3D LCD Crosstalk/Ghosting solved by Sharp - New Kid on the Block

Sharp Corporation has developed the world’s first four-primary-color 3D LCD featuring the industry’s highest brightness*1 with extremely low crosstalk (undesirable double-contour “ghost” images).

5 Backlight technology that makes it possible to reduce crosstalk.

Originally Posted by Bill

There is no ghosting in the 2D to 3D conversion so it is something other than the TV causing it.

This high precision alignment of the liquid crystals by applying the UV2A technology has two effects contributing to further improvement of the image performance of LCD TV panels. First of all, it eliminates the light leakage from the backlight almost completely raising the static contrast ratio to 5000:1, making it possible to display extremely deep blacks. Secondly, the UV2A technology enables higher aperture ratios in the LCD panel increasing the light transmission by more than 20% for a more efficient use of light from the backlight, thereby saving energy while displaying bright, vivid colours.

Barco Electronic Systems Pvt Ltd offers 10-bit LCD Monitor with Scanning LED Backlight. Barco Electronic Systems Pvt Ltd supplies products for medical imaging, media & entertainment, infrastructure & utilities, traffic & transportation and defence & security. The 10-bit LCD Monitor with Scanning LED Backlight is used as a reference monitor for master control rooms, camera control, camera shading, signal quality checks, technical rooms etc.

Originally Posted by Bill

Yes, the conversion does not make things appear in front of the screen. These could be the problem objects. However, when I have frozen the ghosting objects (from "M vs A"), the ghosting is still there. Leads me to believe it is not the TV. Especially since it is random and not constantly occurring.

Originally Posted by Bill

Quatron- in relation to other LCDs, didn't mention plasmas.

Originally Posted by JamesN

For example, in the 3DBD of MvA, many people point to the "bridge" scene as exhibiting a good deal of ghosting. Again: high contrast (red cables against a light colored sky) and wide parallax (separation between left/right bridge cables). A good experiment might be to have the converter convert the 2D version of that same scene. Is the parallax between the bridge cables still wide in the converted version? If no, there will be less visible ghosting in the converted version.

Originally Posted by Vampyro

Quatron

http://www.3d-display-info.com/sharp...st-3d-tv-panel

Originally Posted by Joseph Clark

I've noted this in a couple of bad demos I've seen with the Samsung LEDs. In each case, the displays had been set up improperly. In one store, the Samsung rep had set up the display with a regular Blu-ray player, not the 6900. The TV was doing the conversion. In the other case, the TV was the 46" 3D LCD and the Blu-ray was the 3D Model 6900, but the disc may have been the 2D version. I never found out for sure, because the salesman at this American Electronics store kept insisting that it was set up properly. It wasn't.

At any rate, the TV was doing 2D to 3D conversion. I noticed as soon as I removed the glasses that the offset of the two images was not nearly as great (or as consistent) as it was when the native 3D MvsA disc was being played. If you watch without glasses while the TV is doing the conversion, it's also quite obvious that the offset sometimes shifts significantly even within a single shot - in ways it won't while it's in true 3D mode. Indeed, without the glasses, you can understand a little better how the set is going about creating an artificial parallax view. In the bridge scene, for instance, the support cables sometimes seem to vibrate like piano strings. Again, you can see this happening if you watch 2D to 3D conversion without the glasses.

Another way to know for sure if the MvsA disc you're watching is showing in true 3D mode is to watch lines of text in some of the menus. Instead of a flat paragraph of words, 2D to 3D conversion turns those words into undulating rows, some of which fall off into the background.

That's why the effect is so disconcerting for me. I noticed while watching the new Star Trek movie on the Samsung 55" LCD set that foreground and background sometimes seemed to shift position within a single shot. That's crazy-a$$ 3D and the main reason the conversion is so ineffective. Conversion by the Samsung TVs doesn't simply create a mild but consistent 3D effect. Especially if it's a complex, fast moving scene (like the battle between the USS Kelvin and the Romulan ship in Star Trek) it creates a 3D effect on speed or acid. It's 3D gone horribly wrong, and I just want to turn it off.

IMO, the algorithms for 2D to 3D conversion aren't nearly sophisticated or fast enough for real time. They may get there one day, but I suspect that day is several years into the future. Never say never, though. I didn't watch the whole movie, but I actually found the 2D to 3D conversion of the filmed stage play of "Rent" fairly convincing. Of course, there aren't too many movies that are filmed stage plays. I suspect it worked fairly well because it had very little movement. Virtually none of the background objects moved.

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

Didn't one of the DLP RPTV's have a 6 colors colorwheel - RGB and YMC?

Originally Posted by Joseph Clark

I've noted this in a couple of bad demos I've seen with the Samsung LEDs. In each case, the displays had been set up improperly. In one store, the Samsung rep had set up the display with a regular Blu-ray player, not the 6900. The TV was doing the conversion. In the other case, the TV was the 46" 3D LCD and the Blu-ray was the 3D Model 6900, but the disc may have been the 2D version. I never found out for sure, because the salesman at this American Electronics store kept insisting that it was set up properly. It wasn't.

At any rate, the TV was doing 2D to 3D conversion. I noticed as soon as I removed the glasses that the offset of the two images was not nearly as great (or as consistent) as it was when the native 3D MvsA disc was being played. If you watch without glasses while the TV is doing the conversion, it's also quite obvious that the offset sometimes shifts significantly even within a single shot - in ways it won't while it's in true 3D mode. Indeed, without the glasses, you can understand a little better how the set is going about creating an artificial parallax view. In the bridge scene, for instance, the support cables sometimes seem to vibrate like piano strings. Again, you can see this happening if you watch 2D to 3D conversion without the glasses.

Another way to know for sure if the MvsA disc you're watching is showing in true 3D mode is to watch lines of text in some of the menus. Instead of a flat paragraph of words, 2D to 3D conversion turns those words into undulating rows, some of which fall off into the background.

That's why the effect is so disconcerting for me. I noticed while watching the new Star Trek movie on the Samsung 55" LCD set that foreground and background sometimes seemed to shift position within a single shot. That's crazy-a$$ 3D and the main reason the conversion is so ineffective. Conversion by the Samsung TVs doesn't simply create a mild but consistent 3D effect. Especially if it's a complex, fast moving scene (like the battle between the USS Kelvin and the Romulan ship in Star Trek) it creates a 3D effect on speed or acid. It's 3D gone horribly wrong, and I just want to turn it off.

IMO, the algorithms for 2D to 3D conversion aren't nearly sophisticated or fast enough for real time. They may get there one day, but I suspect that day is several years into the future. Never say never, though. I didn't watch the whole movie, but I actually found the 2D to 3D conversion of the filmed stage play of "Rent" fairly convincing. Of course, there aren't too many movies that are filmed stage plays. I suspect it worked fairly well because it had very little movement. Virtually none of the background objects moved.

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

Sharp Announces 3D TV Panel, Provides Details

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...13/181836/?P=1

3 Pages

Originally Posted by sb1

Interesting. Thanks for the link.

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

Sharp Announces 3D TV Panel, Provides Details

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...13/181836/?P=1

3 Pages

Originally Posted by defibaughr

The Sharp article is interesting. Sharp certainly seems to feel they have identified the issues and developed solutions. I guess we will have to wait to see how it compares with Samsung, Panasonic, Sony, LG...

I like thin displays as much as the next guy but I would give up half an inch to get local dimming over edge dimming LEDs.

Originally Posted by Ron Jones

It was interesting the story says:

"As the problems of the frame sequential method, Sharp cited (1) deterioration in brightness, (2) cross-talk and (3) degradation of the vividness of images. The brightness of 3D images displayed by using the method is 1/10 that of 2D images in the cases of both LCD and PDP displays, the company said.' Most other sources indicate a 70% to 85% loss of light using the sequential method combined with shutter glasses while the article cites 90% light loss. However, if Sharp is using a similar approach to Samsung with their LCD 3DTVs where they refresh at 240Hz but insert a black frame between each video frame - thus the right and left images are only displayed with a 25% duty cycle (at 60Hz per eye). Then when including the additional light loss of the shutter glasses themselves, I suppose the overall light loss could be on the order of 90% (as compared to displaying and viewing 2D images on the same display - i.e., with no black frames being inserted and no light loss for the glasses). However, I doubt any plasma has a 90% light loss since they are using a 120Hz refresh rate with perhaps as much as a 45% duty cycle for each eye (i.e., and no black frames being inserted) and once the loss from the shutter glasses are added the overall light loss is most likely in the 75% to 80% range.