- Attenborough.film
- Compare
- Luma 350 vs NeoPix 320
Kodak Luma 350 vs Philips NeoPix 320
What Luma 350 does better (2) and where NeoPix 320 wins (3) — every spec side by side.
vs
3.4Picture5.5
Why is Luma 350 better than NeoPix 320?
- Brightness (ANSI / ISO lumens)350 lm vs 250 lm+40%
- Weight0.73 kg vs 1.2 kg+64%
Why is NeoPix 320 better than Luma 350?
- Resolution (on screen)854 × 480 (480p) vs 1920 × 1080 (Full HD)
- Native panel resolution854 × 480 (480p) vs 1920 × 1080 (Full HD)
- Audio outputNo · Luma 350: Yes
Specifications
Side by side
| Picture | ||
| Resolution (on screen) | 854 × 480 (480p) | 1920 × 1080 (Full HD) |
| Native panel resolution | 854 × 480 (480p) | 1920 × 1080 (Full HD) |
| Display technology | — | LCD (single panel) |
| Light source | — | LED |
| Brightness (ANSI / ISO lumens) | 350 lm | 250 lm |
| Contrast ratio (dynamic / claimed) | — | 3,000:1 |
| Lens & placement | ||
| Throw ratio | — | 1.4:1 |
| Throw type | — | Standard throw (1.0:1 and longer) |
| Distance for a 100″ 16:9 image | — | 3.1 m |
| Largest image size | 200″ | — |
| Sound | ||
| Built-in speakers (total output) | — | 10 W |
| Smart & streaming | ||
| Smart platform | Android (not TV-certified) | — |
| Built-in smart platform | Yes | — |
| Wi-Fi | Yes | Yes |
| Bluetooth | Yes | Yes |
| AirPlay | — | Yes |
| Internal storage | 8 GB | — |
| 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 | — | 20,000 h |
| Design & noise | ||
| Weight | 0.73 kg | 1.2 kg |
| Width | — | 216 mm |
| Height | — | 93 mm |
| Depth | — | 246 mm |
| Colours | White | Black |
