Re: TWO MISNOMERS

[John Roberts <roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 22:50:46 -0600
>From: fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Dr. George A. Themelis)
>Subject: Re: TWO MISNOMERS

>>TWO MISNOMERS >commonly encountered in stereography

>>STEREOPTICON.  This is not the name for a stereoscope...
>>BEAM-SPLITTER.  The real beam-slitter is a semi-silvered mirror...

>I agree that these terms were first applied for something else than the
>objects they are known for today, but is this a problem?  If the name
>"Stereopticon" was used for something that is not even stereo, why not use
>the term for something more appropriate?  

I haven't formed an opinion about "beamsplitter", but the problem with trying
to reuse "stereopticon" is that it refers to a very specific piece of
equipment, and trying to redefine the term creates ambiguity without having
much benefit. (And ambiguity makes discussion difficult - try to get a 
consensus on what "3D" means on alt.3d.) There's a longstanding tradition
of selecting terminology to minimize confusion, even if the choice is not
ideal for other reasons - for instance, modern "astronomers" are centuries
beyond just *naming* the stars, but we don't call them "astrologers", because
that term had already been appropriated.

>or "stereogram" (pair of
>3-d line drawings? how did that end up being used exclusively for "Magic
>Eye" type images?  is there a more appropriate word for these?)

If they're in color, they seem to be called "color field stereograms" -
I don't know whether there's a different term for black and white ones. :-)
And of course they're also "single image" or "autostereograms".

John R


------------------------------