Re: Replies to WWW-paper

[P3D Morris B. Holbrook <mbh3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Just before leaving for England two weeks ago, I posted a message to
Photo-3d concerning a WWW-paper on stereo 3-D displays with plenty of
visual illustrations that I have recently put onto a Web server at:

     http://takeo.kulab.sfc.keio.ac.jp/~Morris

I wish to thank the several people who responded with questions and
encouragement.  Mostly, I am answering them individually rather than
taking up space on the Photo-3d newsgroup.  However, I did wish to
mention the issue raised and discussed by Dr. T and John Roberts.

Specifically, these gentlemen argued a bit about whether the terms
"stereographic three-dimensional" and/or "stereo 3-D" are redundant.  In
a sense, I agree with Dr. T that, ideally, they mean the same thing and
do not need repeating.  However, I think that John R is correct that,
rhetorically, it may help to combine them.  The reason is simply that
many of my readers/viewers (though, of course, *not* members of
Photo-3d) do not really understand terms such as "stereographic" or
"stereoscopic" or "stereopsis" without a lot of instruction (which they
will never be patient enough to receive unless they first comprehend
that it has something to do with seeing in depth).  Meanwhile,
unfortunately, the term "3D" has been much abused to refer to quasi-3D
or good perspective or 2.5-D or (in short)
what-looks-good-on-the-video-screen-at-the-game-arcade.  Hence, there is
some confusion out there about what these words mean and, therefore,
some room for clarifying at the expense of a little redundancy.

I hope that most readers/viewers will agree.  If not, you can always
speed-read your way past the extra verbiage.

Thanks again to those who responded.
-- 
Morris B. Holbrook, Apt. 5H, 140 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10024
phone --  212-873-7324
e-mail --  mailto:mbh3@xxxxxxxxxxxx
website --  http://www.columbia.edu/~mbh3/


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