Re: Terminology

[hticheno@xxxxxxxxx (harold lee tichenor)]

>
Glenn Stokes wrote in Photo-3d Digest 1171
>
>The tendency of "Stereo" being interpreted only as relating to a type of
>sound, is only further amplified by the new confusion over 3D photography and
>3D computer graphics. 

I have been fascinated by stereo photography and stereo sound for many
years, and although I've been an active photographer since the late 1950's,
I have only recently started to shoot in 3d.

While I'm skeptical that we can change the general usage of the terms
applicable to the two areas of image and sound recording, I am enough of a
pedant to enjoy exploring how the words should and have been used.  

I believe in  biology (or physiology?) the term used for human and related
predator-style vision is "binocular".  In hearing, the parallel is
"binaural".  It should be remembered that not all two-eyed animals see in
depth; only those that tend to be "front viewing".  

I believe early in the 1950's, when stereophonic sound was moderately new in
the marketplace (in fact it goes back to the 1930's, experimentally at
least) there was considerable discussion among recording labels as to what
name to use.  Early Decca recordings, for instance, used "stereosonic",
technicians refered to it as "binaural" (even when recording in three track
format!) and the industry eventually settled on "stereophonic". There is
considerable argument among stereo audiophiles as to whether binaural sound
gives all the necessary clues to audio depth perception or whether depth in
sound can be perceived as effectively in monaural recordings. Distance can
be simulated in both monoaural and binaural recording by artificial
decreases in volume, which can be confused or enhanced by reverberation from
the back of the recording stage.  What good binaural recording does do
however, is reveal the directionality of the sound source from side to side.
Without getting too detailed, binaural sound is not three dimensional, in
fact it is dubious as to whether it is in fact two dimensional.

The Greek "prefix" stereo, if I remember correctly has to do with solidity.
Therefore, while running the risk that the audiophiles will attack en mass,
I would suggest that sound systems limited to less than three channels (in
both recording and playback) cannot be accurately described as stereophonic;
geometrically it would take more than three channels to properly record
"solidity" in sound, if solidity implies the accurate reproduction of three
dimensionality. 

I was unaware of the fact that stereopticon was a trade name and not a
correct name for the Holmes type viewer.  It's a shame because I've always
loved the sound of it. Pictures are traditionally stereographs or
stereograms, and perhaps more accurately what we shoot (as opposed to what
we draw) could be called stereophotographs.

The movies I remember from the early fifties (like those directed by Arch
Oboler) called the technique "3D", usually in huge letters that appeared to
leap out of the poster at you. (By the way, I have two 1954 editions of the
magazine, American Cinematographer, that have great articles on 3d in the
movies with some interesting technical information; I would like to offer to
share them with the group, as well as find out if anyone has any of the
others on 3d from that journal, which I'd like to acquire.  Can anyone
suggest how I might offer copies? I don't have access to a scanner.  Maybe I
could fax them to somebody that does.) 

The computer guys have confused the whole thing even more by using the term
3d to describe images modeled in three dimensions but displayed in a two
dimensional fashion. 

In that I am involved in all of these fields (I'm a film producer by
profession), I've had to settle on my own nomenclature, inaccurate as it may
be, so that my colleagues at work and my family have some idea what I'm
talking about.  I've knuckled under to convention and refer to binaural
audio recording and playback as "stereo", to stereophotography as "3d" and
the work we do in computer design work as "3d modeling". 

Now, concerning the sense of taste...    



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