P3D Re: Mister Expert

[roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)]

>Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 16:36:46 -0700
>From: Bob_Maxey@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: P3D Mister Expert

[Marvin]
>>>Obviously, the text is a perfect description of Chromadepth type 3D.
>>>The
>>>reference to "polaroid" glasses is typical of someone wanting to >>sound
>like
>>>more of an expert than they are. I have seen descriptions of >>"polaroid"
>>>glasses with red and blue lenses, "polaroid" glasses with dark and
>>>light
>>>lenses, and "polaroid" flickering glasses to watch those jittery TV
>>>images.

Actually, the quote forwarded by Dan Shelley used "polarizing", not "polaroid".
The impression I got from looking back at that quote was that the person
may have been more of a novice enthusiast than someone trying to sound like
an expert. I would prefer to gently correct such errors, much as I prefer to
gently correct those who refer to Holmes stereoscopes as "stereopticons".
I agree it *is* irritating that such errors in nomenclature have found their
way into common usage.

[Bob]
>Say, Mister Big Time Stereo Expert..... I have a number of sheets of
>Polaroid Red, Green, Blue and Amber Polarizer Material. So the description
>of "Polaroid glasses with red and blue lenses" can indeed be accurate.

But more relevant to this discussion, are you aware of any commercial
production of 3D glasses which use polarizers of different colors for
the two eyes, or do you have any reason to believe that Polaroid sold the
sheets of polarizing material with the expectation that it would be used
to make 3D glasses with lenses of different colors?

(Not saying it's impossible - I've seen some strange combinations, such
as Pulfrich glasses with one dark and one *tinted* lens, with the argument
that the coloration would somehow enhance the effect.)

John R


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 3143
***************************