Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

EmergeHolographic OP t1_j5iqgso wrote

??

It may not be stereoscopic parallax, but I do make these to be viewable with stereoscopes so it is stereoscopic by definition, if that's what you mean

−12

5Beans6 t1_j5iuela wrote

I like how you proved them right by trying to explain yourself

24

EmergeHolographic OP t1_j5iw1n7 wrote

It's more that there generally isn't a well fitting word for what I'm doing. "Stereoscopic" is the closest, though; "noting or pertaining to three-dimensional vision or any of various processes and devices for giving the illusion of depth from two-dimensional images or reproductions, as of a photograph or motion picture."

It accurately conveys the medium, viewing method and the intended subject, which is the symmetry. As long as I get those things across

−8

LordFondleJoy t1_j5iwj19 wrote

Except there is no illusion of depth here, thus not stereoscopic by your own referenced definition. It being able to be viewed through a stereoscope doth not stereoscopic make.

21