Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Cut up an old stereo camera and graft a large format lens onto the front of it. This is my next project as a matter of fact...
Phil Forrest
Phil Forrest
rbelyell
Well-known
hi roger
i'm sorry, i dont quit follow your post, but what i was inartfully trying to say was that i defined a pano as a photo that extends beyond a single traditional frame. this is why in the above posts a gentleman suggests 'stitching together' two or more digital photos. there would be no need to 'stitch' if one could create a pano merely by cropping a single image created via an ultrawide lens.
now perhaps my definition is incorrect, but it is, in part, based on the concept of having to 'stitch' together 2 or more frames in order to create one pano.
i'm sorry, i dont quit follow your post, but what i was inartfully trying to say was that i defined a pano as a photo that extends beyond a single traditional frame. this is why in the above posts a gentleman suggests 'stitching together' two or more digital photos. there would be no need to 'stitch' if one could create a pano merely by cropping a single image created via an ultrawide lens.
now perhaps my definition is incorrect, but it is, in part, based on the concept of having to 'stitch' together 2 or more frames in order to create one pano.
Vickko
Veteran
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
This is a really important comment, as it leads into a discussion of the difference (there is one) between a true panorama, vs. a picture that merely has a wide aspect ratio. Let me start with this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panorama
It seems that we use the term "panorama" a bit loosely these days, to mean anything with a wide aspect ratio. But the term originally meant a 360 degree view! Pano = "all" and ramic = "seeing." All-seeing. Everywhere at once; one view. Few of us would take seriously a consumer "panoramic" camera that merely lops off some of the top and bottom from the frame. The lab blows up what is left of the negative a few inches larger than usual, and the customer thinks he has taken a panorama. We here on RFF wouldn't fall for that trick, would we?
In this context, most wide-screen movie processes have not claimed to be panoramic. Just wide-screen. An exception was Cinerama, incorporating the "rama" ending into its name. And for good reason, as its screen was very deeply curved. OK it wasn't 360 degrees, but it was 146 degrees--pretty good for a theater, and the most that would be practical, unless the audience were to sit in swivel chairs. It took three cameras and three projectors to cover the 146 degree arc. Kind of the cinematic equivalent of stitching. Fairly panoramic, even if not 360 degrees! "Panavision" is another process with a name meant to suggest a panoramic format; though it really isn't one.
So I think that any old picture cropped to a wide aspect ratio doesn't necessarily qualify as a panorama. I don't care if it was cropped from a larger negative or transparency. It could still qualify as panoramic, as Roger argues above; but I'm saying it can only qualify if it covers a really wide angle--if not 360 degrees, then some respectable fraction thereof. Like maybe a shot from a Widelux or Horizon, with their 120 degree-plus horizontal coverage. The 30mm lens on the Xpan? Maybe. Just barely. The 45mm lens? No. A picture from a standard 35mm camera or FF digital, cropped from a shot taken with a 28mm lens? No. Not even if cropped to a 4:1 aspect ratio. The same idea, only taken with a 15mm lens? That comes closer.
So how many horizontal degrees must the picture cover to be panoramic, if a full 360 degrees is not required? In the absence of a standard, I might propose a minimum standard of, say, 120 degrees.
Others will see this differently. How do you see it?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yes, but what is 'a single traditional frame'? If a cropped 4x5 inch and a full-frame 6x12cm show the same thing, what is the difference?
On another question (not one you raised) there has long been one school of pseudo-purists who insist that only rotating cameras can create panoramas, and another school that limits it to swing-lens cameras. Both maintain that (for example) 6x17cm is not 'panoramic' but 'ultra-wide' -- though even then, it needn't be, as a 210mm lens or thereabouts would be 'normal'.
As 'panorama' in the sense of 'an unbroken view of the whole surrounding region' was already in use less than a decade after the word was invented (1796 and 1805), neither distinction has ever struck me as useful. Rob-F's argument about a minimum angle has considerable merit, but I fear he may be too late to change established usage.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
tandemliebhaber
Tilman Schwertner
i did some panos with my OM1 - just made two lines witha feltip at ground glas & used my Zuiko 2.8/24 - ok, no rangefinder, but a cheap & universal solution
Using a finegrain film, the gap to XPan (which i own nodadays) was smaller than exspected ...
Using a finegrain film, the gap to XPan (which i own nodadays) was smaller than exspected ...
rbelyell
Well-known
certainly you raise a valid and interesting point. may i say from my point of view, which may be incorrect, that i've always considered large format 4x5 photography to be sort of a specialty format, somewhat out of the mainstream. indeed, i think an argument can be made that large format is indeed panoramic photography per se.
if you take the hasselblad, which is a 'traditional', or perhaps 'mainstream', 35mm, it's 'pano' mode simply allows an image to be created on two frames. philosophy being one frame is not pano, two frames is pano. similarly, with the 6x12 or 6x17 pano cameras, they simply create images on 2or3 traditional frames. philosophy being an image on multiple frames=pano, whilst the same film on a traditional medium format cam rendering an image on a single frame is not considered a pano.
my opinion is that, in keeping with this apparent philosophy, one does not create a pano on the hasselblad by cropping a single frame image. sorry, do not mean to beat a dead horse, but i genuinely find these types of discussions very interesting and i often learn things from them that i did not previously know.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
These two statements seem mutually contradictory. To create a "panoramic" (wide aspect ratio, really) picture with a 4x5, you'd have to crop. So why is it not valid to create a wide aspect ratio picture with rollfilm and a Hasselblad? What's the diffy?
rbelyell
Well-known
it is totally valid to create a pano with a hassy xpan: when it's set to pano mode! in my opinion this precludes creating a pano from the xpan in single frame mode via cropping. if one can create a pano from a single frame via cropping, whats the point of the xpan at all?
so, i'm sitting looking at a nice 4x6 print taken with a 35mm lens of the grand canyon. we call it a 'landscape' photo. i get out my scissors and cut 1/2 inch off the top and bottom of the print, and now we call it a pano? that just doesnt make sense to me...
the only way this makes sense is if the correct definition of 'panoramic' photo is wholly dependent on aspect ratio. is that what we're saying? so the 4:3 i take with my 5d is tranformed into a pano if i merely change the aspect ratio to 16:9? if that is the case, then i stand corrected.
so, i'm sitting looking at a nice 4x6 print taken with a 35mm lens of the grand canyon. we call it a 'landscape' photo. i get out my scissors and cut 1/2 inch off the top and bottom of the print, and now we call it a pano? that just doesnt make sense to me...
the only way this makes sense is if the correct definition of 'panoramic' photo is wholly dependent on aspect ratio. is that what we're saying? so the 4:3 i take with my 5d is tranformed into a pano if i merely change the aspect ratio to 16:9? if that is the case, then i stand corrected.
Last edited:
Vickko
Veteran
I see the Xpan as a technical solution to maximize the potential of using 35mm film to create a panoramic photo, of specific angular coverage, and to minimize weight, and to provide optimal ergonomic features.
I still think that I can obtain the same (or very close to) quality negative cropping from a medium format camera, but I am applying different ergonomics.
So yes, I think there is a place in the market for an Xpan. So did Hasselblad. So does Fujifilm.
...Vick
I still think that I can obtain the same (or very close to) quality negative cropping from a medium format camera, but I am applying different ergonomics.
So yes, I think there is a place in the market for an Xpan. So did Hasselblad. So does Fujifilm.
...Vick
Jamie123
Veteran
As far as I understand the term 'panorama' is usually used for pictures with an unusually wide angle of view. According to this line of thinking, I suppose an image taken on an XPAN with the 90mm lens isn't really a panorama but just a picture with a wide aspect ratio. Traditionally panoramas do come in wide aspect ratios but I don't see why a square fisheye image shouldn't be considered a specific type of panorama. Also, there are 360° virtual panoramas on the internet and they have no aspect ratio at all.
So, no, I would say that merely cropping an image to an aspect ratio that is customary for panoramas isn't enough to make it a panorama, the angle of view has to fairly wide aswell. But whether you crop an image or not seems irrelevant.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Nor to me. The wide aspect ratio may be pleasant. It may be preferable. It may suit the subject better. But it's only a pano if you define pano as any picture having a wide aspect ratio.
That's what I'm saying. Of course, what we call it doesn't affect whether it's a good picture or not! If the picture is good, then it's good. If it's not worth looking at, then we can call it anything we want, and it won't make it any better. I'm very happy to make wide aspect ratio pictures by cropping from the Hasselblad format. It just doesn't occur to me to call them "panoramic." Since I project them, I call them "wide screen."
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
After a lot of experimentation, I decided the ideal aspect ratio (for me) was 2:1. When I got to make my own little basement "theater," I built a screen to those proportions. I use both 35mm and roll film. 35mm slides are composed in the viewfinder for the 2:1 proportion. I have pencil lines drawn on the Nikon viewing screen to show me my safe area. The film chip goes into a Wess-Mount AVA202, or AAA202 mount, both of which crop it to 2:1.
Hasselblad roll film shots are cropped to 27 x 54mm, filling the whole screen. I usually take them with an A16 back. That gives me a little bit of perspective control: I can use the upper part of the picture, cropping out the lower part.
Xpan shots have to be cropped in width from 65mm to 54mm to fit the 22 x 54mm glass mounts made by both Wess and Gepe. Often this cropping eliminates superfluous stuff out at the ends of the picture, giving me a little final composition choice. But the pictures don't fill the whole height of the screen. For this reason I prefer the shots from the 500C/M, which do fill the screen completely.
I may have taken the picture with a wide-angle lens, or a telephoto. They all get cropped to the same aspect ratio. When wide-screen movies first came out, it was thought that all photography must be done with wide-angle lenses. Very soon they realized they could use any focal length, and compose successfully for the wide screen. In Laurence of Arabia, filmed in 70mm Panavision (2.2:1 ratio), there is a shot of Peter O'Toole approaching on his camel from a great distance, coming over a sand dune. Director David Lean had a special 1000mm lens built by Bausch & Lomb, for this one shot. Ever since then, any necessary correspondence of angle of view to aspect ratio has been dismissed as mythological.
Hasselblad roll film shots are cropped to 27 x 54mm, filling the whole screen. I usually take them with an A16 back. That gives me a little bit of perspective control: I can use the upper part of the picture, cropping out the lower part.
Xpan shots have to be cropped in width from 65mm to 54mm to fit the 22 x 54mm glass mounts made by both Wess and Gepe. Often this cropping eliminates superfluous stuff out at the ends of the picture, giving me a little final composition choice. But the pictures don't fill the whole height of the screen. For this reason I prefer the shots from the 500C/M, which do fill the screen completely.
I may have taken the picture with a wide-angle lens, or a telephoto. They all get cropped to the same aspect ratio. When wide-screen movies first came out, it was thought that all photography must be done with wide-angle lenses. Very soon they realized they could use any focal length, and compose successfully for the wide screen. In Laurence of Arabia, filmed in 70mm Panavision (2.2:1 ratio), there is a shot of Peter O'Toole approaching on his camel from a great distance, coming over a sand dune. Director David Lean had a special 1000mm lens built by Bausch & Lomb, for this one shot. Ever since then, any necessary correspondence of angle of view to aspect ratio has been dismissed as mythological.
Attachments
rbelyell
Well-known
and i agree with you and hassy and fuji. for me it is the same place as 6x12or6x17 cams, that is creating 'true' pano photos, which to me is extending an image beyond a single traditional frame of film.
it seems that as with most matters artistic, this discussion demonstrates there is no objective definition of 'panorama' photograph. some feel it is dependent only on angle of view, some feel it is only dependent on aspect ratio, some feel it is dependent on some combination of the two. perhaps there are even some like me who feel it is dependent on extending the photo beyond a traditional single frame of film, as is contemplated by the xpan and photo stitching software. thank you all for a spirited and intersting discussion!
tony
dave lackey
Veteran
Wow, Vickko...
4 pages into a thread and now along with some people thinking of "the Leica elitism", now we have "pano-elitism".
I hope this is not the case! Purity of the image, I suppose? I dunno.
IMO, if the image is good enough, it is good enough, and I don't care how a pano was made.
BTW, this is meant to be funny, not a jab at others' opinions.
4 pages into a thread and now along with some people thinking of "the Leica elitism", now we have "pano-elitism".
I hope this is not the case! Purity of the image, I suppose? I dunno.IMO, if the image is good enough, it is good enough, and I don't care how a pano was made.
BTW, this is meant to be funny, not a jab at others' opinions.
Last edited:
rbelyell
Well-known
well, words do have meaning, and are important and necessary to the goal of common understanding. when someone says 'portrait' or 'macro' we know what those mean and have inferred parameters as to what we will see following rhose words.
here we have the words 'landscape' and 'panorama'. either they mean the same thing or they dont. if they dont, as i believe, then it makes sense to ask the difference. it's not a matter of 'purity', its a matter of common communication and expectation. me, i would call a single frame recorded at 18mm a landscape and a 50mm shot recorded on an xpan over 2 frames a pano.
just as we dont say 'macro' when we view a close up 'portrait' and that's not considered a matter of purity, we might consider a distinction between 'landscape' and 'pano'. not a big deal really, just makes it easier to communicate and understand each other when there is a common frame of reference. in this instance, however, it does not appear that such a common frame of reference exists. and that's fine too ):
here we have the words 'landscape' and 'panorama'. either they mean the same thing or they dont. if they dont, as i believe, then it makes sense to ask the difference. it's not a matter of 'purity', its a matter of common communication and expectation. me, i would call a single frame recorded at 18mm a landscape and a 50mm shot recorded on an xpan over 2 frames a pano.
just as we dont say 'macro' when we view a close up 'portrait' and that's not considered a matter of purity, we might consider a distinction between 'landscape' and 'pano'. not a big deal really, just makes it easier to communicate and understand each other when there is a common frame of reference. in this instance, however, it does not appear that such a common frame of reference exists. and that's fine too ):
Last edited:
rbelyell
Well-known
PKR i totally agree that what you do is in my mind as well, panorama work. the key to me is not only the aspect ratio being 'several times' wider than high (as i think 6x12 can be a pano), but the fact that you stitch together several (or simply more than one) images together. to me, it is the combining of frames (vs a single frame wide angle cropped to 6x18) that is dispositive to me and separates what you do from traditional 'landscape' photos.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
This is arguably the best definition yet.
Because I've used cameras from Minox to 12x15 inch, via panoramic formats up to 6x17cm, I just don't get this 'normal frame' argument. I have a 44x66mm back for my Alpa. If I ordered a 41x72mm back, does this turn the camera into a panoram? And it wouldn't be hard to make a 6x15 inch reducer for my big Gandolfi...
An excellent trick on 4x5 inch is to cut a dark-slide in half the long way, and shoot 2x 2x5 inch pics on a single sheet of film. You need reasonable movements, though: press cameras are of limited usefulness.
Cheers,
R.
hausen
Well-known
Well I have had my Xpan for 4 weeks and am loving it. Was pricey but worth it to me but it doesn't preclude me from other pano options. Am not sure I understand the tangent this thread has taken but I still regularly put my M9 and 90 Summicron on my Nodal Ninja tripod head and stitch in PS and would see no real problem cropping a scanned image from my Fuji GF670 when shooting 6x7. Is all about the result to me. I love the look of a Panorama image and will use any means at my disposal to achieve it when I am in a pano mood.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, just don't use the half dark-slide that time...
It's slightly harder and fiddlier than it sounds, but it works when you do need it.
We are in complete agreement about not giving a toss about any pseudo-purist's definition of what panorams 'ought' to be, or about cropping. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Cheers,
R.