PDA

View Full Version : The Ultimate Aspect Ratio For Panoramic Images



Pages : 1 [2] 3

jbbooks
04-18-2006, 04:37 PM
....well....

As far as exclusion, inclusion, there shouldn't be any. If a guys making negs with a 50mm lens on a 6X9 camera and trimming foreground and sky with a pair of scissors, it's probably a panorama.

It would be if it were two and a half times as wide as it was high! :)

Dan Fromm
04-18-2006, 05:49 PM
It would be if it were two and a half times as wide as it was high! :)How about a trimmed 6x9 shot taken with a 38 Biogon?

jimgalli
04-18-2006, 10:29 PM
How about a trimmed 6x9 shot taken with a 38 Biogon?

Of what Dan? Your toe nails? Uh-uh, I don't think so. :~'))

Dan Fromm
04-19-2006, 07:24 AM
Of what Dan? Your toe nails? Uh-uh, I don't think so. :~'))Well, they do wrap around a little.

But a 38 Biogon in Copal 0 will give a strip 81 mm x 24 mm that covers a bit over 90 degrees horizontally without vignetting. Whether one cuts the strip out of a nominal 6x9 frame is immaterial. Seems pretty panoramic to me, if a bit on the small side.

Shingoshi
09-26-2009, 07:56 PM
So what would you suggest as a definition of a panoramic image? One that spans at least 120 degrees horizontally? Should we not consider aspect ratio at all for the definition of a panoramic image?
But I think a good definition of panoramic would be any image where the vertical height is approximate to that of a 28mm lens (or wider), and having a horizontal width a minimum of 2x greater than it's height. Because I think the issue here is the perception of expanse in the horizontal plane. That being the case, the images produced MUST exaggerate a sense of immersion within the scene itself. It should simulate the perception produced by the periphery of the human eye.

EDIT: It should also be pointed out, that panoramic doesn't require the image to be anamorphic as is typical in film. Still photographers rarely if ever use anamorphic lenses in their work. Typically, they are the reserve of cinematographers. Anamorphic images in film mostly always have very wide aspect-ratios. But since those images can also be of very close-up subjects, they aren't panoramic. So that also implies panoramic must also refer to the scope of the surrounding environment in relation to the subject (or not having a specific one at all).

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

BetterSense
09-27-2009, 11:32 AM
What do you mean by "anamorphic"? I think I don't understand the word the way you are using it.

Mike1234
09-27-2009, 12:00 PM
Anamorphic lenses were (are?) used by the motion picture industry to first distort (squeeze) wider images onto film then the projectionist used a similar lens turned 90 dgrees to equally undistort (expand) the image at time of viewing. This allowed use of standard 135 movie cameras to make panoramic movies. The same technology can be applied to still photography with some success.

Sirius Glass
09-27-2009, 10:02 PM
I could take a panoramic photograph with a 30mm, 45mm or 90mm XPAN on 35mm film, if I had the XPAN camera.

OR

I could take a 38mm SWC, 50mm, 80mm ... Hasselblad lens, and make a 56mm x 56mm negative and crop it to 24mm high, the width of a 35mm film and the would still be panoramic photographs, right?

Steve

Shingoshi
09-28-2009, 12:53 AM
What do you mean by "anamorphic"? I think I don't understand the word the way you are using it.
I mean here those attachments or primes which squeeze the width of a scene into a smaller aspect ratio. So that you go from a 16:9 or higher to a 4:3 or even 1:1 square. I am referring to images as typically shown in theaters. They may have very wide aspect ratios. But those images can still be of an actor's face or some other similarly small field of view. I'm thinking of scenes from the movie "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" where images of Lee van Cleef and Clint Eastwood were portrayed in tight close-ups while maintaining the background in perspective. It highlighted the sense of the sinister nature of that film. For this reason I don't think the aspect ratio of an image can be used exclusively to determine what is classified as panoramic.

Given the popularity of digital photography and now High-Definition TV, I predict that many still photographers will begin considering the use of anamorphic lenses, since those captured images can easily be processed to be viewed as required. Consequently, the standard formats of photographs will no longer be valid. Instead it will become more and more common to see "prints" with aspect ratios taking advantage of the HDTV screens and wide computer monitors so prevalent today. And furthermore, there will be a negotiation of the boundaries between analog and digital photography, where the components of each are used together in conjunction.

I hope that explains what I meant.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

jbbooks
09-28-2009, 07:36 AM
...I could take a 38mm SWC, 50mm, 80mm ... Hasselblad lens, and make a 56mm x 56mm negative and crop it to 24mm high, the width of a 35mm film and the would still be panoramic photographs, right?

Steve

Well, no, not if you cropped it to 24mm high. I'm too lazy to go down and measure it, but if the nominal measurement for an XPan frame is 24mm x 68mm, then your cropped 6x6 (56mm x 56mm) frame will not be wide enough to match the XPan's aspect ratio if its height will be 24mm, nor would it have an aspect ratio equal to 1:2.5 or more.

Crop it to 22.4mm high and I will agree with you that it will be panoramic with an aspect ratio of 1:2.5 but, then, it will be smaller that an XPan image and that is already marginal in size, I think, for a usable panoramic image and it will not have the XPan's more desirable 1:2.833 aspect ratio.

Anyway, I think this thread got off on the wrong foot at the start, because it is a thread questioning how panoramic images should be defined where the definition for this category in the forum is for panoramic cameras, not images. It seems to me that the idea, when this category was defined, was to have a category of cameras that produced images with an aspect ratio of at least 1:2.5 and any camera, modification of a camera or technique that will produce an image meeting that standard qualifies for discussion in this category.

Mike1234
09-28-2009, 08:04 AM
What if I decide 2:5 is too wide for a given image and crop it to 1:2? Is that then an un-panoramic image? :) I'd hate to sell an image short just because it's not as long as its brethren. :D

Shingoshi
09-28-2009, 01:26 PM
What if I decide 2:5 is too wide for a given image and crop it to 1:2? Is that then an un-panoramic image? :) I'd hate to sell an image short just because it's not as long as its brethren. :D
I think there needs to be two separate and distinct terms applied here.
1.) Wide-format: Only describing the aspect-ratio of the image, without respect to angular coverage.
2.) Panoramic: Only describing the horizontal angular coverage of the image, without respect to linear aspect-ratio.

That would remove any possibility of further confusion. By having them separated we can immediately know which term applies to any given image. Because the Hasselblad SWC (which of course dates me) and it's Biogon 38mm lens provided the most expansive rectilinear and surrealistic scene of any other lens which didn't have a 35mm's 3:2 aspect-ratio. It would have been easily argued that the images of that lens were indeed panoramic.

On the other hand, putting a longer +200mm lens on a 6x17 or 6x12 camera might have a wide image, but wouldn't necessarily be panoramic. You could easily shot either of the aforementioned formats with any 5x7 or 4x5 view camera using a roll film back, while doing macro photography, and no one would consider the resulting images panoramic.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

Mike1234
09-28-2009, 01:57 PM
I think you have something there, Shingoshi. APUG should set minimum standards for both horizontal angle of view and aspect ratio. Anything outside of these set criteria are not panoramic images. Of course, that would eliminate quite a large percentage of images discussed here from qualifying as panoramic. What is to become of those falling outside the set criteria? Another spin-off forum?

Shingoshi
09-28-2009, 02:28 PM
I think you have something there, Shingoshi. APUG should set minimum standards for both horizontal angle of view and aspect ratio. Anything outside of these set criteria are not panoramic images. Of course, that would eliminate quite a large percentage of images discussed here from qualifying as panoramic. What is to become of those falling outside the set criteria? Another spin-off forum?
We only need to have the two distinct terms for universal understanding to remove any question of which term applies to any given image. I strongly believe both terms can exist in the same forum. They are not fundamentally exclusive. Because as I've already stated, there will be many instances of overlap between their application.

For instance, doing macro work with a large format camera using a wide aspect-ratio wouldn't be panoramic. As I thought about this further, I realize that we really need to consider in the definition of panoramic the inclusion of our perceived movement from foreground to background. This is where the perception of depth is essential. Images with shallow depth-of-field wouldn't be considered panoramic, while they could still be wide aspect-ratio. It is by depth that we typically perceive panorama. Otherwise, an image of a distant scene using a telephoto lens (with no included foreground) might be considered panoramic, simply by use of a wide aspect-ratio. For this reason, the terms must be distinct. One applied only to linearity, and the other only applied to angularity. But we don't need two separate forums to discuss them.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

Vaughn
09-28-2009, 02:50 PM
I make panoramic images occasionally -- usually 4x10 negs taken with anything from 6.25" to 24" lenses. Occasionally with multiple images (such as the panoramic of the Eastside Sierras I mentioned earlier using seven 6x7 negatives, using a 6" lens.) I consider these all to be panoramic and will continue to use the term. A very quick survey of panoramic groups on the net seems to indicate that these images are indeed considered "panoramic".

If one were to set criteria (hort angle/aspect ratio), such criteria would be 100% abitrary and subjective. There seems to be no objective, clear-cut definition of panoramic. Even setting it at an angle greater than one's eyes take in is questionable, since our eyes see a very small angle of clear vision -- our full field of vision (what we can see w/o moving our heads) is actually scanned by our eyes/brain to construct an over-all clear image.

So if one was to divide the treads, the most logical (IMO) way would be to have a separate threads on Panoramic cameras and on Panoramic images -- and not be picking nits about # of degrees or aspect ratios. Photos posted can be described in enough detail to help others know what is going on.

Vaughn

Mike1234
09-28-2009, 03:13 PM
I must have hidden my well-intended sarcasm ever so slightly too well. But... I'll leave it at that. :)

Vaughn
09-28-2009, 03:32 PM
Sorry, my sarcasm detector must be on the blink!:D

Vaughn

Shingoshi
09-28-2009, 03:34 PM
The term panoramic would be easily justified under my proposed definition when applied to multiple or continuous images shot with lenses having narrow angles of coverage. I mean taking the extreme, would you want to consider the images rendered by a medical or bore scope to be panoramic simply because the image was 360 degrees?

I still think the scale of depth must be included in the conversation.
Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

Shingoshi
09-28-2009, 03:42 PM
I think you have something there, Shingoshi. APUG should set minimum standards for both horizontal angle of view and aspect ratio. Anything outside of these set criteria are not panoramic images. Of course, that would eliminate quite a large percentage of images discussed here from qualifying as panoramic. What is to become of those falling outside the set criteria? Another spin-off forum?
But why was it called for to begin with? Is my following response to this post not adequate to dismiss the need for creating separate forums? Why was it necessary to assume that having separate and distinct terms automatically requires separate topics of discussion? But if you feel the need for sarcasm, so be it. I just think that segregation is often ineffective and unnecessary. Especially for things that by nature are inclined to overlap.

Regarding your sarcasm, parochialism isn't panoramic.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

Bruce Watson
09-28-2009, 04:49 PM
Making rules to describe a panoramic image as being 1 to 2.5 needs to be changed.

I don't see why. Your argument isn't convincing and you don't offer a suitable replacement. The 1 : 2.5 ratio is an admittedly arbitrary number, but one that a majority of people agree on.

Perhaps you'd like one that has a better mathematical and historical precedence like 1 : sqrt(5) which is about 1 : 2.24. Used all the time (and for all time) in Japan as the aspect ratio for many of the famous and not so famous gardens, and also shows up a fair amount in nature and architecture. Similarly to how the golden ratio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio) shows up so much in nature and architecture.

So if you wanted to say that a panorama has to be at least 1 : 2.24, I could support that. But for me, no smaller.