The Ultimate Aspect Ratio For Panoramic Images

[BetterSense]

What do you mean by "anamorphic"? I think I don't understand the word the way you are using it.

 

[Mike1234]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

 

[Shingoshi]

Anamorphic...A Higher Definition

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

 

[jbbooks]

...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.

 

[Mike1234]

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.

 

[Shingoshi]

A need for a separation of terms...

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

 

[Mike1234]

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?

 

[Shingoshi]

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

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

 

[Vaughn]

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

 

[Mike1234]

I must have hidden my well-intended sarcasm ever so slightly too well. But... I'll leave it at that.

 

[Vaughn]

Sorry, my sarcasm detector must be on the blink!

Vaughn

 

[Shingoshi]

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

 

[Shingoshi]

I think I now see your intended sarcasm...

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

 

[Bruce Watson]

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.

 

[Shingoshi]

I only stated that a standard needed to be defined...

I only stated that a standard needed to be defined... I didn't state what that standard should be. I may have mentioned above something about a 3:1 aspect-ratio for angularity, but that was simply a suggestion. I never implied that it was my decision alone to make about what the standard should. I only suggested a framework for two separate definitions in which a decision should be evaluated. The decision would ultimately be left to the community. I'm only stating the need for a clarification of terms. But this is something that's not worth my time arguing about. So for me, this is closed.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

 

[Mike1234]

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

I didn't mean to offend in any way. My sarcasm was intended as friendly banter. I didn't want to be specific but... it has to do with the hybridphoto spin-off site in APUG's attempt at keeping this site fully analog and that just hasn't succeeded yet. So we hybrid or wannabe hybrid shooters are still here on APUG. Sarcasm can be cruel or kind. Mine was supposed to be kind and it wasn't even aimed at you. I'm sorry if you misunderstood.

 

[Shingoshi]

Apology ACCEPTED!!

I appreciate you're explanation. It's always difficult for newcomers to understand the dynamics of groups, when they introduce ideas prone to set off argumentation seemingly undeserved.

I guess I would be one of those Hybrid photographers. Although I'm not even sure that I can call it photography anymore. I recently purchased a Samsung SCC-131A Digital CCTV camera. It has about 570TVL of resolution. On that camera I'm now using Leica lenses. Specifically I'm using C-mount, M39 and M42 mount lenses. I got to this thread because of my investigation on anamorphic lenses. I intend to use anamorphic lenses and attachments on my cameras to provide HDTV images, without having to buy a dedicated HDTV camera. For the past few minutes, I've been considering using cameras with square sensors to make the most of the lens' mount and it's image circle. The objective then would be to use anamorphics to provide the aspect-ratios I most desire.

So I'm not really sure where I fit in regarding my imaging techniques. In the long run for me, it really doesn't matter. All that matters to me is that I get the information I need to produce my art. The work is in the research.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Let's just welcome the words "panorama" and "panoramic" and go about the business of making "long skinny pictures".

I think that's as much definition as is needed. Here are some of my favorite long skinny pictures--

http://www.indiana.edu/~iuam/online_modules/sinsabaugh/p_cl1-7.html

They were all taken with a 12x20" camera and cropped to suit the composition. It seems more sensible to approach the subject and consider what aspect ratio is needed than to start with a definition of "panorama" and squeeze or stretch subjects into an arbitrary box.

 

[Athiril]

My fave ratio personally is probably 3:1

Though being a film student, I'm found of 2.39:1