If you start studying projector specifications with the aim of buying one, the first line will always indicate the display technology, and only then the presence of a laser light source, brightness, power, resolution, etc. Moreover, not all models with similar characteristics will have the same technology. DLP, 3LCD, and even LCoS may be mentioned, although the latter option is very rare in relatively budget classes.
And here, a normal consumer who has not studied the history of projection technology will inevitably have questions: why, after decades of development, have manufacturers still not found the optimal technology for mass-market budget projectors? Why do alternatives even exist? What's wrong with the popular DLP technology? And why are we offered models with 3LCD technology, about which little news has been heard lately? What's so special about them?
In short, 3LCD technology, compared to DLP, has one undeniable advantage — it is absolutely harmless to vision. Not less harmful, not almost, but absolutely. And it doesn't matter whether it's with laser light sources or lamps — in any case and with any configuration.
In the article dedicated to comparing lasers and lamps in projectors, it was already stated that despite all the vicissitudes of technical progress, many supposedly outdated technologies do not disappear into oblivion, because in reality there are no ideal technologies, no matter what advertising brochures say. Each of them has its own advantages, which is why they coexist in the market.
And since that's the case, it won't hurt to remind ourselves of the 'forgotten' 3LCD technology, while visually demonstrating its features using the example of comparing two projectors of the same class.
Foundations of Success
The basic principles of 3LCD projectors were developed by Seiko Epson in the 80s of the last century, and the first projector was released in 1993 — it was the Epson VPJ-700.
But unlike Texas Instruments, which developed DLP technology, Epson did not reserve the exclusive right to produce its patented invention and sold licenses for the production of 3LCD projectors to anyone interested. Thus, Sony, Panasonic, Sanyo, Hitachi, NEC tried to produce these projectors and their components. And now InFocus has seriously taken up this topic.
What is the secret to such longevity? In the inherent advantages embedded in the fundamental design of 3LCD projectors. In them, as the name itself suggests, three LCD matrices are used to form the image, one for each of the three primary colors: red, green, and blue.
With the help of a special combining prism, the light passing through all three matrices is combined into a single beam and projected onto the screen through the lens. Thus, a full-color image is displayed on the screen at any given moment. This is the most important thing. Recall that in single-chip DLP projectors, which constitute the absolute majority of micromirror models on the market, the image is displayed on the screen sequentially in layers — first the red, then the green, and then the blue component, which, due to the inertia of vision, combine in our minds into a full-color image.
In addition, in 3LCD projector matrices, liquid crystals rotate smoothly and form the brightness of each pixel in a single movement, whereas in DLP, micromirrors have only two positions, and brightness is determined by the reflection time of light by the micromirror. That is, even when each color part of the image is displayed in a DLP projector, this image is not displayed immediately, but gradually, flashing on the screen thousands of times per second.
As a result, 3LCD projectors produce an image that does not strain the eyes or brain at all, whereas DLP actually relies entirely on the aforementioned inertia of vision and perception. People with low inertia see instability and artifacts of sequential image display on the screen, which are usually called the rainbow effect — the decomposition of bright white details into different colors. 3LCD projectors do not have such artifacts in principle.
Not Monopolists
A reasonable question may arise here: why then have 3LCD projectors not monopolized the market? As already mentioned, there are no ideal technologies — 3LCD also has its drawbacks. The first and main one for manufacturers is that they are more complex in design and more expensive to produce.
In addition to the three matrices themselves, polarizers for them, and a summing prism for them, dichroic or color-splitting mirrors are also needed, which separate white light from a lamp or laser-phosphor unit into those very color components for each matrix. For single-chip DLP projectors, all this is not needed. Moreover, for the images from the three matrices to be combined with extreme clarity, the requirements for 3LCD projector optics are higher than for single-chip DLP. However, there is a nuance here too. The price of a single DLP chip and a special processor for it is so high that it partly compensates for the cheapness of optics for DLP.
The simplicity of optics in single-chip DLP projectors provides another potential advantage — they have higher image contrast directly within a single frame. This is because fewer re-reflections occur within a simple optical system, and those that do occur are easier to suppress. The problem is that in inexpensive compact models, optics are frankly skimped on, and the advantage in contrast turns out to be minimal.
Another relative complexity of the optical system and the peculiarity of matrices in 3LCD projectors do not allow them to be made miniature and ultra-economical, like some LED-based DLP models. About 15 years ago, many projector prototypes built into smartphones, keychains, and even ballpoint pens were demonstrated at exhibitions — all of them were based on DLP technology. However, the public's enthusiasm did not translate into any demand, and mass production did not materialize — everything was limited to the release of compact LED models, which are now sold in all stores. There are no 3LCD models among them, no matter what the specifications say.
The last significant drawback of 3LCD technology is considered to be the thickened inter-pixel grid, but this is also a controversial point. The fact is that 3LCD matrices are transmissive, meaning light from a lamp or laser passes through them, as in televisions, and is not reflected, as in DLP and LCoS. This means that contacts in such matrices pass not from behind, but between pixels, which makes the inter-pixel distances in LCD matrices relatively large, and the pixel grid on the screen is more noticeable. But this was really relevant when the resolution of projectors was low, i.e., 1280x720 pixels and especially 854x480 — then the inter-pixel grid really distracted from viewing, and the picture of DLP projectors seemed smoother compared to 3LCD. Today, when the standard resolution of projectors is Full HD (1920x1080), the difference in the thickness of the inter-pixel grid, even on large screens of 100-120 inches diagonally, is noticeable only if you get very close to the canvas, and on 4K 3LCD projectors, it is not visible at all thanks to optical shift.
It is also worth mentioning another factor that is often brought up in discussions about 3LCD — the so-called color brightness. This term was introduced by Epson itself to promote its projectors. 'Color' brightness differs from 'normal' projector brightness in that it takes into account the brightness of all colors simultaneously. Thus, according to Epson's methodology, 3LCD brightness is approximately three times higher than DLP with the same light source. However, this is true if brightness is measured by a sensor that does not have a long saturation effect, which takes measurements in a very short time. But human vision, unlike such a sensor, does have such an effect — if you look at a not very bright light bulb for a long time, after a while it will seem unbearably bright, even wax candles in the dark can cause 'spots' in the eyes. DLP partly uses this effect of vision to create a full-color picture. Therefore, in reality, visually, the brightness of 3LCD and DLP projectors with identical lamps does not differ so significantly.
So What's Better?
All of the above shows that in the battle between 3LCD and DLP technologies, there is no clear leader; both have their advantages and disadvantages. And to choose the most suitable one for you, a direct comparison of projectors based on these technologies is needed. With the departure of most Japanese companies from the Russian market in 2022, this is not easy. Only one manufacturer remains that offers both micromirror and three-matrix LCD models, with similar characteristics and comparable prices. This is InFocus.
Introducing the Competitors
As a result, InFocus LightPro IN1049 and InFocus LightPro IN0048SL models were chosen for comparison. Despite the similarity in names, they belong to different lines: IN1049 to Advanced 3LCD, and IN0048SL to Vista II. In terms of power, they differ slightly. The 3LCD model IN1049 has a claimed maximum brightness of 5000 lumens, while the micromirror IN0048SL has 4400 lumens.
Despite all the circumstances described above, the IN0048SL is only slightly more compact — it is only 1.5 cm narrower. At the same time, it is even slightly thicker than the IN1049. This is because theory is theory, but in practice, dimensions are determined by the platform on which a particular model is built, that is, essentially, by unification with other models. This is used much more widely for DLP projectors than for 3LCD.
Both projectors use UHP lamps as a light source, not lasers, which does not prevent them from having an impressive lamp life. The DLP-based IN0048SL has a lamp life of 15,000 hours (6,000 in maximum operating mode), while the IN1049 has a full 20,000 hours, like a typical laser projector. The secret to such longevity lies in a special lamp mounting that allows it to withstand thermal overloads — it will not explode if power is suddenly cut off. However, such shutdowns should not be abused — the service life will be significantly reduced.
The lenses of our test subjects are similar in size, but differ significantly in capabilities. The micromirror IN0048SL has a lens with a smaller throw ratio (1.13 versus 1.35), meaning it is wider angle. It has a larger zoom (1.3 versus 1.2) and a larger upward projection angle, meaning more offset, so it is easier to position relative to any screen. In our case, when two identical Lumien Master Control LMC-100213 screens with a diagonal of 100 inches are used for comparison, the IN0048SL could be placed closer, and it did not require an additional stand, and it did not block the view, meaning it was more convenient to install.
The resolution of the tested projectors also differs. The DLP model IN0048SL has a standard Full HD resolution, i.e., 1920x1080 pixels. The IN0049 has WUXGA, or 1920x1200 pixels with a 16:10 aspect ratio, characteristic of many 3LCD projectors and Apple laptops. Both projectors can receive and convert almost any signal up to 4K to their native resolution, but without HDR, which is not used in office tasks. So, in practice, the difference in resolution is not particularly noticeable.
Comparison
Testing was conducted on two identical 100-inch Lumien Master Control LMC-100213 screens in a typical office environment — a spacious, bright room with white walls and ceiling and partial darkening with curtains that did not completely block daylight. No projector calibration was performed. Only factory settings were used: 'Standard' image mode, 'Standard' color temperature. Projection was carried out from the minimum distance for each model. Accordingly, due to the different throw ratios, the InFocus LightPro IN0048SL DLP projector was positioned closer. As a result, the already small difference in brightness was practically leveled.
The difference in contrast was more noticeable. On the ANSI standard 'checkerboard' with equal black and white areas, the contrast in one frame was 48:1 for the IN0048SL and 39:1 for the three-matrix IN0049. Such small values, almost an order of magnitude different from the typical contrast for projectors using these technologies, were entirely due to the test conditions, i.e., the room itself. Even in such conditions, the difference in contrast was visible to the naked eye not only on test charts but also on typical presentation material: graphs, menus, texts — all of this the IN0048SL displays more 'sharply' and 'voluminously'. If you get close to the screen, this impression is only enhanced: fonts, thin lines on the micromirror IN0048SL look clearer and sharper, as if its optics are more 'transparent'. On the IN0049 with 3LCD technology, the static picture is softer, and this softness only increases at the edges of the image.
However, in video, the situation reverses — the IN0049 with 3LCD technology displays a sharper image, while the IN0048SL appears more blurred, and it's clear that optics have nothing to do with it. The issue lies in processing. DLP projectors have more complex processing by nature, so inexpensive office models show signs of simplification with a loss of detail in video. To avoid this, it's better to choose models that support a high refresh rate — then any video will be crystal clear.
Color Reproduction
In addition, some loss of detail in complex video fragments is related, strangely enough, to color reproduction. This is what the color gamut chart, i.e., the full volume of reproducible colors, looks like for the three-matrix InFocus LightPro IN0049.
It is compressed relative to the Rec.709 standard, which is relevant for most Full HD video sources and 4K with SDR images. But it is compressed slightly and equally in all directions. And for the micromirror InFocus LightPro IN0048SL, the coverage is cut down to this extent.
This means that it displays even fewer colors, and significantly so, showing a clear bias towards the red and blue zones and a deficiency in green. Since the green part is responsible for brightness in the frame, losses in it affect the brightness of most details — they become darker as a result and eventually blur.
This is also why the image from the IN0049 with 3LCD technology looks more natural: detailed, color-balanced, and sharper in motion, despite the fact that the IN0048SL, for example, displays skin tones warmer and thus more vibrant.
Is the technology used in the projector to blame for this? No, there is no direct connection here. The issue lies in the settings 'hardwired' into a specific model at the factory. The InFocus LightPro IN0048SL is a 'sibling' of the InFocus IN0028SL model from the article 'Lamp and Laser in Projectors,' built on the same basis and actually using the same lamp. Only in the IN0048SL, this lamp was forced to shine brighter, which inevitably affected color reproduction. The brighter it is 'heated,' the fewer colors it emits. Therefore, if full-color images are important to you, say, for watching movies, you shouldn't chase brightness, but rather take care to darken the room — the result will be dramatically different.
All this once again emphasizes that there is no single universal top-model projector that is equally suitable for all tasks. And no single technology guarantees the ideal choice of projector, or any complex device for that matter. It is necessary to correctly prioritize, especially when choosing usage scenarios. For presenting in a bright meeting room or school classroom, one set of parameters will be required; for watching movies in the evening in a well-darkened living room, completely different ones. And yet, the choice between 3LCD and DLP technologies is very important — as it will determine the strain on your vision. This is a priority for children, especially in educational institutions, where 3LCD will be the right choice. This parameter should be considered by everyone over 50 who experiences deteriorating vision, when sensitivity and eye fatigue from long work with any image also increase. In this scenario, it is again worth looking at 3LCD models, even without discussing their brightness or color reproduction. I repeat — if color reproduction quality is important to you and there is a well-prepared room for the projector, then it is pointless to chase maximum brightness.
As a result, in the InFocus assortment, we were able to test worthy models that effectively highlight the advantages of both DLP and 3LCD technologies, with laser light sources or lamps. It must be said that the manufacturer skillfully configures its models for appropriate tasks. For home use within a reasonable budget, DLP + lamp models are interesting. For presentation and commercial purposes, DLP + laser will be the optimal choice. For school classrooms and, contradictory as it may sound, for gaming on a large screen, we recommend the reviewed 3LCD model IN0049.