P3D ISU and "Stereoscopy"

[Project3D@xxxxxxx]

Don Wratten wrote with regard to the new Glossary of Terms:

<< My remaining task is to offer the finished Glossary to the Editor of
 Stereoscopy for him to consider how best to promulgate it.   It will become
 the intellectual property of the ISU, and I would doubt very much that they
 would decide to publish it on the Internet.  After all, the ISU depends on
 its subscriptions from individual members for its very existence and receipt
 of Stereoscopy is their main benefit.  How many people would continue to
 subscribe if the value of membership were diminished by making its property
 so widely available without charge? >>

Which gave me pause for thought. 

Recently, "Stereoscopy" has degenerated into a shadow of its former self. The 
last issue is a prime example!

The biggest event in the ISU calendar is the ISU Congress which is held every 
two years. As not every member can attend every Congress, one would expect a 
full report of this event in the ISU's publication, which Don says is the 
prime benefit of membership. 

And the recent issue did have a report. 5 pages long with six stereo pairs. 
Now, it may not be the fault of the editor, but the illustrations to this 
article were reproduced rather dark with density variations across the 
frames. One was clearly made with a beamsplitter, with excessive and obvious 
distortions.

So what else was in this issue?

Well, apart from the President's message and a "letter to the editor" there 
was a piece on the ISU card circuit and another on the PSA Stereo Image of 
the Year. Then came a 3 page piece from Allan Griffin continuing his camera 
twinning article.

Finally there was an article, over ten pages long, about the Paris Air Show. 
This was illustrated with 15 nicely printed stereo pairs. 

Apart from the images, there was nothing in this article of stereo interest.

So, out of a total of 26 editorial pages, we have ten (about 40%) that are 
not stereo related.

Perhaps it is co-incidental that these ten are from the editor?

Anyway, I (personally) would have preferred a proper report in the Congress 
(I wondered if I had been at the same Congress as the writer...) and less 
unrelated material.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated issue where reports of non stereo 
events are printed in preference to stereo items.

Personally, I question whether this journal is a benefit of membership!

Perhaps the Glossary will make that issue worthwhile. Or will the editor 
print it over several issues in order to make room for his non-stereo related 
pieces?

Bob Aldridge