Re: Module naming -- processing 3D JPEG files...

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
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
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=be6h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----