Re: WWW-Paper on Stereo 3-D

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

>I think it's great to have both terms in the title - one is more precise,
>and one is better known. Put together, they make it entirely clear what's
>being discussed.

Oh, sucks John! (do I sound like Gabriel? :-)) Now you are trying to start
another of these long threads to keeps us (those who cannot make the NSA
convention) busy for a few days??? :-)

OK, "Stereographic" is not well known to the masses, and "Three-
Dimensional" is confused with other things that are not stereoscopic.
So, put both together and you have the best of all worlds, right?

Well, sorry but it does not sound right to me.  If one is used as an
explanation or clarification of the other, e.g. by placing it in
parenthesis, like "Stereoscopic (Three-Dimensional) Displays" that's
OK.  But it is not OK if they are both thrown in our face as if they
mean different things, as in "a stereoscopic three-dimensional camera",
or "I am shooting stereo 3d pictures".

A small point... but...

-- George Themelis


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