- Attenborough.film
- Compare
- IR150WF vs NeoPix 113
Irradio IR150WF vs Philips NeoPix 113
What IR150WF does better (3) and where NeoPix 113 wins (2) — every spec side by side.
Why is IR150WF better than NeoPix 113?
- Resolution (on screen)1920 × 1080 (Full HD) vs 1280 × 720 (HD)
- Largest image size170″ vs 65″2.6×
- Native panel resolution1920 × 1080 (Full HD) vs 1280 × 720 (HD)
Why is NeoPix 113 better than IR150WF?
- Light source life2,000 h vs 30,000 h15×
- Audio outputNo · IR150WF: Yes
Specifications
Side by side
| Picture | ||
| Resolution (on screen) | 1920 × 1080 (Full HD) | 1280 × 720 (HD) |
| Native panel resolution | 1920 × 1080 (Full HD) | 1280 × 720 (HD) |
| Light source | LED | LED |
| Brightness (ANSI / ISO lumens) | 150 lm | — |
| Contrast ratio (dynamic / claimed) | 2,000:1 | — |
| Lens & placement | ||
| Throw ratio | — | 1.47:1 |
| Throw type | — | Standard throw (1.0:1 and longer) |
| Distance for a 100″ 16:9 image | — | 3.25 m |
| Smallest image size | — | 65″ |
| Largest image size | 170″ | 65″ |
| Lens shift | — | None |
| Sound | ||
| Built-in speakers (total output) | — | 3 W |
| Smart & streaming | ||
| Wi-Fi | — | Yes |
| Connectivity | ||
| HDMI inputs | 1 | 1 |
| USB port | Yes | Yes |
| Ethernet (LAN) | No | No |
| VGA input | No | No |
| Audio output | No | Yes |
| Battery, power & lifetime | ||
| Light source life | 2,000 h | 30,000 h |
| Design & noise | ||
| Weight | — | 0.4 kg |
| Colours | Black | Black |
