How we score Blog Advertise
  1. Attenborough.film
  2. Compare
  3. Luma 75 vs NeoPix Easy

Kodak Luma 75 vs Philips NeoPix Easy

What Luma 75 does better (2) and where NeoPix Easy wins (2) — every spec side by side.

Kodak Luma 75
Kodak · 2019Luma 75
2 advantages≈ US$240
vs
Philips NeoPix Easy
Philips · 2019NeoPix Easy
6.8Score
2 advantages
Higher score
Dimensions

Size comparison

Luma 75NeoPix Easy
80 × 2080207 × 84150
Luma 75NeoPix EasyDifference
Height20 mm84 mm−64 mm
Width80 mm207 mm−127 mm
Depth80 mm150 mm−70 mm
Weight0.1 kg0.9 kg−0.7 kg

Drawn to the same scale from the official dimensions (front and side).

Why is Luma 75 better than NeoPix Easy?

  1. Light source life30,000 h vs 20,000 h+50%
  2. Weight0.14 kg vs 0.86 kg6.1×

Why is NeoPix Easy better than Luma 75?

  1. Brightness (ANSI / ISO lumens)75 lm vs 2,600 lm34.7×
  2. Contrast ratio (dynamic / claimed)1,300:1 vs 3,000:12.3×
Specifications

Side by side

Kodak Luma 75Kodak Luma 75≈ US$240
Picture
Resolution (on screen)—854 × 480 (480p)
Native panel resolution—854 × 480 (480p)
Display technologyDLP—
Light source—LED
Brightness (ANSI / ISO lumens)75 lm2,600 lm
Contrast ratio (dynamic / claimed)1,300:13,000:1
Gaming
Maximum refresh rate60 Hz—
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
Smallest image size—24″
Largest image size80″80″
Lens shift—None
Autofocus—No
Keystone correction—Yes
Automatic keystone correction—Yes
Sound
Built-in speakers (total output)—4 W
Connectivity
HDMI inputs11
USB portYesNo
Ethernet (LAN)NoNo
VGA inputNoYes
Audio outputYesYes
Battery, power & lifetime
Power consumption4 W—
Light source life30,000 h20,000 h
Design & noise
Fan noise30 dB—
Fan noise (eco mode)16 dB—
Weight0.14 kg0.86 kg
Width80 mm207 mm
Height20 mm84 mm
Depth80 mm150 mm
ColoursWhite, SilverSilver, Black
To compare: 0up to 4 models
Compare