It's '3-D' - **NOT** '3D' - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 49 Old 07-16-2010, 08:26 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Vincent Shaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Of all the ideosyncracies which have emerged during this Bright New Dawn of digital 3-D, the one thing that has become depressingly familiar to long-time fans of stereoscopic movies like myself is the incorrect use of the phrase '3D' to describe dimensional imagery.

The phrase '3D' refers to 2-D (not '2D') images which are rendered in such a way as to suggest the appearance of depth within the frame, such as Pixar's early CGI animated movies. '3-D' is the full, correct phrase to describe true stereoscopic imagery of any kind.

Though Variety is often cited as the originator of the phrase '3-D', author R.M. Hayes asserts that British technician Raymond Spottiswoode (responsible for several 3-D shorts which premiered at the Festival of Britain in 1951, pre-dating that decade's Hollywood boom) was responsible for first coining the phrase, way back in the mists of time.

It's a small thing, the loss of that dash in the middle of the phrase, and no doubt I'll be chided (benevolently, I hope) for obsessing over 'details'. But I'd argue this isn't a detail: It's like talking about having a cup of 'cofee' and a slice of 'buter' and 'bred', before heading out into the rain with my trusty 'umbrela', and so on and so forth. It's simply wrong, wrong, wrong.

So we're stuck with 'Real-D 3D' and 'Dolby Digital 3D', and sub-forums like this one devoted to all things '3D'...

No, it's 3-D. Accept no substitutes.

Tsk! Raining again! I'll need my umbrela and makintosh, otherwise I'll catch my death of neumonia...
Vincent Shaw is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 49 Old 07-16-2010, 08:36 AM
Advanced Member
 
JamesN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Shaw View Post

...No, it's 3-D. Accept no substitutes....

Hi Vincent,
Does this mean that you'll be eschewing any 3-D Blu-ray purchases, since the BDA left the hyphen out when they ratified the "Blu-ray 3D" logo?
JamesN is offline  
post #3 of 49 Old 07-16-2010, 09:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bdraw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Tampa FL 33629
Posts: 2,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I disagree completely. The dash is completely unnecessary because it does not have the general acceptable meaning that you imply.

If you ask 10 AVS forum readers and ask them to explain the difference in meaning between 3D and 3-D, I doubt any of them would agree with your definition.

I do agree that the distinction between 3D rendered content like CGI movies and stereoscopic 3D is needed, just not that the dash conveys that.

Ben
How good could it be if it isn't HD?
Engadget HD
bdraw is offline  
post #4 of 49 Old 07-16-2010, 09:55 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Shaw View Post

Of all the ideosyncracies which have emerged during this Bright New Dawn of digital 3-D, the one thing that has become depressingly familiar to long-time fans of stereoscopic movies like myself is the incorrect use of the phrase '3D' to describe dimensional imagery.

The phrase '3D' refers to 2-D (not '2D') images which are rendered in such a way as to suggest the appearance of depth within the frame, such as Pixar's early CGI animated movies. '3-D' is the full, correct phrase to describe true stereoscopic imagery of any kind.

Though Variety is often cited as the originator of the phrase '3-D', author R.M. Hayes asserts that British technician Raymond Spottiswoode (responsible for several 3-D shorts which premiered at the Festival of Britain in 1951, pre-dating that decade's Hollywood boom) was responsible for first coining the phrase, way back in the mists of time.

It's a small thing, the loss of that dash in the middle of the phrase, and no doubt I'll be chided (benevolently, I hope) for obsessing over 'details'. But I'd argue this isn't a detail: It's like talking about having a cup of 'cofee' and a slice of 'buter' and 'bred', before heading out into the rain with my trusty 'umbrela', and so on and so forth. It's simply wrong, wrong, wrong.

So we're stuck with 'Real-D 3D' and 'Dolby Digital 3D', and sub-forums like this one devoted to all things '3D'...

No, it's 3-D. Accept no substitutes.

Tsk! Raining again! I'll need my umbrela and makintosh, otherwise I'll catch my death of neumonia...

Makes no difference.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #5 of 49 Old 07-16-2010, 10:34 AM
Senior Member
 
thebat68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Both are actually correct. I looked at a dictionary from several sources and each have both 3D and 3-D. I have been watching 3D 3-D movies since the 80's and I have seen both used.
thebat68 is offline  
post #6 of 49 Old 07-16-2010, 11:38 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Vincent Shaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdraw View Post

The dash is completely unnecessary because it does not have the general acceptable meaning that you imply.

No, the dash isn't set in stone, but it was coined in the early 1950's as short-hand for emerging 3-D technologies and was used extensively during the period. Not by everyone and in every circumstance, you understand, but enough for 3-D die-hards like myself to recognize the difference.

True, there's no entry in the Oxford English Dictionary which says '3D' is this and '3-D' is that. But since the phrase 3-D was initially established to differentiate stereoscopic images from everything else (long before 2D animated movies were first described as '3D'), I'd argue there's merit in my original posting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdraw View Post

If you ask 10 AVS forum readers and ask them to explain the difference in meaning between 3D and 3-D, I doubt any of them would agree with your definition.

I'm not sure how much the majority of AVS readers know about the history of 3-D, so I'd be surprised if this wasn't the first time they'd heard this issue being debated at all. A lot of people seem to think 3-D started with BEOWULF in 2007, and while that may not be true of most readers around here, debate on this issue - and others - is inevitable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdraw View Post

I do agree that the distinction between 3D rendered content like CGI movies and stereoscopic 3D is needed, just not that the dash conveys that.

History tells another story. As with all 3-D booms of the past, today's filmmakers (and those who commentate on them) seem to think we're in the middle of something 'new'. That being the case, the phrase '3D' may be a way for some people and organizations to define modern stereoscopy. But there's nothing remotely new about the way 3-D movies are done today, which renders the insistence on '3D' somewhat hollow.

And while the dash may not instantly convey the difference between '3-D' and '3D', especially to those who may be unaware of stereoscopic history, it's still true that the phrase '3-D' was coined half a century ago as shorthand for three-dimensional films and images. 21st century AVS readers may debate its merits, but those of us with slightly longer memories know that '3-D' stands for stereoscopy and '3D' stands for 'flat' images rendered in a three-dimensional manner.
Vincent Shaw is offline  
post #7 of 49 Old 07-16-2010, 11:39 AM
Advanced Member
 
Steve P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I've got a collection of lobby cards, one sheets and other items for 1950's 3-D movies and both 3-D and 3D were used on the various advertising.

That said, I prefer 3-D myself!
Steve P. is offline  
post #8 of 49 Old 07-16-2010, 11:42 AM
Member
 
jrg478's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
i say who cares just give us content
jrg478 is offline  
post #9 of 49 Old 07-16-2010, 11:44 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Vincent Shaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesN View Post

Hi Vincent,
Does this mean that you'll be eschewing any 3-D Blu-ray purchases, since the BDA left the hyphen out when they ratified the "Blu-ray 3D" logo?

Nah, I'll still be picking up A CHRISTMAS CAROL when it's released later this year. You could say, in spite of the lack of a dash in '3D', I'll still be dashing to the store to buy a copy!

(Would AVS members please observe a moment's silence for that last gag? Thank you)
Vincent Shaw is offline  
post #10 of 49 Old 07-16-2010, 03:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 3,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Shaw View Post

Of all the ideosyncracies which have emerged during this Bright New Dawn of digital 3-D, the one thing that has become depressingly familiar to long-time fans of stereoscopic movies like myself is the incorrect use of the phrase '3D' to describe dimensional imagery.

It's "longtime", as an adjective, **NOT** "long-time".

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #11 of 49 Old 07-16-2010, 05:54 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
It's . . . S3D!
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #12 of 49 Old 07-16-2010, 08:08 PM
Senior Member
 
advocate2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vegas, baby
Posts: 391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
OMG!!!!

Someone quick tell D* that their channel guide is incorrect. All their advertising is incorrect. They call their 24-7 channel n3D!!!!!!!!!
advocate2 is offline  
post #13 of 49 Old 07-17-2010, 06:20 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Shaw View Post

Of all the ideosyncracies which have emerged during this Bright New Dawn of digital 3-D, the one thing that has become depressingly familiar to long-time fans of stereoscopic movies like myself is the incorrect use of the phrase '3D' to describe dimensional imagery.

The phrase '3D' refers to 2-D (not '2D') images which are rendered in such a way as to suggest the appearance of depth within the frame, such as Pixar's early CGI animated movies. '3-D' is the full, correct phrase to describe true stereoscopic imagery of any kind.

Though Variety is often cited as the originator of the phrase '3-D', author R.M. Hayes asserts that British technician Raymond Spottiswoode (responsible for several 3-D shorts which premiered at the Festival of Britain in 1951, pre-dating that decade's Hollywood boom) was responsible for first coining the phrase, way back in the mists of time.

It's a small thing, the loss of that dash in the middle of the phrase, and no doubt I'll be chided (benevolently, I hope) for obsessing over 'details'. But I'd argue this isn't a detail: It's like talking about having a cup of 'cofee' and a slice of 'buter' and 'bred', before heading out into the rain with my trusty 'umbrela', and so on and so forth. It's simply wrong, wrong, wrong.

So we're stuck with 'Real-D 3D' and 'Dolby Digital 3D', and sub-forums like this one devoted to all things '3D'...

No, it's 3-D. Accept no substitutes.

Tsk! Raining again! I'll need my umbrela and makintosh, otherwise I'll catch my death of neumonia...

Yours is a noble quest, My Lord. I shall join thee and this shall be our song:

Hear me now
Oh thou bleak and unbearable world,
Thou art base and debauched as can be;
And a knight with his banners all bravely unfurled
Now hurls down his gauntlet to thee!
I am I, Vincent Shaw-aw,
The Lord of 3-D-eee,
My destiny calls and I go,
And the wild winds of fortune
Will carry me onward,
Oh whithersoever they blow.
Whithersoever they blow,
Onward to glory I go!


Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
post #14 of 49 Old 07-17-2010, 06:52 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Vincent Shaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Look at it this way: '3-D' is shorthand (or 'short-hand', if you prefer) for the phrase 'three-dimensional', which can be written with or without a dash. However, that space in the middle of the phrase has to be addressed in the shorthand version, because '3 D' doesn't look right, so a dash was applied.

Et voila!: 3-D.

Not '3D'. Not '3d'.

3-D.

The phrase isn't 'threedimensional', and it would look pretty silly if you wrote it that way. And since '3D' can only be shorthand for 'threedimensional', it's obvious why '3-D' (ie. 'three-dimensional') was chosen as standard.

Over the years, '3D' has been used as shorthand by CGI animators to describe 2D footage rendered in such a way as to suggest depth within the frame. This has led to great confusion, especially in recent years, because films have been announced as '3D CGI', only for many of them to be produced and released in standard 2-D only. If nothing else, that dash is a convenient way of distinguishing between the two formats. N'est pas?

See? Not only am I a font of 3-D knowledge, I'm a master of foreign languages, too!...
Vincent Shaw is offline  
post #15 of 49 Old 07-17-2010, 06:54 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Vincent Shaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

Yours is a noble quest, My Lord. I shall join thee and this shall be our song:

Hear me now
Oh thou bleak and unbearable world,
Thou art base and debauched as can be;
And a knight with his banners all bravely unfurled
Now hurls down his gauntlet to thee!
I am I, Vincent Shaw-aw,
The Lord of 3-D-eee,
My destiny calls and I go,
And the wild winds of fortune
Will carry me onward,
Oh whithersoever they blow.
Whithersoever they blow,
Onward to glory I go!


Thumthing tellth me you aren't taking my pleath even remotely theriouthly...
Vincent Shaw is offline  
post #16 of 49 Old 07-17-2010, 07:05 AM
Advanced Member
 
BlackShark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Montpellier, France
Posts: 580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
There is no difference between 3D, 3-D, "Real""true" 3D (whatever "real" or "true" would mean), because none of the words describe the medium. They are just quick shortcuts used because they are easy understand and to remember for anyone.
Whenever you use the "D" word you just need to remember you speak in a specific context that does not work in other contexts.

You want to be precise with your names ? What 3D is all about is two different 2D pictures, each only shown to the proper eye. The true name for the technology is Stereoscopy : stereoscopic TV, stereoscopic film, stereoscopic video game, and so on...


Yes Ste-re-o-sco-pic is a long and annoying word to use and Yes there is a big problem if you try to shorten this word : stereo is already widely used and accepted as a shortcut for stereophony, so people just prefer "3D"

So what ? have you ever heard about the problems related to the word "convergence" in stereoscopic jargon ?

Or outside of purely "3D" stuff, an other funny one is "interlacing"
(it's even more funny in languages where the word "interleave" does not have any equivalent like my native language)

Passive 3D, forever !
My Full-HD dual-projector passive polarised 3D setup. (really out of date ! I need to update it some day...)

BlackShark is offline  
post #17 of 49 Old 07-17-2010, 08:01 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Vincent Shaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackShark View Post

There is no difference between 3D, 3-D, "Real""true" 3D (whatever "real" or "true" would mean), because none of the words describe the medium.

Not sure what you mean, since '3-D' does describe the medium, via shorthand. As you say:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackShark View Post

They are just quick shortcuts used because they are easy understand and to remember for anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackShark View Post

You want to be precise with your names ? What 3D is all about is two different 2D pictures, each only shown to the proper eye. The true name for the technology is Stereoscopy : stereoscopic TV, stereoscopic film, stereoscopic video game, and so on...

Again, not sure what you mean, since the word 'stereoscopic' doesn't invalidate use of the phrase '3-D'. One is the more accurate term, the other is useful shorthand, nothing more or less. But since '3-D' is the phrase used most frequently by people to describe their experience of dimensional movies ("Hey, we saw AVATAR in 3-D last night!", rather than: "Hey, we saw AVATAR in stereoscopic three-dimensions last night!"), I'm simply saying '3-D' is the more accurate written rendition of the phrase, for all the reasons I've given in previous posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackShark View Post

Yes Ste-re-o-sco-pic is a long and annoying word to use and Yes there is a big problem if you try to shorten this word : stereo is already widely used and accepted as a shortcut for stereophony, so people just prefer "3D"

No argument, except to say that '3D' is short for 'threedimensional', which is clearly incorrect, whereas '3-D' is short for 'three-dimensional', the original phrase from which the shorthand version was borne.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackShark View Post

So what ?

We're not splitting the atom here, merely debating semantics, nothing too heavy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackShark View Post

have you ever heard about the problems related to the word "convergence" in stereoscopic jargon ?

No, definitely lost me there.
Vincent Shaw is offline  
post #18 of 49 Old 07-17-2010, 08:37 AM
Member
 
wstaffor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Shaw View Post

Of all the ideosyncracies which have emerged during this Bright New Dawn of digital 3-D, the one thing that has become depressingly familiar to long-time fans of stereoscopic movies like myself is the incorrect use of the phrase '3D' to describe dimensional imagery.

The phrase '3D' refers to 2-D (not '2D') images which are rendered in such a way as to suggest the appearance of depth within the frame, such as Pixar's early CGI animated movies. '3-D' is the full, correct phrase to describe true stereoscopic imagery of any kind.

Though Variety is often cited as the originator of the phrase '3-D', author R.M. Hayes asserts that British technician Raymond Spottiswoode (responsible for several 3-D shorts which premiered at the Festival of Britain in 1951, pre-dating that decade's Hollywood boom) was responsible for first coining the phrase, way back in the mists of time.

It's a small thing, the loss of that dash in the middle of the phrase, and no doubt I'll be chided (benevolently, I hope) for obsessing over 'details'. But I'd argue this isn't a detail: It's like talking about having a cup of 'cofee' and a slice of 'buter' and 'bred', before heading out into the rain with my trusty 'umbrela', and so on and so forth. It's simply wrong, wrong, wrong.

So we're stuck with 'Real-D 3D' and 'Dolby Digital 3D', and sub-forums like this one devoted to all things '3D'...

No, it's 3-D. Accept no substitutes.

Tsk! Raining again! I'll need my umbrela and makintosh, otherwise I'll catch my death of neumonia...

I'm sure that you are very popular and have many friends in real life.
wstaffor is offline  
post #19 of 49 Old 07-17-2010, 10:17 AM
Member
 
Abilor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm actually going to chime in as a fellow grammar nazi and someone who uses writing to make a living. I have been confused in the past because of this very issue while researching the nvidia 3dtv play drivers. Many games or drivers will claim to do 3d, but they are of course referring to the rendering engine and not actually stereoscopy.

I join Vincent Shaw in suggesting that professional writing should adopt the convention. I myself will in professional writing. That said, for forum use, I'm sure you'll catch me typing '3D' and not thinking twice.

If others ask, I will explain. I think this is a valid method for clarity and to communicate the distinction.

Carry on, Vincent Shaw.
Abilor is offline  
post #20 of 49 Old 07-17-2010, 10:27 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Vincent Shaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abilor View Post

I'm actually going to chime in as a fellow grammar nazi and someone who uses writing to make a living. I have been confused in the past because of this very issue while researching the nvidia 3dtv play drivers. Many games or drivers will claim to do 3d, but they are of course referring to the rendering engine and not actually stereoscopy.

I join Vincent Shaw in suggesting that professional writing should adopt the convention. I myself will in professional writing. That said, for forum use, I'm sure you'll catch me typing '3D' and not thinking twice.

If others ask, I will explain. I think this is a valid method for clarity and to communicate the distinction.

While I'm not sure about the 'grammar nazi' bit (where's the 'clasping-back-of-hand-to-forehead' emoticon when you really need it?!), all those highlighted sections of Abilor's post attests to much of what I've been saying. '3-D' (true stereoscopy) and '3D' (the suggestion of stereoscopy on a 2-D canvas) are two separate things and should be treated as such.

It's like the difference between the words 'there' and 'their' - both sound the same, but they have totally different meanings.
Vincent Shaw is offline  
post #21 of 49 Old 07-17-2010, 12:01 PM
 
quickfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NorthEast Tennessee
Posts: 1,381
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
three-deee....how's that? ;-)
quickfire is offline  
post #22 of 49 Old 07-17-2010, 01:43 PM
Advanced Member
 
BlackShark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Montpellier, France
Posts: 580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
My point of view is that neither 3D, or 3-D or the idea of having "three-dimensions" describe the medium or even the actual effect produced on screen. It's just a marketing term.

A 3D picture doesn't have depth. It's two normal very flat pictures.
A 3D TV or monitor or projector system does not display your picture at a variable depth, it only displays stuff flat on the screen surface just like a normal TV does and yet these new displays are sold as 3DTVs 3D-monitors 3D-projectors. It makes no sense and yet everybody understands (unless you are young enough to learn the distinction between 2D video games vs 3D video games before hearing about the difference between conventional cinema/TV and 3D cinema/TV)

The word "stereoscopy" actually describes something real which is exactly what is happening and is not mistakable with anything else by definition.
James Cameron uses simply the word "stereo" (he mentioned this naming issue in a few interviews)
Most gamers that regularly play games in 3D call it "S3D" short for "stereo 3D", in order to make the difference in this world which already uses the word 3D all the time for describing the picture computer generating method.


This real phenomenon vs marketing naming difference reminds me about holograms, what they really are and what people think when they hear the word hologram (especially in the context of a TV).
We're going to have some real naming fun when Holographic displays (that produce light virtually at the proper depth through light interference coming from a support behind the picture) and true 3D displays (that produce light physically in the air at the proper depth, which people usually call holograms) will be commercially available.

The mention I made about the word convergence as stereoscopic jargon is that this word is an extremely important term that is used to speak about something that ties the amount of separation each object has in a stereo system and which defines the position of the zero parallax point (an object displayed at that point is displayed as at screen depth).
Everybody uses the word convergence when setting up the cameras but nobody agrees on whether you are taking about a camera angle, a distance to the camera centre-line crossing, the position of the zero parallax point as reproduced on the screen or the intended amount of the viewer's eye crossing. They are all very closely tied, they are measured differently, have different values but they are all called "convergence".
You'll find convergence settings in video game drivers that convert 3D games into stereo 3D games (like Nvidia 3D vision drivers, iZ3D drivers and DDD tridef drivers). It is an option that allows the user to modify the amount of depth vs pop-out of the picture being displayed, it's goal is similar in all 3 software but behaves differently in all three of them.

Passive 3D, forever !
My Full-HD dual-projector passive polarised 3D setup. (really out of date ! I need to update it some day...)

BlackShark is offline  
post #23 of 49 Old 07-18-2010, 05:44 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Vincent Shaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackShark View Post

My point of view is that neither 3D, or 3-D or the idea of having "three-dimensions" describe the medium or even the actual effect produced on screen. It's just a marketing term.

A 3D picture doesn't have depth. It's two normal very flat pictures.
A 3D TV or monitor or projector system does not display your picture at a variable depth, it only displays stuff flat on the screen surface just like a normal TV does and yet these new displays are sold as 3DTVs 3D-monitors 3D-projectors. It makes no sense and yet everybody understands (unless you are young enough to learn the distinction between 2D video games vs 3D video games before hearing about the difference between conventional cinema/TV and 3D cinema/TV)

The word "stereoscopy" actually describes something real which is exactly what is happening and is not mistakable with anything else by definition.
James Cameron uses simply the word "stereo" (he mentioned this naming issue in a few interviews)

It seems we aren't at odds as far as the detail of your post goes, since I accept what you say about 3-D pictures not having depth, whereas 'stereoscopy' is a more accurate description of the technology.

But as I mentioned in an earlier post, most people use the spoken phrase '3-D' rather than 'stereoscopy'. What we're actually debating is nothing more than the dash in the middle of the figures '3' and 'D' whenever the phrase is used in printed text!

History - and, I'd argue, common sense - tells us that '3-D' is a shortened version of the phrase 'three-dimensional' (as far as true stereoscopic images are concerned), whereas '3D' translates as 'threedimensional', which clearly isn't right. '3-D' was coined in the 1950's for a very specific reason.

We see the credit '3D' used all the time in many of the early (non-stereoscopic) CGI animated movies, never '3-D'. The latter phrase is shorthand for true stereoscopy, the former is 2-D rendered in such a way as to suggest depth within a flat image.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackShark View Post

The mention I made about the word convergence as stereoscopic jargon is that this word is an extremely important term that is used to speak about something that ties the amount of separation each object has in a stereo system and which defines the position of the zero parallax point (an object displayed at that point is displayed as at screen depth).

Everybody uses the word convergence when setting up the cameras but nobody agrees on whether you are taking about a camera angle, a distance to the camera centre-line crossing, the position of the zero parallax point as reproduced on the screen or the intended amount of the viewer's eye crossing. They are all very closely tied, they are measured differently, have different values but they are all called "convergence".

You'll find convergence settings in video game drivers that convert 3D games into stereo 3D games (like Nvidia 3D vision drivers, iZ3D drivers and DDD tridef drivers). It is an option that allows the user to modify the amount of depth vs pop-out of the picture being displayed, it's goal is similar in all 3 software but behaves differently in all three of them.

Ah, now I getcha.
Vincent Shaw is offline  
post #24 of 49 Old 07-20-2010, 12:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Having different meanings for 3D and 3-D will be a problem when you have to say it because they will both sound the same - unless you pronounce the dash.

So stereoscopic or stereoscopic 3D I think is a lot better because it's more accurate and you can say it out aloud and people can distinguish it (or stereo 3D - like James Cameron says - if that didn't get confused with stereo sound).

This will also help to distinguish it from real (or more real) 3D displays when they become available that are better than stereoscopic.
Joe Bloggs is online now  
post #25 of 49 Old 07-20-2010, 07:11 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Vincent Shaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Having different meanings for 3D and 3-D will be a problem when you have to say it because they will both sound the same - unless you pronounce the dash.

So stereoscopic or stereoscopic 3D I think is a lot better because it's more accurate and you can say it out aloud and people can distinguish it (or stereo 3D - like James Cameron says - if that didn't get confused with stereo sound).

This will also help to distinguish it from real (or more real) 3D displays when they become available that are better than stereoscopic.

I understand what you're saying, Joe, but this debate is really about the written version of the phrase. Obviously, it sounds the same when you say it, no matter which meaning you're trying to convey (either 3-D stereoscopy or 2-D images employing 3D graphics).

But the written version is something very different, because the two versions really do mean something different, like the words 'their' and 'there' (for example).
Vincent Shaw is offline  
post #26 of 49 Old 07-20-2010, 07:29 AM
Advanced Member
 
JamesN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Vincent,
While I appreciate your passion on the subject, and even more so your respect for historical accuracy, I fear that your quest has little chance of gaining much traction, given that the content providers, the equipment manufacturers, and even the BDA itself, have seemingly all adopted 3D with no hyphen.

I also suspect that topics such as this will cease to occupy our time once we have more actual content to keep us busy, be it 3D or 3-D.
James
JamesN is offline  
post #27 of 49 Old 07-20-2010, 08:16 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Vincent Shaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesN View Post

Vincent,
While I appreciate your passion on the subject, and even more so your respect for historical accuracy, I fear that your quest has little chance of gaining much traction, given that the content providers, the equipment manufacturers, and even the BDA itself, have seemingly all adopted 3D with no hyphen.

True, but the point is still worth making, even if the odds are against me. From little acorns, oak trees grow...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesN View Post

I also suspect that topics such as this will cease to occupy our time once we have more actual content to keep us busy, be it 3D or 3-D.

I couldn't agree more! The topic will always be valid, so long as manufacturers and content-providers continue to get it 'wrong' re: 3-D or 3D, but what truly matters at the end of the day is Content. And the fact that Content is spotty at best, at this early stage in the history of 'true' 3-D at home, is more troubling than our debate over this small(ish) issue.
Vincent Shaw is offline  
post #28 of 49 Old 07-20-2010, 08:53 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
walford's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 16,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
The fundamental problem is that the US Consumer Electroincs Association does absolutly nothing to try and establish documentation standards of any kind on their TV manufacturer members.
walford is offline  
post #29 of 49 Old 07-20-2010, 10:46 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Vincent Shaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by walford View Post

The fundamental problem is that the US Consumer Electroincs Association does absolutly nothing to try and establish documentation standards of any kind on their TV manufacturer members.

It would be a big help if such an august body were to standardize the relevant phraseology, although I suspect if they did, they'd probably throw history out the window and go with '3D'. Aaaaaarrrgghhhhh!!, etc.
Vincent Shaw is offline  
post #30 of 49 Old 07-20-2010, 10:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Augerhandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,573
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 47
I'm just thankful that we don't have to deal with "SonyVision" or "MitsuVision" or especially "SamsungVision". (Panavision is already taken)

"The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others"-Tibetan Proverb
 
Augerhandle is offline  
Reply 3D Content

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off