Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,956   Posts: 1,522,873   Online: 1152
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 45
  1. #21
    jbbooks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by jimgalli

    ....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!

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,321
    Quote Originally Posted by jbbooks
    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?

  3. #23
    jimgalli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tonopah Nevada
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,401
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
    How about a trimmed 6x9 shot taken with a 38 Biogon?
    Of what Dan? Your toe nails? Uh-uh, I don't think so. :~'))
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep..to gain that which he cannot lose. Jim Elliot, 1949

    http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,321
    Quote Originally Posted by jimgalli
    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.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    8

    I don't know if anyone else has already said this or not...

    Quote Originally Posted by Petzi View Post
    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
    Last edited by Shingoshi; 09-26-2009 at 10:03 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    The distribution of knowledge must not be the commodity of tyranny.
    Solution: The immediate equalization of all knowledge among all beings.

    Expand your mind, advance our world!
    >=(o_6)=>
    http://www.linuxquestions.org/blog/shingoshi-297853/

  6. #26
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,850
    What do you mean by "anamorphic"? I think I don't understand the word the way you are using it.
    f/22 and be there.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Texas, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,885
    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.

  8. #28
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,009
    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
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    8

    Anamorphic...A Higher Definition

    Quote Originally Posted by BetterSense View Post
    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
    The distribution of knowledge must not be the commodity of tyranny.
    Solution: The immediate equalization of all knowledge among all beings.

    Expand your mind, advance our world!
    >=(o_6)=>
    http://www.linuxquestions.org/blog/shingoshi-297853/

  10. #30
    jbbooks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post

    ...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.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin