Rob-F
Likes Leicas
As a pre-teen and teenager, I took an interest in the newly emerging widescreen motion picture processes, some of which included "pan" or "rama" in the name of the process, such as Cinerama, Technirama, and panavision. Today some of us have been into making photos we refer to as "Panoramic." And there are cameras which are intended as "panoramic" cameras, or at least claim to have a "panoramic" option. What do we mean by this? What makes one picture panoramic, while another was merely taken with a wide-angle lens? Or in some cases, taken with a normal lens but cropped to a narrow aspect ratio?
My Webster's Third New International dictionary defines pan or pano to mean all, or completely. The same source didn't offer anything relevant for "rama" but I found online a reference to a greek word, "horama," which means "spectacular display" or "sight." So "panorama" then implies either a spectacular visual display, or seeing in all directions. Whether this calls for necessarily seeing in all directions at the same time, or a display that affords the opportunity to look around in all directions to see the whole display is not clear. (How can we see in all directions? I suppose an image could be projected on the inside surface of a sphere, and we are suspended in the middle of the sphere.)
In WWII there was a need to train Air Corps airborne gunnery personnel to have to visually scan over a wide area to locate targets. They had to learn to look left and right, and above and below. Fred Waller developed the Waller Flexible Gunnery Trainer by projecting aerial combat situations onto a deeply curved screen using three projectors. The trainees were placed almost inside the curvature of the screen, so that the images occupied their entire field of vision, making it a realistic "all-seeing" situation.
Around 1952 or so the Waller Flexible Gunnery Trainer found peacetime application as the motion picture process called Cinerama. The famous roller coaster ride was so realistic you actually experienced a feeling of being on the roller coaster. This would seem to readily qualify as a panoramic, or spectacular display. Other wide-screen processes followed, such as Todd-AO, Super Cinerama, 70mm Panavision (all minor variations of the same thing). They were, and are, all very good. Though none of them had the impact of the original Cinerama with its 146 degree screen, they all reasonably qualified as a "spectacular display," and were "pano" in that the images were big enough to force the viewer to look around to the left, right, and in the middle and be immersed in the scene.
Now, we have cameras that emulate the wide aspect ratio of thesis processes, but the image is often presented as a four by twelve inch print, or is viewed on a computer screen that may be no larger than 13 inches. That is a far cry from watching South Pacific on the Todd-AO screen; or viewing the Diorama of the Battle of Gettysburg in the park's visitor center. (Diorama is an early use of the "horama" or spectacular display principle.)
Many "panoramic" images depend for their claim to belong in that category, solely by having a wide aspect ratio. But one process that is a more spectacular display than most, has an aspect ratio of only 1.44;1. I'm referring to IMAX. One camera that seems pretty "pano" is the Roundshot, which covers a full 360 degree circle! But for the most part, are we perhaps losing the true meaning of the term panoramic by the way we are often applying it today?
My Webster's Third New International dictionary defines pan or pano to mean all, or completely. The same source didn't offer anything relevant for "rama" but I found online a reference to a greek word, "horama," which means "spectacular display" or "sight." So "panorama" then implies either a spectacular visual display, or seeing in all directions. Whether this calls for necessarily seeing in all directions at the same time, or a display that affords the opportunity to look around in all directions to see the whole display is not clear. (How can we see in all directions? I suppose an image could be projected on the inside surface of a sphere, and we are suspended in the middle of the sphere.)
In WWII there was a need to train Air Corps airborne gunnery personnel to have to visually scan over a wide area to locate targets. They had to learn to look left and right, and above and below. Fred Waller developed the Waller Flexible Gunnery Trainer by projecting aerial combat situations onto a deeply curved screen using three projectors. The trainees were placed almost inside the curvature of the screen, so that the images occupied their entire field of vision, making it a realistic "all-seeing" situation.
Around 1952 or so the Waller Flexible Gunnery Trainer found peacetime application as the motion picture process called Cinerama. The famous roller coaster ride was so realistic you actually experienced a feeling of being on the roller coaster. This would seem to readily qualify as a panoramic, or spectacular display. Other wide-screen processes followed, such as Todd-AO, Super Cinerama, 70mm Panavision (all minor variations of the same thing). They were, and are, all very good. Though none of them had the impact of the original Cinerama with its 146 degree screen, they all reasonably qualified as a "spectacular display," and were "pano" in that the images were big enough to force the viewer to look around to the left, right, and in the middle and be immersed in the scene.
Now, we have cameras that emulate the wide aspect ratio of thesis processes, but the image is often presented as a four by twelve inch print, or is viewed on a computer screen that may be no larger than 13 inches. That is a far cry from watching South Pacific on the Todd-AO screen; or viewing the Diorama of the Battle of Gettysburg in the park's visitor center. (Diorama is an early use of the "horama" or spectacular display principle.)
Many "panoramic" images depend for their claim to belong in that category, solely by having a wide aspect ratio. But one process that is a more spectacular display than most, has an aspect ratio of only 1.44;1. I'm referring to IMAX. One camera that seems pretty "pano" is the Roundshot, which covers a full 360 degree circle! But for the most part, are we perhaps losing the true meaning of the term panoramic by the way we are often applying it today?
jmilkins
Digited User
An informative, interesting post thank you Rob.
I grew up in the era of film cameras either being defined by manufacturers as “panoramic” or as having a switchable “panoramic mode”, and that influences my personal definition or level of comfort with what I perceive to be panoramic.
For me, it is a frame with around a 1:3 ratio in height to width. E.g. the Xpan’s 24x64mm
I’m sure that’s not the official definition, and it seems like it might be narrower than your perception of the term, or the derivation of the word “pan” might imply.
Interestingly, I tend to feel that an image that was’t natively shot in a “panoramic” format doesn’t really qualify as panoramic, but rather, “cropped”. That might not be logical but it must mean I have some sense of the sanctity of the term...!
I grew up in the era of film cameras either being defined by manufacturers as “panoramic” or as having a switchable “panoramic mode”, and that influences my personal definition or level of comfort with what I perceive to be panoramic.
For me, it is a frame with around a 1:3 ratio in height to width. E.g. the Xpan’s 24x64mm
I’m sure that’s not the official definition, and it seems like it might be narrower than your perception of the term, or the derivation of the word “pan” might imply.
Interestingly, I tend to feel that an image that was’t natively shot in a “panoramic” format doesn’t really qualify as panoramic, but rather, “cropped”. That might not be logical but it must mean I have some sense of the sanctity of the term...!
snaefell
Established
Interesting information, thanks for that.
I also see panoramic images as these which have a ratio around 1:3, something you get from the XPan or 6x17 cameras. I have made much wider panoramas digitally, but these don't really "feel right" for me, as they are too wide. It has probably to do with our perception which cannot see images so wide naturally.
I also see panoramic images as these which have a ratio around 1:3, something you get from the XPan or 6x17 cameras. I have made much wider panoramas digitally, but these don't really "feel right" for me, as they are too wide. It has probably to do with our perception which cannot see images so wide naturally.
Corran
Well-known
Etymology aside, what you've described are all methods of delivery, not actual image making.
In common photographic parlance, panoramic generally means an image with an aspect ratio that includes a much longer dimension. For me, the 2:3 aspect ratio of 35mm is mildly panoramic, but really the "start" of panoramic is probably the 16:9 cinema ratio or perhaps just 1:2.
I have shot with a lot of different formats, including on 120 film 6x12, 6x17, and finally a 360-degree rotating camera that gave negatives of a roughly 1:5 ratio. I've also shot 8x20 ultra large format images. Personally, the aspect ratio that most solidly feels like a panoramic image is about a 1:2.5 ratio and higher, and especially with a wide-angle lens.
The use of a wide-angle lens for me also heavily defines a panoramic image, due to the sheer scope of the image in terms of angular degrees projected. Roughly 90 degrees of image projection or more is my preference.
In common photographic parlance, panoramic generally means an image with an aspect ratio that includes a much longer dimension. For me, the 2:3 aspect ratio of 35mm is mildly panoramic, but really the "start" of panoramic is probably the 16:9 cinema ratio or perhaps just 1:2.
I have shot with a lot of different formats, including on 120 film 6x12, 6x17, and finally a 360-degree rotating camera that gave negatives of a roughly 1:5 ratio. I've also shot 8x20 ultra large format images. Personally, the aspect ratio that most solidly feels like a panoramic image is about a 1:2.5 ratio and higher, and especially with a wide-angle lens.
The use of a wide-angle lens for me also heavily defines a panoramic image, due to the sheer scope of the image in terms of angular degrees projected. Roughly 90 degrees of image projection or more is my preference.
pyeh
Member of good standing
I think that for me a panoramic image is one that shows a wider view than I can see without turning or tilting my head, and that would include moving my eyeballs while keeping my head still. So probably a very ultra-wide lenses would give me that effect, even a fisheye.
I don't think aspect ratio of the image truly enters into the definition, except that a long ratio reinforces the feeling of panorama.
I don't think aspect ratio of the image truly enters into the definition, except that a long ratio reinforces the feeling of panorama.
Dwig
Well-known
Although while his discussion centers on delivery, all of the trademarked systems mentioned in the fourth paragraph specify both capture and deliver methods. Today, almost all of these are gone, with the originals converted to a more common delivery method, usually digital projection or Panavision-compatible anamorphic 35mm film prints. Even in the day, formats like Cinerama (3 camera capture and 3 projector delivery) and Todd-AO (65mm capture, 70mm delivery, both non-anamorphic) were converted to more common formats (usually 35mm Panavision-compatible anamorphic) for delivery in theaters lacking the specialized projection equipment.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
My thread title, "What panoramic means, and how we use it." is meant to compare and contrast the original meaning with, well, how we use it. While the most common usage seems tied to aspect ratio, some us, such as Peter (above) and myself see it more in terms of the wideness or immensity of the image. "Rama," according to some, denotes a "spectacle;" and that enters into my experience of what it means for an image to be panoramic as well.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
The Oxford dictionary define panorama as "an unbroken view of the whole region surrounding an observer" or "a picture or photograph containing a wide view". Thus, the emphasis is on a wide focal length. However, we know that historically panoramic cameras have been wide aspect ratio cameras, to which various lenses could be attached. My own feeling is, for photography, a panoramic image should be both taken with a wide angle lens and formatted with a wide aspect ratio. My most recent panoramic images were taken with lenses between 15mm and 35mm, and formatted as 7x17, which is the format of some historic panoramic cameras and very close to the 1:2.35 aspect ratio of Cinemascope. Though I would not offer any hard and fast rules, obviously the wider the focal length and aspect ratio, the more panoramic the image.
Bill Clark
Veteran
Wide angle is, to me; well it’s wide angle. It’s the lens. It’s different than making a panoramic photograph.
To me, Pano is when I “pan” or move a camera to take several “normal” photos then stitch them together. I used to do this with Photoshop but my iPhone is easier as it has a pano feature where I can pan a scene and the computer on the phone, with appropriate software, stitches them together.
Information:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panoramic_photography
To me, Pano is when I “pan” or move a camera to take several “normal” photos then stitch them together. I used to do this with Photoshop but my iPhone is easier as it has a pano feature where I can pan a scene and the computer on the phone, with appropriate software, stitches them together.
Information:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panoramic_photography
voltrader66
Member
Images produced by rotating lenses (Widelux, Noblex etc) are arguably the only 'true' panoramas today. An image that spans the peripheral vision boundaries.
snaefell
Established
Just out of curiosity: Why do you only see the swing lens cameras as real panorama cameras? Fixed lens cameras like the 6x17 (or bigger) and the XPan also make images wider than our normal vision.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
The problem (for me) with a swing-lens camera is the curvature they introduce. A shot of a straight street makes it look like a bend in the road, with the central area looming forward toward the viewer. For me, the stretching of the left and right ends of the image, as with the XPAN, or even with my SWC, is the more tolerable of the two forms of distortion.
Deklari
Well-known
It because we look on such image on flat screen. Panorama from swing-lens camera will look more "realistic" if we look on curved screen. Unfortunately, or fortunately for our eyes, it is impossible see three dimensional world on two dimensional picture.
voltrader66
Member
Peripheral vision is around 120deg along the horizontal. The 617 72mm covers 102deg, the 30mm on the xpan covers 97deg. They are both plenty wide but not true panoramas IMO.
Deklari
Well-known
Another alternative 'true' panoramas will be stitching multiple images from rotating platform.
voltrader66
Member
Yup the pano mode in digital cameras work very well. Even the iPhone panos are pretty impressive.
shawn
Veteran
A 10mm rectilinear lens on a 35mm camera has just over 120 degree horizontal view. Go with a fisheye and it is considerably wider than that. My 8mm fisheye is very close to 180 degree horizontal FOV.
Shawn
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Lots of different definitions I guess.
Deklari
Well-known
Is the image distortion at the corners of 10mm lens same as swing lens?
Also How is panorama will looks, if stitching multiple images from different shutting places?
shawn
Veteran
The 10mm won't have the look of the swing lens. A FE would be closer to that look, if you keep it level and maybe Defish it later on.
For your second question here is an example of a three camera (3 Coolpix As) shooting at the same time and then stitched together before cropping.
How close your are to the subject effects how much of a warp you see.
Shawn