- Attenborough.film
- Compare
- IR150WF vs PicoPix Micro+
Irradio IR150WF vs Philips PicoPix Micro+
What IR150WF does better (4) and where PicoPix Micro+ wins (2) — every spec side by side.
3.7Picture2.1
Why is IR150WF better than PicoPix Micro+?
- Resolution (on screen)1920 × 1080 (Full HD) vs 854 × 480 (480p)
- Contrast ratio (dynamic / claimed)2,000:1 vs 600:13.3×
- Largest image size170″ vs 70″2.4×
- Native panel resolution1920 × 1080 (Full HD) vs 854 × 480 (480p)
Why is PicoPix Micro+ 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) | 854 × 480 (480p) |
| Native panel resolution | 1920 × 1080 (Full HD) | 854 × 480 (480p) |
| Display technology | — | DLP |
| Light source | LED | LED |
| Brightness (ANSI / ISO lumens) | 150 lm | 150 lm |
| Contrast ratio (dynamic / claimed) | 2,000:1 | 600:1 |
| Lens & placement | ||
| Throw ratio | — | 1.2:1 |
| Throw type | — | Standard throw (1.0:1 and longer) |
| Distance for a 100″ 16:9 image | — | 2.66 m |
| Largest image size | 170″ | 70″ |
| Autofocus | — | No |
| Sound | ||
| Built-in speakers (total output) | — | 3 W |
| Smart & streaming | ||
| Smart platform | — | Own / Linux platform |
| Built-in smart platform | — | 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 | — | 0.21 kg |
| Width | — | 76 mm |
| Height | — | 34 mm |
| Depth | — | 74 mm |
| Colours | Black | Black |
