- Attenborough.film
- Compare
- C200 vs Luma 75
Acer C200 vs Kodak Luma 75
What C200 does better (2) and where Luma 75 wins (1) — every spec side by side.
Dimensions
Size comparison
C200Luma 75
| C200 | Luma 75 | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Height | 30 mm | 20 mm | +10 mm |
| Width | 110 mm | 80 mm | +30 mm |
| Depth | 120 mm | 80 mm | +40 mm |
| Weight | 0.4 kg | 0.1 kg | +0.2 kg |
Drawn to the same scale from the official dimensions (front and side).
Why is C200 better than Luma 75?
- Brightness (ANSI / ISO lumens)200 lm vs 75 lm2.7×
- Fan noise29 dB vs 30 dB+3%
Why is Luma 75 better than C200?
- Weight0.35 kg vs 0.14 kg2.5×
Specifications
Side by side
| Picture | ||
| Display technology | DLP | DLP |
| Light source | LED | — |
| Brightness (ANSI / ISO lumens) | 200 lm | 75 lm |
| Contrast ratio (dynamic / claimed) | — | 1,300:1 |
| Gaming | ||
| Maximum refresh rate | — | 60 Hz |
| Lens & placement | ||
| Throw ratio | 1.15:1 | — |
| Throw type | Standard throw (1.0:1 and longer) | — |
| Distance for a 100″ 16:9 image | 2.55 m | — |
| Largest image size | — | 80″ |
| Connectivity | ||
| HDMI inputs | 1 | 1 |
| USB port | — | Yes |
| Ethernet (LAN) | — | No |
| VGA input | — | No |
| Audio output | — | Yes |
| Battery, power & lifetime | ||
| Built-in battery | Yes | — |
| Power consumption | — | 4 W |
| Light source life | — | 30,000 h |
| Design & noise | ||
| Fan noise | 29 dB | 30 dB |
| Fan noise (eco mode) | — | 16 dB |
| Weight | 0.35 kg | 0.14 kg |
| Width | 110 mm | 80 mm |
| Height | 30 mm | 20 mm |
| Depth | 120 mm | 80 mm |
| Colours | — | White, Silver |
