Re: PHOTO-3D digest 1472

[P3D Marvin Jones <72657.3276@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> The trouble with beamsplitter is that it doesn't really split a beam,
> and the word has been preempted for a well-known optical device which
> is quite different in principle.  So, "framesplitter" let it be!
>
"Beamsplitter" or "framesplitter" neither one betrays any Greek roots, so who
cares? The whole discussion strikes me as fairly specious, anyway. Despite many
arguments to the contrary, as Larry rightly pointed out the other day, the
device really DOES "split" beams. Light is beamed back to the camera by the
subject, and is gathered up by two separate lenses and manipulated onto the film
plane in a multiple-image configuration quite different from the information
carried on the original beam. For my money, that's a beamsplitter pure and
simple.


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