Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,946   Posts: 1,585,915   Online: 1048
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 45
  1. #31

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

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    8

    A need for a separation of terms...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1234 View Post
    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.
    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
    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/

  3. #33

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

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    8

    We don't need to separate the forums...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1234 View Post
    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
    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/

  5. #35
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    4,765
    Images
    40
    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
    At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Texas, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,885
    I must have hidden my well-intended sarcasm ever so slightly too well. But... I'll leave it at that.

  7. #37
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    4,765
    Images
    40
    Sorry, my sarcasm detector must be on the blink!

    Vaughn
    At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    8

    So what if this is the case?

    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
    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/

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    8

    I think I now see your intended sarcasm...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1234 View Post
    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
    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. #40

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Central NC
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    444
    Quote Originally Posted by panoramic View Post
    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 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.
    Bruce Watson
    AchromaticArts.com

Page 4 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