3 ms·

> How much electricity does this all use, I can hear you asking. I haven’t tested that out myself, but we do have a note from Samsung. They say The Frame needs

> How much electricity does this all use, I can hear you asking. I haven’t tested that out myself, but we do have a note from Samsung. They say The Frame needs almost the same amount of electricity in Art Mode as in TV mode. In hard figures, external reports talk of 100 watts in TV mode and 60 to 130 watts in Art Mode, depending how bright the room is. While Samsung themselves give 118 watts as the average value, they don’t specify if this is while watching TV of admiring art. But we can safely assume this isn’t a top-scoring environmentally friendly product yet. https://www.digitec.ch/en/page/the-exciting-bit-is-when-you-turn-it-off-we-put-samsungs-the-frame-to-the-test-6219 https://www.digitec.ch/en/page/the-exciting-bit-is-when-you-...

slg 6y ago
Well there is your problem. That review is not of the 32" version. A bigger screen is going to require more power. I can't tell exactly what size those power numbers are from, but it is at least the 55" version and not the 32" version that was used as a comparison to the 32" e-Ink display in the original post.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  Fair. I'll admit that I spent about 1/50th the time Googling it as we've now spent so far discussing it.
  - slg 6y ago
    Haha, no problem. You had me flashing back to college wondering how I screwed up my unit conversions again.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      Well on the plus side we now have figures for the annual electricity cost of both the 32" model and the larger 55" model. $100/year is probably still more than I'd want to pay on a picture frame though, I gotta say. That's about the same cost as basic Netflix.
      - slg 6y ago
        I am right there with you. I can't say I would jump to purchase either but the $600 upfront and $100 per year option is less outrageous to me than the one that costs $2700 upfront but is practically free in perpetuity.
        sammorrowdrums 6y ago
        But light box type backlit art just doesn't look right, it's a cool comparison and worth doing, but with e-ink you get contrast that is proportional to the ambient light (and unless art mode changes significantly the refresh which it might, I haven't checked, LCD screen will still not photograph or film well). It won't photograph as well with flash etc. either. And obviously most important: if you have friends who are pretentious enough to turn up at your house wearing sunglasses, it'll look good for them too... I get it's sort of priced as an intangible piece of art, that is worth wildly different amounts to different people, but to the people it's worthwhile to, the difference is everything. Yes, I'm also a sucker for e-ink. I just love the aesthetic. Thanks for digging into the costs and info then, it's been an interesting conversation to follow.
        joking 6y ago
        meanwhile, the e-ink display is black and white, so for the newspaper or some other kind of art might be enough, but the lcd screen on the other side is much more versatile, It can even show animations and video.

slg 6y ago

Well there is your problem. That review is not of the 32" version. A bigger screen is going to require more power. I can't tell exactly what size those power numbers are from, but it is at least the 55" version and not the 32" version that was used as a comparison to the 32" e-Ink display in the original post.

CydeWeys 6y ago
Fair. I'll admit that I spent about 1/50th the time Googling it as we've now spent so far discussing it.
- slg 6y ago
  Haha, no problem. You had me flashing back to college wondering how I screwed up my unit conversions again.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    Well on the plus side we now have figures for the annual electricity cost of both the 32" model and the larger 55" model. $100/year is probably still more than I'd want to pay on a picture frame though, I gotta say. That's about the same cost as basic Netflix.
    - slg 6y ago
      I am right there with you. I can't say I would jump to purchase either but the $600 upfront and $100 per year option is less outrageous to me than the one that costs $2700 upfront but is practically free in perpetuity.
      - sammorrowdrums 6y ago
        But light box type backlit art just doesn't look right, it's a cool comparison and worth doing, but with e-ink you get contrast that is proportional to the ambient light (and unless art mode changes significantly the refresh which it might, I haven't checked, LCD screen will still not photograph or film well). It won't photograph as well with flash etc. either. And obviously most important: if you have friends who are pretentious enough to turn up at your house wearing sunglasses, it'll look good for them too... I get it's sort of priced as an intangible piece of art, that is worth wildly different amounts to different people, but to the people it's worthwhile to, the difference is everything. Yes, I'm also a sucker for e-ink. I just love the aesthetic. Thanks for digging into the costs and info then, it's been an interesting conversation to follow.
        joking 6y ago
        meanwhile, the e-ink display is black and white, so for the newspaper or some other kind of art might be enough, but the lcd screen on the other side is much more versatile, It can even show animations and video.