How we score Blog Advertise
  1. Attenborough.film
  2. Compare
  3. Luma 150 vs PicoPix Micro 2TV

Kodak Luma 150 vs Philips PicoPix Micro 2TV

What Luma 150 does better (2) and where PicoPix Micro 2TV wins (2) — every spec side by side.

Kodak Luma 150
Kodak · 2019Luma 150
2 advantages≈ US$290
vs
Philips PicoPix Micro 2TV
Philips · 2021PicoPix Micro 2TV
3.8Score
2 advantages≈ US$390
Higher score
2.4Picture2.5

Why is Luma 150 better than PicoPix Micro 2TV?

  1. Contrast ratio (dynamic / claimed)1,500:1 vs 600:12.5×
  2. Largest image size150″ vs 100″+50%

Why is PicoPix Micro 2TV better than Luma 150?

  1. Brightness (ANSI / ISO lumens)150 lm vs 200 lm+33%
  2. Audio outputNo · Luma 150: Yes
Specifications

Side by side

Kodak Luma 150Kodak Luma 150≈ US$290
Picture
Resolution (on screen)854 × 480 (480p)854 × 480 (480p)
Native panel resolution854 × 480 (480p)854 × 480 (480p)
Display technologyDLPDLP
Light source—LED
Brightness (ANSI / ISO lumens)150 lm200 lm
Contrast ratio (dynamic / claimed)1,500:1600:1
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 size150″100″
Lens shift—None
Autofocus—No
Keystone correction—Yes
Automatic keystone correction—Yes
Smart & streaming
Smart platform—Android (not TV-certified)
Built-in smart platform—Yes
Wi-FiYesYes
Voice assistant—Google Assistant
Connectivity
HDMI inputs11
USB portYesYes
Ethernet (LAN)NoNo
VGA inputNoNo
Audio outputNoYes
Battery, power & lifetime
Built-in battery—Yes
Light source life—30,000 h
Design & noise
Colours—Black
To compare: 0up to 4 models
Compare