Re: [photo-3d] Re: Telestereoscope

["John A. Rupkalvis" <stereoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

So what would you call that?  A lilliputiscope?  Or, how about, a
stereoliliputian?

JR

----- Original Message -----
From: "Abram Klooswyk" <abram.klooswyk@xxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 8:24 AM
Subject: [photo-3d] Re: Telestereoscope


> John A. Rupkalvis  Oct 22, 2000:
>
>
> >The word "ocular" originally was a medical term applied only
> >to biological eyes, but later was extended to lenses that we
> >look through to differentiate them from lenses or lens
> >elements elsewhere in an optical system.
>
> Indeed originally "ocular lenses" and "objective lenses".
> But "Interocular distance" of course still is used for
> interpupillary distance.
>
> >The telestereoscope was simply an earlier term for what later
> >became known as the binocular telescope, and in my mind is a
> >more descriptive term.
>
> Helmholtz' original telestereoscope indeed is adequately
> described by that term, but "telestereoscope" is since long
> also in use for instruments with only flat mirrors, which
> increase the stereo viewing base without magnification
> (then perceptually of course the reverse is true: lilliputism).
>
> Abram Klooswyk
>
>
>
>
>
>