P3D Re: Terminology, Re P3D Changing Terms

[abram klooswyk <abram.klooswyk@xxxxxx>]

Donald Wratten wrote (PHOTO-3D Digest 3038, 23 Oct 1998):
> (...) in honour of its inventor, I am now proposing that the 
> 41x101 mount size should be identified as the <Rochwite mount>.
 
Bob_Maxey wrote (PHOTO-3D Digest 3039, 23 Oct 1998):
>I am not sure I agree with changing something that is already a 
>standard term. Just my opinion. I see examples of what can happen 
>when established terms get changed or applied incorrectly. 
>To me, "Realist Format" means a specific thing.

In 1975, on the founding congress of the I.S.U. (Wageningen, the
Netherlands) it was decided to have an I.S.U. technical committee.
I proposed that terminology should be on of its issues, and I started
by sending copies of the glossaries then available to the other members
of the committee. In my opinion the one by Bill Dalgoutte was the 
best of them. (Dalgoutte was not only Hon. General Secretary but 
also editor of the Stereoscopic Society Bulletin, in that time the 
best there was on technical subjects, he published articles as 
"the Professor" which I liked very much, Koo Ferwerda based several
ideas on those articles).
There was also a German stereo terminology list, which even was 
adopted as official DIN Standard (DIN is comparable to the American 
ASA), but that list showed a number of flaws in my opinion.
We had a first terminology discussion on the Paris-St. MandÈ 
congress in 1976. 
Donald has given a summary of what happened thereafter.

Bob Maxey has hesitations on Donald's proposal for the 41x101
mount. I agree that changing terms can be confusing, and it should
be clear that the I.S.U. has no authority whatsoever to settle 
anything in this field, contrary to the DIN for Germany. 
In for example physics many units have been named after persons, 
but that was decided by official international bodies. 
The international standard for 5P stereo gives no specific name 
for the mount, changing the standard will hardly be possible, or
take some decades.

The I.S.U. technical committee no longer exists, but the I.S.U. 
council seems not the forum to settle anything on terminology.
Terminology definition generally has two problems:
1. Language. Obviously a multilingual body cannot decide on the
   right terms or phrasing of definitions in any specific language.
2. Concepts. Again, we cannot have much confidence in the knowledge
   of the council on this point, although a few of its members are 
   among the experts.

So my suggestion would be that Donald posts his draft on P3D or T3D.
If it is too long, he maybe could send it by e-mail to interested 
persons (a procedure could be: publish a one month deadline in 
P3D and T3D, than send the draft in one mailing to all).

Coming back to the Subject, Bob Maxey is afraid of problems when 
'terms get changed or applied incorrectly'.
When he says ' "Realist Format" means a specific thing' I suppose 
he means the 41x101 outer dimensions of the mount and maybe all 
three mount aperture formats? Or also camera aperture size?
Or should 'format' be understood in its general sense, so including
camera design (35 mm lenses, 70 mm lens separation, 7 feet window).

You see, 'specific' is not necessarily specific to all. And indeed,
how to call the family of 41x101 mounts? From the 1950s on there 
were also Belplasca mounts 41x101, aperture format 23x28.
An objection to Donald's proposal could be that 'Rochwite mount' 
could *also* be understood as meaning inner as well as outer 
dimensions, so not including the 23x28 or other non-5P apertures. 

Still I like the proposal, I *will* use the term once it is adopted. 
Honouring Seton Rochwite in this way might also be some compensation
for the Stereo Realist Manual, a book wherein his name is hard to find.
As a personal note, I considered it an honour to sit next to Seton at 
the closing dinner of the I.S.U. congress in Arlington/Washington, 1985.

Abram Klooswyk


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 3041
***************************