I'm sure you'll find a suitable compromise. My concern is the future - ensuring that the next format and/or packaging of multiple images has a place to fit. These things tend to evolve (complete with survivors and dead-ends.)
But Image::3D:: isn't the only way to express three-dimensional... there's alwaysImage::IiiD::, Image::TriD::, ... Which would give you something like Image::TriD::StereoPairs::MPO (You don't need to add :: unless you anticipate inheritance.) FWIW On 03-May-17 11:56, BC wrote: >> Is there a more general term than "Stereo", which implies 2: left >> and right? > > Well as it would apply to stereographic imaging, that would be > "binocular", which is definitely two and only two. But there is > a very strong association of that term with the paired telescopes > commonly called binoculars. > >> Not my field, obviously. But I do wonder if taking a second >> level namespace for this is the best choice... > > Your point about trying to narrow it down to image pairs is well > taken. Referring to the images themselves as 'stereo pairs' or > '3D pairs' is very common in the stereographic community. > >> What about other composite views that make an image appear to >> have depth/perspective? > > There are indeed other stereographic formats that can involve > more than two images. For example 3D lenticulars are best done > with arrays of at least 3 or more images and there have been many > 3D cameras that have been purpose-built for the technique: > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Nimslonew.jpg/300px-Nimslonew.jpg > > > http://www.3dham.com/stereo_cameras/Nishikacamera320.jpg > > And of course static 3D VR images, and 3D panoramic images can > also involve using an array of images beyond single pairs. > >> E.g. Hologram (Holo?) Is there a term that covers the space of >> all composite views and/or related images? > > It sometimes gets applied that way, but a hologram is a unique > and different process that yields a true 3 dimensional image of > an object not a scene. You can think of VR as an image that > surrounds the viewer, where with holography the viewer can > surround an object. > > And of course, 3D images can also be generated from 3D computer > modeling, and capturing depth maps. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_map > > https://phys.org/news/2016-06-imaging-technique-image-depth-monocular.html > > > As for the 2nd level, the term stereographic is certainly the > least ambiguous, since 'stereo' by itself is even more commonly > used to mean stereophonic. So you could do: > > Image::Stereographic::Pairs::MPO > Image::Stereographic::Pairs::JPS > Image::Stereographic::Pairs::JPG > > Image::Stereographic::Lenticular > Image::Stereographic::VR > Image::Stereographic::Holo > Image::Stereographic::DepthMap > > But this feels like something out of the Department of Redundancy > Dept. since what you are saying is "image-solid-image". (Stereo > is the Greek word for solid.) > > So alternatively, the more concise: > > Image::Stereo::Pairs::MPO > Image::Stereo::Pairs::JPS > Image::Stereo::Pairs::JPG > > Image::Stereo::Lenticular > Image::Stereo::VR > Image::Stereo::Holo > Image::Stereo::DepthMap > > Some would consider the following to be even more general and > thus better: > > Image::3D::Pairs::MPO > Image::3D::Pairs::JPS > Image::3D::Pairs::JPG > > Image::3D::Lenticular > Image::3D::VR > Image::3D::Holo > Image::3D::DepthMap > > But wouldn't this break the rule for an uppercase letter as the > first character? > > So I'm thinking the "stereo" 2nd level namespace proposal would > be a good balance between descriptiveness and brevity, and > taxonomically I think you can argue that "Image::Stereo" is > unambiguous. But "3D" looks good to me too, if it is allowed. > > ...BC >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
