Re: 3-D Usage

[P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Reply to message from boyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx of Mon, 19 Aug
>
>John Berkovitz asks where the limits lie in accepting 3-D misnomers.

OK, first it is Bercovitz...

Second, I have used the word "beamsplitter" for the frame spitting mirror
device (also known as "beamsplitter") and I am slightly annoyed to be
indirectly labeled "utterly ignorant"...

>These limits have the invaluable function of enabling us quickly
>to tell whether someone understands, or is utterly ignorant.

So, if somone is calling the frame splitting device a "beamsplitter" he or
she does not understand the mechanical construction and optical propterties
of this wonderful instrument... Big deal!  I am sure there are people who
prefer to use this instrument to take stereo pairs and also use a 
stereoscopticon to look at stereo views and do not give a dime for the
optical principles that make the device function... Some of us are more
interested in the art than science...

>Think of it this way: the same person who is careless
>with 3-d terminology, is probably the same person who, unless
>helped, will soon be inflicting on you his mismounted slides.

And I think you have stretched this idea to the limits... Perhaps the
person who is too concerned about using the correct 3-d terminology and
studying the laws of physics that make these 3-d devices function, does not
have time to work on improving his mounting...

Sterioscoptically yours, George Themelis

PS.  It's been a rough Monday morning...


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