Re: 3-D Usage (2) & Theoretical Mounting

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

Professor Paul S. Boyer's second posting was much better than the first, 
but the question of where to draw the line is still up in the air.

Those who strongly object the use of words like "beamsplitter" and 
"stereopticon", do not appear to be bothered by the tendency to 
incorrectly abbreviate terms like stereoscopic and photograph.  "Stereo" 
comes from the Greek word meaning "solid".  Stereoscope and stereoscopic 
mean to view something solid, i.e. in all its dimensions, i.e. with 
depth.  When we say "stereo camera" we are talking about a solid camera 
(versus a liquid?)  Same with "photo" which means "light".  Photography 
and photograph mean to "write" with light.

So, "stereo photo" is "solid light" and not a picture that has depth!

The tendency to abbreviate is not found in other languages.  In Greek, 
for example, you cannot abbreviate words like that just because you are 
too lazy to say the whole thing.  Nobody says "stereo" or "photo" instead
of the proper terms "stereoscopic" and "photographic".

Now, is it unreasonable to ask people to say "stereoscopic camera" 
instead of "stereo camera"?  I think it is.  The abbreviated word 
"stereo" is well-established in the English language.  As Marvin Jones 
said, the language is evolving and if you want to confuse everybody, try 
renaming "anaglyph" to something more accurate.  I will keep referring 
to the "frame splitting device via use of mirrors" as a "beamsplitter" 
without a better alternative so I can communicate my ideas.  Nobody says 
"frame splitter" (that could be a film cutter too, right?)  I'd rather 
use a techically incorrect but well-accepted term than isolate myself
with a bunch of boring academics in the pursue of this hobby...

On a different subject, regarding Paul's comment:

>Mismounting of stereo slides is almost universal among people who have 
>not bothered to read on the subject, and without guidance it is not 
>easy to find good descriptions of mounting technique.  Not many loners
>are likely to come across the right references, or be lucky enough to 
>find a copy of the Stereo Realist Manual.

I personally think that mounting is learned by doing rather than reading 
about it.  The principle (alignment) is very basic.  No need to read 
much to figure it out.  How is this done in practice and how is the 
stereo window controlled, is only learned with practice.  I believe that 
a loner with the desire to mount properly can learn how to do it without 
much help.  He definitely does not need to read the Stereo Realist 
Manual!  On the other hand, I can think of a few people who have done a 
lot of reading but, without enough practice, they still cannot mount 
properly.  All you need is the desire to improve and practice.  A loner 
can have both...

George Themelis

PS.  Tuesday morning is going better... so far...


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