PDA

View Full Version : The Ultimate Aspect Ratio For Panoramic Images



Pages : 1 2 [3]

Shingoshi
09-28-2009, 05:09 PM
I only stated that a standard needed to be defined... I didn't state what that standard should be. I may have mentioned above something about a 3:1 aspect-ratio for angularity, but that was simply a suggestion. I never implied that it was my decision alone to make about what the standard should. I only suggested a framework for two separate definitions in which a decision should be evaluated. The decision would ultimately be left to the community. I'm only stating the need for a clarification of terms. But this is something that's not worth my time arguing about. So for me, this is closed.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

Mike1234
09-28-2009, 05:59 PM
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

I didn't mean to offend in any way. My sarcasm was intended as friendly banter. I didn't want to be specific but... it has to do with the hybridphoto spin-off site in APUG's attempt at keeping this site fully analog and that just hasn't succeeded yet. So we hybrid or wannabe hybrid shooters are still here on APUG. Sarcasm can be cruel or kind. Mine was supposed to be kind and it wasn't even aimed at you. I'm sorry if you misunderstood.

Shingoshi
09-28-2009, 06:42 PM
I appreciate you're explanation. It's always difficult for newcomers to understand the dynamics of groups, when they introduce ideas prone to set off argumentation seemingly undeserved.

I guess I would be one of those Hybrid photographers. Although I'm not even sure that I can call it photography anymore. I recently purchased a Samsung SCC-131A Digital CCTV camera. It has about 570TVL of resolution. On that camera I'm now using Leica lenses. Specifically I'm using C-mount, M39 and M42 mount lenses. I got to this thread because of my investigation on anamorphic lenses. I intend to use anamorphic lenses and attachments on my cameras to provide HDTV images, without having to buy a dedicated HDTV camera. For the past few minutes, I've been considering using cameras with square sensors to make the most of the lens' mount and it's image circle. The objective then would be to use anamorphics to provide the aspect-ratios I most desire.

So I'm not really sure where I fit in regarding my imaging techniques. In the long run for me, it really doesn't matter. All that matters to me is that I get the information I need to produce my art. The work is in the research.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

David A. Goldfarb
09-28-2009, 07:48 PM
Let's just welcome the words "panorama" and "panoramic" and go about the business of making "long skinny pictures".

I think that's as much definition as is needed. Here are some of my favorite long skinny pictures--

http://www.indiana.edu/~iuam/online_modules/sinsabaugh/p_cl1-7.html

They were all taken with a 12x20" camera and cropped to suit the composition. It seems more sensible to approach the subject and consider what aspect ratio is needed than to start with a definition of "panorama" and squeeze or stretch subjects into an arbitrary box.

Athiril
02-27-2010, 03:44 AM
My fave ratio personally is probably 3:1

Though being a film student, I'm found of 2.39:1 :)