool Stuff, in one Place=20