JVC Ghosting Discussion - Page 10

The redness is stronger if you have CMD enabled. I find the colour temperature evens out within just a couple of minutes if CMD is off, but can take a good 15 minutes or so with CMD enabled.

My focus and covergence gets better after warmup which obviously has an effect on 2d.......I am now in the habbit of doing a warm up before watching 2d as well.

I'm not advocating the content producers to "dumb down" 3D intensity in their movies. What I want is to get to the bottom of what really causes this crosstalk. So far, we have numerous different, unrelated theories. It's the panel refresh rate! It's the contrast in the image! It's the polarization of the glasses! It's the parallax offset! It's the temperature! It's the phase of the moon!

There clearly is an inter-relationship between how the content is mastered and whether it triggers crosstalk in displays prone to it. Otherwise, every single disc title would have the same amount of crosstalk on a given display, and that isn't the case. Some ghost more than others.

If display manufacturers don't understand what it is in the content that's triggering the crosstalk in their displays, they will never be able to fix those displays to adapt to that content. To entirely rule out the content having any causal effect on crosstalk is foolish, IMO.

For example, if a disc with a wide parallax offset triggers ghosting in some projectors, the manufacturers need to adjust those projectors to display an image with that much parallax without ghosting. Does that make sense?

As Joe pointed out, although I have not done extensive A/B testing based on warm up times - I have indeed noticed that ghosting is much improved after a warm up period.

Nothing scientific here, but I would say that on a cold start ghosting is fairly prevalent. Then after a good 45 minutes or so it its fairly minimal. Then after say 2 hours it is basically completely gone.

Again I say that lightly because its a very casual observation, but I can say for certain that there are times when some difficult scenes ghost badly and other times when there is no ghosting, and when I notice this it always seems to be a function of how long the unit is on.

As one such example, I posted (I think in the shootout thread) that my VW95 ghosted really badly on the tree in Grand Canyon and commented that it looked just like was shown in the picture of the JVC. But then a week or so later I posted that I had just watched that scene again and was really surprised to see NO ghosting in it at all, and posted photos of it with no glasses, left lens and right lens. The only difference really was that the pj had been on for a few hours when I watched it with no ghosting...

Its kind of a bummer it needs a warm up to be at its best, but I'll take that over having a warm up period that didn't help things at all.

Apart from the phase of the moon, its ALL of the things you listed composited together. If the left eye sees some of the right eye image or vice versa there is a problem. However the human brain will filter some of this out if the ghosting is minor or not strongly contrasted with its background. And for sure, in the case of active displays, it IS fundamentally down to the refresh of the panels. And for passive displays, it is fundamentally down to the fact the polarisation filters are not perfect. You are trying to make it more complicated than it is! To simplify it further, a display manufacturer simply has to find a way of making sure each eye only sees the image intended for it. This is why displays like the Sony HMZ-T1 headset are so intruiging because they provide 3D in its purist form, a different display for each eye!

Yes, it does makes sense. One place to start is to ask why DLP has no problem, or at least, much less of a problem with ghosting. Why is that? IMO, slow refresh rate is probably the number one cause of ghosting. The Epson projectors use faster panels and they have much less of a problem than the JVC projectors. Sony uses faster panels than JVC as well and those projectors have less ghosting. That's got to tell us something. The manufacturers seem to have a pretty good idea about what causes ghosting and are responding.

Sure - while remembering to explain the fault lies with the display + glasses combo. If the reviewer complains about crosstalk in a title and blames the content, he's an incompetent horse's ass.

An apprentice stereographer at the keyboard here says it's got some of the worst 3D to date. It's ruined by utter disregard for the rules laid down by professional stereographers aiming to provide a pleasant 3D viewing experience. If there's one 3D title that has a chance of ruining your eyes, that is it.

I think it takes considerably longer. Or, at the very least, it used to on the previous generation. A reader of my blog bought a JVC X3 and after reading my review decided to get a bit more scientific. He created a crosstalk pattern and set up a camera to take a photo of the screen through the 3D glasses once every 10 seconds. He then wrote software that analyzed the photos for crosstalk and created a graph of the results:



X-axis is time. Y-axis is crosstalk; higher values mean less crosstalk. As you can see, it took about an hour for the crosstalk to "settle down".

I recall reading this and was one the reasons I was a little hesitant to upgrade to the 95.. I've lost some of my patience waiting for a projector to warm up to watch 3D, especially when the 5010 or W7000 doesn't exhibit this behavior. Turn 'em on and ready to rock and roll in 3D.


wow - no love for SA? I agree it forces you to really focus on the popouts, but correct or not, it's one of the few title that really gets my guests interested in 3D since it's so in your face and also has intense depth as well.

when I think of ruined 3D movies, Thor and some of the boring 2D-3D converts come to mind.

Heh. I do like it for one reason: it's perfect for studying stereography by learning from others' mistakes! I can see the title being used as a teaching tool one day, with the teacher pausing the movie every 10 seconds to point out something students should avoid doing


Yeah, that's one of its various problems. Filmmakers have finally learned that when it comes to negative depth, less is definitely more.


I don't think of post-conversions as 3D movies in the first place

I find this SA discussion very interesting. If you read around at HDD, bluray.com, here at AVS, etc.........MOST people who have seen SA claim it is THE MOST impressive 3d title to date.............I dont doubt what you are saying Petri, but whatever is technically "wrong" with the 3d, people seem to LOVE it

You seem to be the only one still confused though Josh (in this thread at least) which confuses me in light of the explanations given here and in the Zombie comparison thread which all make perfect sense in conjunction from what I have seen and experienced myself. I will say it a 1000 times, you really should go check out a DLP as I think it might help with your confusion, and drag Nate along please.

Well, that is just awesome! My gut feel (and nothing else) says about 45 minutes is about right for things to settle down with the VW95, so is very similar to the X3 based on that data.

I'm not surprised at all. People tend to equal impressive 3D with in-your-face pop-up, with things pouring out of the screen onto their laps. But excessive negative parallax is unfortunately the one thing filmmakers should avoid as it forces our eyes to do things they are not supposed to.

Mike, I am wondering if as you say, screen gain might have something to do with ghosting. I have a 1.0 screen and have tried several films and have not noticed much ghosting. I am sure that DLP projectors give a better 3D image but I doubt if there is anything better for 2D in this price range. I would love for someone to present a list of films in which ghosting is a big problem. I am not worried about one or two scenes but about films with bad ghosting that make it impossible to view on the 45.

There is no scientific proof that this does any harm to our eyes whether it be short or longer term. I am not saying that something may not have been discovered yet, but many eye experts say it should have no longterm effects. So why not enjoy it?

The only thing screen gain will do is simply give a brighter pic which will make everything more obvious, including ghosting. A higher gain screen will certainly not create more ghosting of course, but it will make it easier to see a lot of the more faint type ghosting that goes unnoticed on a dimmer lower gain and less bright screen and will become more obvious/noticeable with a higher gain/brighter pic.

I used my 40 with both a ST130 and HP 2.8 and the ghosting was the same in both cases, but it was more obvious on the brighter HP since the pic in general is brighter.

Compliments to your reader. This is fascinating research. The largest gain is in the first 20 minutes, but I was surprised how long it takes to get optimum.

Thanks, for your post. As you say a high gain screen will not create more ghosting but because of the brighter image it may become more obvious. I am wondering if most people will notice ghosting on most movies. Of all the 3D releases out there how may will show major ghosting issues on the JVC.

That is hard to say since every viewer is different and what one considers to be major ghosting is going to change depending on who you ask. Major ghosting to me is something like Giants of Patagonia from the ~6:30 mark off/on throughout the rest of the disc. Even other discs though that are not into the major ghosting category are pushing the limit for me personally on my 40/45. For somebody coming from completely ghost free DLP and views a JVC, even something that is more at a mid level ghosting might be categorized as major since you are used to totally crosstalk free images and now all of a sudden the ghosts are there.

Because it can, and does, cause eyeaches and headaches. There are rules and acceptable limits set in place so the 3D imagery would not cause nausea and actual pain in the viewers. Break the rules long enough often enough and you'll put viewers off 3D for good.

Understood. In small doses its normally okay. I remember IMAX cinemas, in the older days, giving me really bad headaches not just because of that, but also flicker/low refresh, and the heavy weight of active glasses. Fortunately technology improved in IMAX since then.

It seems that nearly everyone agrees that DLP is the way to go if 3D is important to you. I may in the future get a low end DLP projector for 3D and other casual viewing. I was even considering the Acer 5360 but if I read correctly it will require an HDCP computer or a Viewsonic external box and DLP glasses. Another alternative is the Viewsonic 8200 which may be cheaper in the long run.

Great job of completely missing the point of what I wrote.

Perhaps I'll read your post again, in that case. OK, done. Aren't we talking of the same thing? A reviewer should certainly point out if the movie contains scenes that are likely to bring out visible crosstalk in displays prone to ghosting, i.e. currently most non-DLP ones. But I was saying he's doing a great disservice to his readers (not to mention revealing his ignorance) if he implies the ghosting is embedded, "burned in" if you will, in the images on the disc.

Except 3D done in post can be excellent and undetectable from features shot in 3D if the post work is done PROPERLY. Much post work is rushed to save money and those ARE crap -- see Clash of the Titans! Captain America is a perfect example of 3D done well in post... it was shot in 2D but they knew it was going to be a 3D movie during shooting and shot every scene from multiple angles so the post work could accurately position everything in every frame. Post-3D work can be every bit as impressive as native 3D as long as it isn't cheaped-out. Of course many things are like that... the cheap version is crap but the properly done version is just fine.

this is a particularly tough scene in Grand Canyon for the JVC's.

Fantastic work Zombie! You've helped (along with a few others) move this forum light years ahead of most professional reviews (not all, but most). This is full 3D disclosure. If you want great 2D only, then the JVCs seem to offer some of the best 2D out there. If you really enjoy 3D then look elsewhere. You can pay a lot of money for 3D that can look great and then suddenly go south with no prior notice.

The reviewers who regularly participate on this forum, IMO, are the best because they are willing to expose themselves to the harsh responses of some disappointed owners, but their input helps to accurately define the positives and negatives of a particular product -- why do that if you don't have to! However, the benefits to the readers are very positive and I for one certainly appreciate the candor.