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?

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.