First Look: Fujifilm's 3D digital picture frame

My recent blog on Fujifilm's 3D digital camera sparked a lively debate among readers, some raving about the camera, others less enthusiastic. I'm interested to hear what you think about Fuji's 8-inch digital picture frame, the FinePix Real 3D V1 digital frame, $500. Since there are very few products that can display 3D images or video, you might think this is a vital accessory. However, our preliminary tests tell a different story.

The first problem is price. The V1 digital frame costs about five or six times as much as other digital picture frames, mainly due to its 3D capability. That's too high a premium to pay, even for a breakthrough feature.

Another problem we found was that when viewing 3D images or video, a number of people we had watch the viewer noticed significant ghosting in the video footage and photos. Some actually felt cross-eyed or significant eyestrain when looking at the frame. In fact, we found that when we viewed the same still images on a Panasonic HDTV that includes 3D capability and looked at them wearing special 3D glasses, the images displayed a very clear 3D effect, with almost no ghosting at all in our test images. (At this time, the Panasonic's card slot does not allow you to play the video. So we couldn't compare our video footage.) We believe the ghosting issues we noticed on the digital picture frame are enhanced due to the lack of glasses.

A key annoyance was the viewing angle of the frame. The best 2D digital picture frames have only a good viewing angle, while most are only fair. In our preliminary testing, the Fujifilm looked worse than the frames that were fair since images looked faded and shifted color when viewed from almost any angle other than straight on.

(For more help on choosing a digital picture frame, see our free Buying advice. Digital picture frame Ratings and recommendations are available to subscribers.)

In testing the frame, we found this 3D digital picture frame functions much like most other picture frames. All you need to do is insert a digital memory card (SD, SDHC or xD formats) with 3D images and video taken with the W1 into the V1 frame. (Screen resolution is on par with other 8-inch 2D picture frames at 800 x 600 or in 3D, it's 600 x 400 in two channels.)

You can use either the illuminated controls on the side of the picture frame or the small remote control to scroll through images and video. You can also set up a slideshow, which automatically cycles through the content. Just as you could view the W1's LCD without needing to wear glasses, you can also view the V1 picture frame without needing to put on 3D glasses.

We ran through several digital-frame tests, and found that its color, clarity and contrast were all on par with most 2D frames, although skin tones were slightly off. Subjects in the images appeared detailed and sharp, but there was more "stair-stepping" than the best picture frames we've tested, which affects detail and sharpness. (In our tests, we look for "stair-stepping", which occurs when diagonal lines appear jagged instead of smooth. This degrades the image and keeps it from looking crisp.) The frame's contrast was pretty good. It even had a setting in the menus that lets you change the contrast. Overall, the V1's performance was comparable to most other 2D frames, but its viewing angle of 2D images was worse than most.

Bottom line. Although this 3D frame has a few nice features, overall we think you should pass on this model. Perhaps there will be future digital picture frames that will include glasses to ensure a better 3D experience. Or, if you're in the market for an HDTV, you might consider one that includes a 3D feature, like a Panasonic or Samsung.

What do you think about 3D video and photos? As our chief video engineer, Claudio Ciacci, points out in Will 3D TV fly or flop? , "With 3D photos, you'll have a more immersive experience when viewing images meant to convey information."

Do you think 3D digital frames will be able to achieve this? Or do you think 3D is merely a fad or a distracting feature? Let us know.

—Terry Sullivan