RE:The Latest Offense

[P3D Greg Marshall <greg.marshall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Joel Alpers writes:
>We've talked before about the overuse and misuse of the term
>"3D" rampant today, but I thought I'd share the latest one I
>saw:
>
>On the box for a PC sound board (i.e. like a SoundBlaster):
>
>                    "3D Stereo Sound!"
>
>I wish I was making this up...
>
I don't know what sound board he was looking at, but the term
may be more applicable than you think:  The latest thing in PC
sound processing is "positional" processing to create the im-
pression that a sound originates from a particular point anywhere
in the (3D) space around the user.  Doesn't seem outrageous
at all to me...

BTW, I think we advocates of stereo photography should bear in
mind that, as wonderful as stereo can be, in the best of circum-
stances it is still imperfect.  REAL 3D is what is referred to as
holography.  To make the point clear:  "2D" pictures have just
one perspective.  "Stereo" pictures have two.  "Holograms" have
infinitely many (effectively).  I'm not suggesting that we should
abandon stereo imaging, but the main reason not to abandon it
is that holography is still too complex and limiting.  The people
who think of stereo pictures as something like a "cheap trick"
are not that far wrong.  In fact, stereo imaging can be compared
to stereo audio recording versus live performance, and it doesn't
compare well.  Stereo audio is almost universally accepted
while stereo imaging is the domain of a few... how could you
describe us?  In both cases the argument goes that there are
two sensors (2 eyes, 2 ears), so two sources should be
adequate.  But clearly, in both cases, this argument is
wrong!  Let he who is without sin...

Humbly,
Greg Marshall


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