P3D Audio VS Video

[markaren@xxxxxxxxx (Karen Obusek)]

A final counter-point if you will Greg Wageman, but I still cannot
relate audio terminology to photography despite your explanations to
conclude that they are similar. For example, lets use a stereo landscape
image and apply these terms: 
SEPARATION- I was referring to the playback mix, and not channel
separation. For example, in an audio mix we can increase or decrease the
volume of a guitar, and move the guitar " forward or backward" in the
mix without effecting the other instruments. ( yes, a general statement)
In photography we cannot move the tree forward, backward, left or right
after the image is recorded. So the term as I intended does not apply to
photography.
CROSSTALK- is very very rarely recognized in newer audio components and
in most cases is not audible. Ghosting is very noticable and
distracting. In audio crosstalk is often a measurable specification, and
ghosting is a strange and distracting variable that is noticable, but
not expressed as a spec.
FREQUENCY RESPONSE- in audio we can select specific frequencies of
different instruments and change them before or after the recording. In
photography we can change color temperatures within limits but the
entire photo is affected. For example we cannot use a filter to " warm"
the sky and at the same time make the water appear " colder" (unless of
course we use my gel effects:-) )
Audio and photo terms are related to the extent that the sensation of "
taste" and " hearing" are related. Both senses require skin, nerves,
blood supply, a stimuli etc. I still think it's a s t r e t c h to
compare audio and photo terms as equivalents.                      Mark
Dottle


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