Crosstalk in stereoscopic displays: a review

Abstract

Crosstalk, also known as ghosting or leakage, is a primary factor in determining the image quality of stereoscopic three dimensional (3D) displays. In a stereoscopic display, a separate perspective view is presented to each of the observer's two eyes in order to experience a 3D image with depth sensation. When crosstalk is present in a stereoscopic display, each eye will see a combination of the image intended for that eye, and some of the image intended for the other eye-making the image look doubled or ghosted. High levels of crosstalk can make stereoscopic images hard to fuse and lack fidelity, so it is important to achieve low levels of crosstalk in the development of high-quality stereoscopic displays. Descriptive and mathematical definitions of these terms are formalized and summarized. The mechanisms by which crosstalk occurs in different stereoscopic display technologies are also reviewed, including micropol 3D liquid crystal displays (LCDs), autostereoscopic (lenticular and parallax barrier), polarized projection, anaglyph, and time-sequential 3D on LCDs, plasma display panels and cathode ray tubes. Crosstalk reduction and crosstalk cancellation are also discussed along with methods of measuring and simulating crosstalk.

Dichoptic Viewing Methods for Binocular Rivalry Research: Prospects for Large-Scale Clinical and Genetic Studies

“…Such overlap results in ghosting with image elements intended for one eye leaking into the other eye's channel (Woods & Harris, 2010;Zeng & Zeng, 2011), with varying effect based on the choice of anaglyph model and filter combination (e.g., very low crosstalk with cyan and yellow; Woods & Harris, 2010). Optical leakage may also be due to the quality of the anaglyph image generation matrix (Woods, 2010; see also Woods & Rourke, 2004;, although it can be significantly mitigated by calibrating the anaglyph system via signal processing methods such as crosstalk cancellation (Sanftmann & Weiskopf, 2011;Woods, 2012), and using different algorithms to calculate color values of the image (Dietz, 2012;Dubois, 2001;Woods et al, 2013). Multi-band spectral multiplexing (e.g., Infitec R GmbH) -where the visible light spectrum is divided into two complementary wavelength bands -can also be used as an improved alternative for separating channels (i.e., reducing crosstalk) by about 1:1,000 (Jorke & Fritz, 2006).…”

“…With current active LCS technology, light obstruction to one eye does not always involve the shutter being 100% opaque (Woods & Tan, 2002). As a proportion of light (ß0.1%) is still transmitted while the shutter is closed, the result is the occluded eye may still see a small percentage of the image not intended for it (Woods, 2010). Such crosstalk can increase especially if the presented images have relatively high luminance (i.e., brightness).…”

“…Because precise dichoptic presentation depends on fixed temporal synchrony between the shutters and the monitor refresh rate, disruption to this synchrony can also cause ghosting (Woods, 2010; for review of crosstalk in LCS goggles, see Woods & Tan, 2002). This outcome is especially the case if the monitor's refresh rate is low (for a detailed explanation, see Woods, 2010), or if the LCS uses an infrared communication protocol (Woods & Helliwell, 2012).…”

“…Conventional use of CRT monitors with LCS goggles can be problematic due to their phosphor decay characteristics (i.e., afterglow; see also , which contributes to crosstalk (Peli & Lang, 2001). Because CRT monitors draw images from top to bottom sequentially, the time taken for phosphor decay from its peak luminance -combined with the propagation delay between polarization states of corresponding shutters -can further increase crosstalk (Woods, 2010). For LCD monitors, screen specifications such as temporal accuracy of the changes in luminance are critical factors contributing to crosstalk in LCS goggle setups.…”

“…The temporal accuracy with which an LCS panel shifts from opaque to clear can also contribute to crosstalk (Woods, 2010). In the worst possible case, the unintended image of a previous frame is partially occluded (i.e., partially viewed) by the eye viewing the intended image of the next frame.…”