Samsung IF015H vs Sharp LD-EC151

1.5 mm against 1.5 mm · specifications from both manufacturers' datasheets

This page puts the two sheets side by side, then builds the same wall from each tile, so the comparison is in panels, kilograms, circuits and data runs.

Whole cabinets rarely hit an identical size, so each wall is the closest build to a real video format (16:9 or 16:10) near 8 m wide for that tile: 7.68 × 4.32 m and 7.80 × 4.39 m respectively.

What the numbers say

• Samsung IF015H resolves finer: 444,444 pixels per square metre against 409,600 for Sharp LD-EC151, 9% more. On a 8 m wide wall that is 5,120 px across versus 4,992 px.
• Sharp LD-EC151 is the lighter rig: 21 kg/m² against 22 kg/m². Across this wall that is 50 kg of difference, 892 kg versus 942 kg, which moves point loads and can change the hoist call.
• Samsung IF015H draws more: 772 W/m² against 252 W/m² at full white. For this wall that is 25.6 kW versus 8.6 kW, and 16 versus 4 circuits at a 16 A/230 V supply with an 80% derate.
• Data is lighter on Samsung IF015H: 32 runs against 39, at 4 and 6 panels per port respectively (60 Hz, 8-bit, ports loaded to 80%). Fewer runs means fewer home runs to pull and fewer processor ports to find.
• Different cabinet formats: 480 × 540 mm against 600 × 337.5 mm, so 128 tiles versus 169 for the same wall. Fewer, larger cabinets build faster; smaller ones give finer control over wall dimensions and are easier to handle alone.
• Estimated truck space: 6 m for Samsung IF015H against 7.5 m for the other, including spares, cases and cabling.

Full specifications

• Samsung IF015H: specs and calculator
• Sharp LD-EC151: specs and calculator
• All Samsung panels
• All Sharp panels

Related comparisons

• Samsung IF015H vs Sharp LD-FE153
• Samsung IF015H vs Sharp LD-D151
• Barco XT1.5-E vs Sharp LD-EC151
• Leyard CLI1.5 vs Sharp LD-EC151
• Barco XT1.5-E vs Samsung IF015H
• Leyard CLI1.5 vs Samsung IF015H