If 3D isn't your thing then skip this post.
O.K. here goes -- this is why the L/R 3D test pattern for ghosting is so important. If you read Kraine's review posted immediately below you'll note the L/R ghosting results he obtained and refers to in the 3D portion of his review of the JVC X700. His subjective evaluation more or less matches to the objective results he obtained. There's really no B.S. in his review when it comes to 3D.
Here's a a summary of the review:
The highest native contrast enhanced by the use of dynamic iris
Brightness in progress
The accuracy of the image
Multiple adjustment options
The operation of discretion
Gamma although factory set
We liked least:
3D pack optional
Color configuration too and no factory to standard
Ghosting in 3D"
In comparison here's a quote from Trusted Reviews subjective only evaluation of the X700's 3D.
"Looking back, the 3D performance of last year’s JVC projectors really was disappointing, feeling like a distinct step backwards from what had gone before. To JVC’s credit it’s taken this on board and really tried to put the problems right this time round. The new driving technology it’s introduced for 3D works wonders, removing 90% of 2013’s crosstalk ghosting problems. The result of this is one of the best 3D pictures we’ve seen, combining outstanding levels of detail and clarity, a hugely impressive sense of 3D space and depth, and extremely rich colours and contrast by active 3D projector standards."
What we have is one reviewer backing up what he says with objective evidence while the other reviewer gives us his subjective impressions only. What if Trusted Reviews only looked at Avatar and a couple of other non-challenging 3D discs? To some extent consumers are making expensive decisions based on these reviews -- there's always some "leap of faith"; but really!
Here's the link to Cine4home's review of the JVC X500:
There is mention of 3D calibration but nothing on ghosting and no L/R test pattern. This review tells me literally nothing about real world 3D performance. The same goes for its review of Epson's new LS10000.
Here's CNET's review of the X700 (not really trying to pick on the X700 but these reviews do point out the problem with subjective reports about 3D).
This review at least attempts to put the X700's 3D in perspective by comparing it to the Epson's 3D. To put the X700's 3D into context you would have to be familiar with how the Epson handles 3D. The 3D L/R test would save a lot of time -- at least when it comes to ghosting, which is, let's face it, together with brightness, 3D's biggest problem.