P3D Re: PHOTO-3D digest 3166

[Bob_Maxey@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

3-D  - its overused, often misnomered, refering to anything
involving perspective, even when the depth dimension is completely
absent.

Part of the problem is ones viewpoint. I use several programs that create
objects that rotate, move from side to side and for all intents and
purposes, are in 3D. All 3D refers to is an object having height, width and
depth. To the Stereo Photographer, the depth must be stereoscopic depth and
not just an object that has perspective on the flat page.

All 3D games create play areas that have depth and the objects move around
in this depth, although it is still a flat image on a flat monitor. Its all
a matter of viewpoint. Creators of software that use the term '3D' are
justified in their claims of 3D. After all, that is the best way to
describe what is created.

I once did some screen shots of the Bridge in a Star Trek game. I arrange
the viewpoint like I wanted it, captured the screen and made a change in
viewpoint - a parallax shift if you will, and captured the other part of
what became a stereo pair. When viewed in the viewer, the bridge was in
Stereo. This was a game described as a 3D game and that was what it was.
All the required information for Stereoscopic views was there.

That is why the word Stereoscopic is so important. Stereoscopic has a
clearly defined meaning and there is no chance for confusion. 3D does not.
Hell, we now have Snack Chips being called 3D something or others, and we
have ads for toothbrushes referred to as 3D (what's that all about,
anyway?)

So, I guess what I am trying to say here is forget all the complaints about
people calling their products 3D. Any reasonable list member will
understand the difference between 3D (which might not be) and
Stereo/Stereoscopic.

RM



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