- Attenborough.film
- Compare
- QF12 vs PicoPix Micro
AOpen QF12 vs Philips PicoPix Micro
What QF12 does better (3) and where PicoPix Micro wins (1) — every spec side by side.
vs
3.2Picture3.4
Why is QF12 better than PicoPix Micro?
- Light source life50,000 h vs 30,000 h+67%
- Contrast ratio (dynamic / claimed)1,000:1 vs 500:12×
- Largest image size150″ vs 80″+88%
Why is PicoPix Micro better than QF12?
- Brightness (ANSI / ISO lumens)100 lm vs 150 lm+50%
Specifications
Side by side
| Picture | ||
| Resolution (on screen) | 1920 × 1080 (Full HD) | 1920 × 1080 (Full HD) |
| Native panel resolution | 1920 × 1080 (Full HD) | 1920 × 1080 (Full HD) |
| Display technology | — | DLP |
| Light source | LED | — |
| Brightness (ANSI / ISO lumens) | 100 lm | 150 lm |
| Contrast ratio (dynamic / claimed) | 1,000:1 | 500:1 |
| Lens & placement | ||
| Throw ratio | 1.3:1 | — |
| Throw type | Standard throw (1.0:1 and longer) | — |
| Distance for a 100″ 16:9 image | 2.88 m | — |
| Largest image size | 150″ | 80″ |
| Lens shift | None | None |
| Autofocus | — | No |
| Sound | ||
| Built-in speakers (total output) | 5 W | — |
| Smart & streaming | ||
| Smart platform | — | Own / Linux platform |
| Built-in smart platform | — | Yes |
| Wi-Fi | Yes | — |
| Bluetooth | Yes | — |
| Connectivity | ||
| HDMI inputs | 1 | 1 |
| USB port | Yes | Yes |
| Ethernet (LAN) | No | No |
| VGA input | No | No |
| Audio output | Yes | Yes |
| Battery, power & lifetime | ||
| Power consumption | 65 W | — |
| Light source life | 50,000 h | 30,000 h |
| Design & noise | ||
| Fan noise | 33 dB | — |
| Weight | 1.3 kg | — |
| Width | 232 mm | — |
| Height | 92 mm | — |
| Depth | 168 mm | — |
| Colours | White, Gold | — |
