- Attenborough.film
- Compare
- QH31s vs NeoPix 140
AOpen QH31s vs Philips NeoPix 140
What QH31s does better (5) and where NeoPix 140 wins (0) — every spec side by side.
vs
2.5Picture2.4
2.6Setup & placement2.1
Why is QH31s better than NeoPix 140?
- Resolution (on screen)1280 × 720 (HD) vs 1024 × 768 (XGA)
- Built-in speakers (total output)10 W vs 3 W3.3×
- Light source life30,000 h vs 20,000 h+50%
- Native panel resolution1280 × 720 (HD) vs 1024 × 768 (XGA)
- Largest image size100″ vs 65″+54%
Why is NeoPix 140 better than QH31s?
NeoPix 140 has no measurable advantages in this pair.
Specifications
Side by side
| Picture | ||
| Resolution (on screen) | 1280 × 720 (HD) | 1024 × 768 (XGA) |
| Native panel resolution | 1280 × 720 (HD) | 1024 × 768 (XGA) |
| Light source | LED | LED |
| Brightness (ANSI / ISO lumens) | 150 lm | 150 lm |
| Contrast ratio (dynamic / claimed) | 1,000:1 | 1,000:1 |
| Lens & placement | ||
| Largest image size | 100″ | 65″ |
| Lens shift | None | None |
| Autofocus | No | No |
| Keystone correction | Yes | — |
| Automatic keystone correction | No | — |
| Sound | ||
| Built-in speakers (total output) | 10 W | 3 W |
| Smart & streaming | ||
| Wi-Fi | Yes | 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 | ||
| Light source life | 30,000 h | 20,000 h |
| Design & noise | ||
| Weight | — | 0.3 kg |
| Width | — | 68 mm |
| Height | — | 142 mm |
| Depth | — | 74 mm |
