How we score Blog Advertise
  1. Attenborough.film
  2. Compare
  3. Luma 400 tragbarer HD vs NeoPix 106

Kodak Luma 400 tragbarer HD vs Philips NeoPix 106

What Luma 400 tragbarer HD does better (2) and where NeoPix 106 wins (4) — every spec side by side.

Kodak Luma 400 tragbarer HD
2 advantages
vs
Philips NeoPix 106
Philips · 2026NeoPix 106
4.0Score
4 advantages≈ US$110
Higher score
3.0Picture3.0

Why is Luma 400 tragbarer HD better than NeoPix 106?

  1. Brightness (ANSI / ISO lumens)200 lm vs 60 lm3.3×
  2. Contrast ratio (dynamic / claimed)3,500:1 vs 500:17×

Why is NeoPix 106 better than Luma 400 tragbarer HD?

  1. Resolution (on screen)1280 × 720 (HD) vs 1920 × 1080 (Full HD)
  2. Light source life3,500 h vs 30,000 h8.6×
  3. Native panel resolution1280 × 720 (HD) vs 1920 × 1080 (Full HD)
  4. Audio outputNo · Luma 400 tragbarer HD: Yes
Specifications

Side by side

Philips NeoPix 106Philips NeoPix 106≈ US$1104.0
Picture
Resolution (on screen)1280 × 720 (HD)1920 × 1080 (Full HD)
Native panel resolution1280 × 720 (HD)1920 × 1080 (Full HD)
Display technologyDLPLCD (single panel)
Light sourceLEDLED
Brightness (ANSI / ISO lumens)200 lm60 lm
Contrast ratio (dynamic / claimed)3,500:1500:1
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—50″
Lens shift—None
Autofocus—No
Keystone correction—Yes
Automatic keystone correction—Yes
Sound
Built-in speakers (total output)—2 W
Connectivity
HDMI inputs11
USB portYesYes
Ethernet (LAN)NoNo
VGA inputNoNo
Audio outputNoYes
Battery, power & lifetime
Light source life3,500 h30,000 h
Design & noise
Weight—0.51 kg
Width—158 mm
Height—73 mm
Depth—121 mm
ColoursBlack, WhiteWhite
To compare: 0up to 4 models
Compare