Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Panoramic Composition (was: Turkey Cinemascope)

Expand Messages
  • Ian Wood
    ... We all get hung up on the technical side, if just because the language to describe it is so much more solid. This thread is a good reminder that the eye of
    Message 1 of 30 , Feb 27, 2007
      On 27 Feb 2007, at 15:54, Mark D. Fink wrote:
      > Excellent point, Ian. I tend to get distracted by the technique and
      > miss
      > out on the content too often. I really like the mood created by the
      > heavy lighting and dark corners regardless of whether it came about by
      > vignetting or via PhotoShop.

      We all get hung up on the technical side, if just because the
      language to describe it is so much more solid. This thread is a good
      reminder that the eye of the photographer is as (or more) important!

      > Just yesterday, I took a photo locally while there was still some
      > light
      > snow falling and heavy overcast with mist moving through the image.
      > This
      > is definitely NOT my typical shooting style, but after looking at the
      > stitched preview, I rather like the effect. I'll have to spend more
      > time
      > out shooting in "inclement" weather, rather than only going out when
      > it's "pretty".

      Definitely.
      <http://landmarksofbritain.co.uk/landmarks/p_and_l_windfarm.html>
      http://landmarksofbritain.co.uk/landmarks/51_mill-bridge-rain_jpg.html>
      There's another older shot of raindrops falling into a millpond, but
      it doesn't appear to be online anywhere. :-(


      > By the way, back to technical matters, someone mentioned that at least
      > some of the shots must have been taken with a rectilinear lens because
      > of the way the railroad tracks look.

      That was me. ;-P

      > My understanding of PanoTools is
      > that you can extract a rectilinear image from a pano without being
      > able
      > to tell how it was originally captured.

      You can indeed, although close examination of the image sometimes
      shows a characteristic low definition in the extreme corners.

      > That's one of the tasks that
      > I've been setting for myself with my Pinnacle VR - to shoot very high
      > resolution spherical panos, then extract images for print as the mood
      > strikes me.

      That's exactly how I work for print - look at the scene, work out
      roughly what projection and FoV would suit it and then shoot
      accordingly.

      > What would be really cool, for the educators out there, would be to
      > use
      > this approach to teach the composition aspect of photography. By
      > zooming
      > in or out of a pano and changing the size of the viewer window, you
      > can
      > replicate any composition interactively.

      When giving talks to all the local camera clubs I go through a series
      of different images taken from the same panorama, showing it with
      different projections and FoVs. If anyone is interested I can dig out
      the images and upload them as a web gallery.
      One that always gets a 'wow' reaction is taking a 360 degree
      cylindrical or equirectangular image and showing how drastically the
      composition can change just by 'offsetting' the image.

      Ian
    • Sacha Griffin
      I agree, they seam to be well done stitches, as the perspectives are not the same in all photos and the enhanced level of moving objects, perhaps done by hand
      Message 2 of 30 , Feb 27, 2007
        I agree, they seam to be well done stitches, as the perspectives are not the
        same in all photos and the enhanced level of moving objects, perhaps done by
        hand in photoshop. Otherwise, the vignettes would have been handled by
        enblend or the others.



        The quality suggests these were shot on film, otherwise, especially with the
        moving objects not lending themselves well to hdr.

        That makes up my mind. Time to upgrade to film.



        Sacha Griffin
        Southern Digital Solutions LLC
        www.southern-digital.com
        www.seeit360.net
        www.ezphotosafe.com
        404-551-4275
        404-731-7798

        _____

        From: Erik Krause [mailto:erik.krause@...]
        Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 10:09 AM
        To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Beautiful Panoramas: Turkey Cinemascope





        I suspect that most of them are shot with a conventinal rectilinear
        panoramic or large format camera. There is a typical vignetting in
        them. I doubt he uses the new Seitz digital 6x17:
        http://german.
        <http://german.roundshot.ch/default.cfm?DomainID=1&TreeID=885>
        roundshot.ch/default.cfm?DomainID=1&TreeID=885

        best regards
        --
        Erik Krause
        Resources, not only for panorama creation:
        http://www.erik- <http://www.erik-krause.de/> krause.de/



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Mark D. Fink
        ... Here s an idea that just came to me. If a client commissions a work, but tends to be VERY picky, what if the scene was photographed as a high resolution
        Message 3 of 30 , Feb 27, 2007
          >When giving talks to all the local camera clubs I go through a series
          >of different images taken from the same panorama, showing it with
          >different projections and FoVs. If anyone is interested I can dig out
          >the images and upload them as a web gallery.
          >One that always gets a 'wow' reaction is taking a 360 degree
          >cylindrical or equirectangular image and showing how drastically the
          >composition can change just by 'offsetting' the image.

          >Ian

          Here's an idea that just came to me. If a client commissions a work, but
          tends to be VERY picky, what if the scene was photographed as a high
          resolution full or partial pano that includes more than what the client
          is looking for. Then, you could preview, at lower resolution, what the
          various options would be for cropping and composition. That way, they
          get EXACTLY what they want, and we don't get, "Gee, I would have really
          liked to see more sky and the whole scene shifted to the left..."

          Mark
          www.pinnacle-vr.com
          www.northernlight.net
        • RomualdV
          ... I am. please can you do it Ian. Romuald
          Message 4 of 30 , Feb 27, 2007
            Le 27 févr. 07 à 20:23, Ian Wood a écrit :


            >
            > When giving talks to all the local camera clubs I go through a series
            > of different images taken from the same panorama, showing it with
            > different projections and FoVs. If anyone is interested I can dig out
            > the images and upload them as a web gallery.

            I am. please can you do it Ian.

            Romuald
          • Roger D. Williams
            On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:17:03 +0900, Robert C. Fisher ... That is a slight misconception. Effectively, the Xpan is medium format, as the
            Message 5 of 30 , Feb 27, 2007
              On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:17:03 +0900, Robert C. Fisher <bob@...>
              wrote:

              >
              > On Feb 26, 2007, at 11:55 PM, Roger D. Williams wrote:
              >
              >> Yes, indeed. They are also a reminder that 360-degree panoramas are
              >> only
              >> a part (although a unique and very important part) of the world of
              >> panoramas. Aspect ratios of 3:1 and even 4:1 have their own appeal and
              >> suitability to certain images. Here they are used by a master!
              >>
              >> These could have been taken by an Xpan using 30mm, 45mm or 90mm
              >> lenses.
              >
              > I would guess not using an XPan, the resolution would be too low. The
              > XPan is a 35mm camera after all.

              That is a slight misconception. Effectively, the Xpan is medium format,
              as the length of the negative is 67mm (only 24mm high, of course).

              >> They seem not to have been taken by a swing-lens camera (there are
              >> some
              >> very clear signs that the images, despite their high aspect ratio, are
              >> taken with rectilinear lenses). And I am pretty certain they didn't
              >> involve stitching, either.

              > Maybe stitched but I doubt it. My guess would be a swing lens camera
              > like a Noblex. A friend of mine is doing similar work with similar
              > results with the Noblex. He even does some wider shots by stitching
              > 2-3 Noblex shots together. The Noblex 150 horizontal angle of view is
              > 135 degrees. They also make another one with a 120 deg horizontal
              > angle of view.
              >
              > Why do you think these are taken with a flat camera?

              I own the Xpan and have owned two swing-lens panorama cameras, one was
              the Widelux, functionally equivalent to a Noblex and now passed on
              to a friend who coveted it, and the other a hand-made Voyageur that
              takes 6 x 18cm panoramas on 120 film. This I still use, love, and will
              never part with! It covers the whole 360 degrees in a single rotation.

              The swing-lens cameras take, as their native format, cylindrical
              images, which always induce the typical curvature in horizontals
              above and below the horizon. I can't remember checking every single
              photo for this, but I do remember several that had buildings in the
              background that were free of this effect. This made me think of the
              Xpan. There are, of course, other options. The 6 x 17 Fuji, for
              instance, but these do not extend their angular coverage at the wide
              end quite as far as an Xpan with the fabulous and fabulously expensive
              30mm lens. There are also Linhof 6 x 12 cameras which, used with a
              really wide lens and cropped to a higher aspect ratio might look like
              the photos we are seeing here.

              So my guess would still be Xpan. The lenses really are quite exceptionally
              good and I have produced large prints, not quite as large as mentioned
              for this exchibition, but close. They were stunning! Artistically not in
              the same league, of course, but technically excellent.

              Roger

              --
              Work: www.adex-japan.com
              Play: www.usefilm.com/member/roger
            • Roger D. Williams
              On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 18:00:19 +0900, Bjørn K Nilssen ... Ah, I missed that. Seems conclusive, although it might mean a swing-lens camera
              Message 6 of 30 , Feb 27, 2007
                On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 18:00:19 +0900, Bjørn K Nilssen <bk@...>
                wrote:

                > On 27 Feb 2007 at 16:55, Roger D. Williams wrote:
                >
                >> Yes, indeed. They are also a reminder that 360-degree panoramas are only
                >> a part (although a unique and very important part) of the world of
                >> panoramas. Aspect ratios of 3:1 and even 4:1 have their own appeal and
                >> suitability to certain images. Here they are used by a master!
                >>
                >> These could have been taken by an Xpan using 30mm, 45mm or 90mm lenses.
                >> They seem not to have been taken by a swing-lens camera (there are some
                >> very clear signs that the images, despite their high aspect ratio, are
                >> taken with rectilinear lenses). And I am pretty certain they didn't
                >> involve stitching, either.
                >
                > On http://www.nuribilgeceylan.com/reviews.php?mid=4 it says that he used
                > a panoramic camera, so at least they are not stitched.

                Ah, I missed that. Seems conclusive, although it might mean a swing-lens
                camera (though I think not--see separate post).

                > I can't see why they (most of them anyway) couldn't have been stitched
                > though?

                Hmmm. Stitching usually (though not necessarily) involves producing a
                non-rectilinear image. Depends on how wide you want to go, of course.
                I have seen truly excellent results produced with a 35mm camera and a
                28mm lens. The camera was used in portrait orientation and then two
                images stitched to give what looks for all the world like a 6x6 image
                using a Distagon wide-angle lens. Very impressive. I've remembered
                the technique and used it when I only have the lens-kit zoom with me
                on my D200 and wanted wider angle coverage than the 28mm effective
                focal length would give me. Rectilinear projections are fine for this
                application.

                > Stitching has gotten so much into my blood during the last year since I
                > started making
                > photographic 360 panoramas, so now I rarely take one single shot of a
                > scene, but usually
                > at least 3 or 4, just in case I want to stitch ;) 360s are great for
                > web/screen, but
                > usually not so useful for prints. Stitching is IMO the best (or at least
                > the most
                > convenient and affordable) way to get big, detailed multi-Mpx photos for
                > really large prints even with a small 5Mpx camera.

                Get into stitching and you can see uses for it everywhere. Hold a hammer
                and they say everything looks like a nail! <g>

                Roger

                --
                Work: www.adex-japan.com
                Play: www.usefilm.com/member/roger
              • Roger D. Williams
                ... Ah, Hans. I am interested to find that someone whom I respect so much for the beauty of his panoramas has such a narrow definition of the word panorama.
                Message 7 of 30 , Feb 27, 2007
                  On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:02:51 +0900, Hans Nyberg <hans@...> wrote:

                  > Beautiful Photography
                  > but not panoramic photography.

                  Ah, Hans. I am interested to find that someone whom I respect so much
                  for the beauty of his panoramas has such a narrow definition of the
                  word "panorama."

                  I find it perfectly acceptable to use the word for pictures with the
                  aspect ratios we see here, and the great majority of people would
                  agree with me.

                  I would prefer to argue for a special usage that shows how "true"
                  panoramas (360 x 180 degree coverage) are different from the almost
                  universal understanding of the word outside the circles WE move in.

                  I agree in not wanting the two kinds of image to be confused, but I
                  think it won't work to try to appropriate the word "panorama" for
                  what we do when we stitch a 360 x 180 image.

                  I personally call stitched panoramas "spherical panoramas."

                  Works for me.

                  Roger

                  > These are all made with X-Pan or similar.
                  > Proportions are the X-pan 24/65 and many of them are not even wideangle.
                  > In reallity they could have been made by any medium or large format
                  > camera.
                  >
                  > There is a series with proportion 1-4 which could have been made with a
                  > panoramic
                  > camera like Noblex but after looking a little closer you can see that
                  > they are not
                  > panoramic, but rectilinear images.
                  > I believe they are just cropped from the x-pan format.
                  >
                  > The expression panoramic is often miss used to just describe a wide
                  > format which I find
                  > wrong.
                  > The photographer calls them "Cinemascope" which covers it better.
                  >
                  > Hans
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >



                  --
                  Work: www.adex-japan.com
                  Play: www.usefilm.com/member/roger
                • Kathy Wheeler
                  ... 67mm? That s almost enticing enough for me to drag out my old Mamiya RB67 except no-one (around here) processes or scans large format film :-( Cheers,
                  Message 8 of 30 , Feb 27, 2007
                    On 28/02/2007, at 12:44 PM, Roger D. Williams wrote:
                    > That is a slight misconception. Effectively, the Xpan is medium
                    > format,
                    > as the length of the negative is 67mm (only 24mm high, of course).

                    67mm? That's almost enticing enough for me to drag out my old Mamiya
                    RB67 except no-one (around here) processes or scans large format
                    film :-(

                    Cheers,
                    KathyW.
                  • Roger D. Williams
                    On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:33:26 +0900, Kathy Wheeler ... Well, you d need a 43mm lens at the very least! Mamiya make a wondrous 43mm lens for the Mamiya 7 II, but
                    Message 9 of 30 , Feb 27, 2007
                      On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:33:26 +0900, Kathy Wheeler
                      <kathyw@...> wrote:

                      >
                      > On 28/02/2007, at 12:44 PM, Roger D. Williams wrote:
                      >> That is a slight misconception. Effectively, the Xpan is medium
                      >> format,
                      >> as the length of the negative is 67mm (only 24mm high, of course).
                      >
                      > 67mm? That's almost enticing enough for me to drag out my old Mamiya
                      > RB67 except no-one (around here) processes or scans large format
                      > film :-(

                      Well, you'd need a 43mm lens at the very least! Mamiya make a wondrous
                      43mm lens for the Mamiya 7 II, but it costs the earth.

                      Roger

                      --
                      Work: www.adex-japan.com
                      Play: www.usefilm.com/member/roger
                    • Kathy Wheeler
                      ... I think I would have to agree with Hans on this one. To me they are wide FOV, but most I would not call panoramic , just cleverly framed / cropped. The
                      Message 10 of 30 , Feb 27, 2007
                        On 28/02/2007, at 1:03 PM, Roger D. Williams wrote:
                        > I find it perfectly acceptable to use the word for pictures with the
                        > aspect ratios we see here, and the great majority of people would
                        > agree with me.

                        I think I would have to agree with Hans on this one. To me they are
                        wide FOV, but most I would not call "panoramic", just cleverly
                        framed / cropped.

                        The most striking aspect I found was the effective use of people. The
                        human interest aspect especially where a cropped close-up became a
                        very effective almost narrative style portrait. Many of those images
                        really tell a story without using any words.

                        I echo the sentiments of many list readers on the moodiness portrayed
                        in the treatment of light and dark. I like it a lot.

                        Cheers,
                        KathyW.
                      • Joel M. Baldwin
                        WOW! those are nice photos. --On Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:03 AM +0900 Roger D. Williams ... The aspect ratio doesn t make a picture panoramic, but
                        Message 11 of 30 , Feb 27, 2007
                          WOW! those are nice photos.

                          --On Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:03 AM +0900 "Roger D. Williams"
                          <roger@...> wrote:

                          > On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:02:51 +0900, Hans Nyberg <hans@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >> Beautiful Photography
                          >> but not panoramic photography.
                          >
                          > Ah, Hans. I am interested to find that someone whom I respect so much
                          > for the beauty of his panoramas has such a narrow definition of the
                          > word "panorama."
                          >
                          > I find it perfectly acceptable to use the word for pictures with the
                          > aspect ratios we see here, and the great majority of people would
                          > agree with me.

                          The aspect ratio doesn't make a picture panoramic, but rather the FOV.
                          They're beautiful photos, but I'm not sure that the FOV is wide enough
                          in them, or at least some of them, to qualify as 'panoramic'. How do
                          you know they're not just cropped from a larger image?

                          > I would prefer to argue for a special usage that shows how "true"
                          > panoramas (360 x 180 degree coverage) are different from the almost
                          > universal understanding of the word outside the circles WE move in.

                          A 360x180 is no more 'true' of a panorama than any other. It's just
                          on type of many, the main difference being it's FOV, and that in the
                          correct viewer you can look around, up/down/left/right.

                          > I agree in not wanting the two kinds of image to be confused, but I
                          > think it won't work to try to appropriate the word "panorama" for
                          > what we do when we stitch a 360 x 180 image.
                          >
                          > I personally call stitched panoramas "spherical panoramas."

                          I call:

                          A 'stitched panorama' ANY panorama composed of multiple shots, regardless
                          of FOV.
                          A 'spherical panorama' is ONLY a 360x180 panorama when in the correct
                          viewer.

                          > Works for me.
                          >
                          > Roger
                          >
                        • Roger D. Williams
                          On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:19:09 +0900, Joel M. Baldwin ... It doesn t matter whether they are or not. The man is deliberately adopting what is
                          Message 12 of 30 , Feb 27, 2007
                            On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:19:09 +0900, Joel M. Baldwin <qumqats@...>
                            wrote:

                            > The aspect ratio doesn't make a picture panoramic, but rather the FOV.
                            > They're beautiful photos, but I'm not sure that the FOV is wide enough
                            > in them, or at least some of them, to qualify as 'panoramic'. How do
                            > you know they're not just cropped from a larger image?

                            It doesn't matter whether they are or not. The man is deliberately
                            adopting what is properly called the panorama format, and using it
                            splendidly.

                            We have to remember that our own views are coloured by our preferences
                            (I think I include most of us who work directly or indirectly with the
                            Panotools utilities). You may prefer to identify a panorama by its FOV,
                            but most people will look at a wide photo with an aspect ratio of 2.5
                            or more to 1 and call it a panorama. That's just the way the world is.

                            >> I would prefer to argue for a special usage that shows how "true"
                            >> panoramas (360 x 180 degree coverage) are different from the almost
                            >> universal understanding of the word outside the circles WE move in.

                            I let that comment stand because it expresses exactly what I feel.
                            What do you regard as the critical FOV for identifying a panorama?

                            >> I personally call stitched panoramas "spherical panoramas."
                            >
                            > I call:
                            >
                            > A 'stitched panorama' ANY panorama composed of multiple shots, regardless
                            > of FOV.
                            > A 'spherical panorama' is ONLY a 360x180 panorama when in the correct
                            > viewer.

                            The context in which I was using the words "stitched panorama" was, of
                            course, the 360 x 180, which we both agree is a spherical panorama. It is
                            this distinction that I consider to be the most important and the least
                            understood. It should have been clear from the examples I quoted that I
                            recognize other forms of stitched panorama. And that I wouldn't call them
                            "spherical."

                            It will not help people outside the small circle of panorama photographers
                            to be told that photographs they immediately recognize as "panoramas" are
                            really nothing of the kind, and that the word is properly limited to
                            photos that require special viewer software to view interactively. That's
                            too big a stretch for them. At least the addition of the word "spherical"
                            gives them a clue that this is something special and different, which it
                            certainly is.

                            But I really love the panorama format, and take most of my photos in it,
                            even when I don't stitch them. And I am happy to have people call them
                            panoramas. Panorama being anything, whatever its FOV, that has a wide,
                            narrow aspect ratio. And naturally most, but not all of them, have a
                            pretty wide field of view!

                            Roger

                            --
                            Work: www.adex-japan.com
                            Play: www.usefilm.com/member/roger
                          • Joel M. Baldwin
                            --On Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:44 PM +0900 Roger D. Williams ... ^^^^^^^^ properly or popularly? standard usage may be technically WRONG if it gets used
                            Message 13 of 30 , Feb 28, 2007
                              --On Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:44 PM +0900 "Roger D. Williams"
                              <roger@...> wrote:

                              > On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:19:09 +0900, Joel M. Baldwin <qumqats@...>
                              > wrote:
                              >
                              >> The aspect ratio doesn't make a picture panoramic, but rather the FOV.
                              >> They're beautiful photos, but I'm not sure that the FOV is wide enough
                              >> in them, or at least some of them, to qualify as 'panoramic'. How do
                              >> you know they're not just cropped from a larger image?
                              >
                              > It doesn't matter whether they are or not. The man is deliberately
                              > adopting what is properly called the panorama format, and using it
                              > splendidly.

                              ^^^^^^^^
                              properly or popularly?

                              standard usage may be technically WRONG
                              if it gets used incorrectly long enough it ends up redefining the word.


                              > We have to remember that our own views are coloured by our preferences
                              > (I think I include most of us who work directly or indirectly with the
                              > Panotools utilities). You may prefer to identify a panorama by its FOV,
                              > but most people will look at a wide photo with an aspect ratio of 2.5
                              > or more to 1 and call it a panorama. That's just the way the world is.

                              regrettably I have to agree, incorrect usage is rampant

                              >>> I would prefer to argue for a special usage that shows how "true"
                              >>> panoramas (360 x 180 degree coverage) are different from the almost
                              >>> universal understanding of the word outside the circles WE move in.
                              >
                              > I let that comment stand because it expresses exactly what I feel.
                              > What do you regard as the critical FOV for identifying a panorama?

                              They're almost wide enough. To me they look to be around 100degFOV.
                              Gray area. The kicker to me that they're NOT panoramic is they're not
                              wide enough to have enough distortion to look 'funny'. Add content above
                              and below to make a 4:3 aspect ratio and it'd be a perfectly normal photo.

                              > . . . snip . . .

                              A bit of googling indicates that there isn't a precise definition of
                              'panorama'. Not even in the Glossary at wiki.panotools.org!?
                              I guess I've been a bit pedantic in my precision of definitions.

                              You would think that in technical pursuit such as creating panoramas
                              on a computer that you would have precise definitions.

                              I keep thinking of the 'panoramic' mode that some of the 35mm and APS
                              cameras had. All it did was throw a mask in front of the film to
                              change the aspect ratio of the photo on the 35mm cameras and on the
                              APS cameras it wrote some 'pano' flag on the magnetic strip that APS
                              had. It told the print machine to only print the middle of the film
                              on a longer strip of print paper. Total rip off! But the public
                              got something they thought was neat. All it did was change the
                              aspect ration of the print by chopping off the top and bottom with
                              a resulting loss of resolution on the print.

                              <slinking back to the peanut gallery>

                              see you all later!
                            • dmgalpha
                              ... I am a new convert too. The Peleng lens was a true eye opener. I once read wide-angle photography becomes addictive and you want wider, and wider. Well,
                              Message 14 of 30 , Feb 28, 2007
                                --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Roger D. Williams" <roger@...> wrote:
                                >

                                >
                                > But I really love the panorama format, and take most of my photos in it,
                                > even when I don't stitch them. And I am happy to have people call them
                                > panoramas. Panorama being anything, whatever its FOV, that has a wide,
                                > narrow aspect ratio. And naturally most, but not all of them, have a
                                > pretty wide field of view!
                                >
                                > Roger



                                I am a new convert too. The Peleng lens was a true eye opener. I once
                                read wide-angle photography becomes addictive and you want wider, and
                                wider. Well, you can't get any wider than a spherical, but for a
                                one-shot photo I _love_ the fisheyes. Soo much that 10 days ago I got
                                a Nikkor 10.5 for my 20d. It is getting to the point that for the
                                first time in my life I have consider buying a Nikon body (that is
                                what I call a "killer" lens).

                                Fish eye images work (in my opinion) better in a panorama format. I am
                                a new convert. Not all images work with it, but used effectively it
                                can be very useful.

                                Last weekend I mounted the Nikkon 10.5 on my Elan IIe (film). Of
                                course the shade gets on the way, but guess what? I provided me with
                                exactly the panorama format I was looking for. I will continue using
                                the lens with my film cameras. I gives me a unique view of the world.

                                On a different line, yesterday I manufactured a set of "manual stops"
                                for my 10.5. I made them out of the lego: from F2.8 (I think, to
                                something like F11). I'll post images if people are interested. I plan
                                to carry them along with my lensbaby diaphragm rings.

                                Anybody interested in a 10-22 EF-S in good condition? I have no use of
                                it any more :)

                                dmg




                                >
                                > --
                                > Work: www.adex-japan.com
                                > Play: www.usefilm.com/member/roger
                                >
                              • Yuval Levy
                                ... It s the author himself that calls these cinemascope and I agree with Hans. To me, spherical panoramas is 360$B!k(Bx180$B!k(B Panoramas is
                                Message 15 of 30 , Feb 28, 2007
                                  Roger D. Williams wrote:
                                  > On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:02:51 +0900, Hans Nyberg <hans@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  >> Beautiful Photography
                                  >> but not panoramic photography.
                                  >
                                  > Ah, Hans. I am interested to find that someone whom I respect so much
                                  > for the beauty of his panoramas has such a narrow definition of the
                                  > word "panorama."

                                  It's the author himself that calls these "cinemascope" and I agree with
                                  Hans.

                                  To me, "spherical panoramas" is 360°x180°

                                  "Panoramas" is 360°x (anything), as intended by Robert Barker, the
                                  original panorama maker
                                  <http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-pan3.htm>
                                  <http://www.edvec.ed.ac.uk/html/projects/panorama/index.html>

                                  It is not the aspect ratio that counts - 1:1 aspect ratios such as
                                  <http://www.photopla.net/060826boston/planetmid/45c.png>
                                  are as much panoramas to me as 1:4 aspect ratios of the four 90°HFOV
                                  cubefaces put side by side as in
                                  <http://www.photopla.net/060826boston/spiv1024/45c.jpg> (ignore the two
                                  rightmost cubefaces, though even as a 1:6 aspect ratio it is a viable
                                  panorama).

                                  anything with less than 360°HFOV is something else. I like the word
                                  "cinescope" used by Nuri Bilge Ceylan.


                                  > I personally call stitched panoramas "spherical panoramas."

                                  panoramas can be stitched or not (slit cameras / one shot mirrors).
                                  Stitching is just one technique to produce panoramas.

                                  Yuv

                                  --
                                  Copyright (c) 2007 Yuval Levy
                                  Verbatim copying and distribution on other medium than YahooGroup
                                  strictly forbidden.
                                • Bruno Postle
                                  ... I was in London today and had a look in. The pictures are beautiful and no disappointment. Some of them are heavily worked , but actually the ones I
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Feb 28, 2007
                                    On Tue 27-Feb-2007 at 07:37 -0000, dmgalpha wrote:
                                    >
                                    > I envy those in London and NY City. They can experience exhibits that
                                    > never reach our cities.
                                    >
                                    > I strongly urge those in London to visit the exhibit of Nuri Bilge
                                    > Ceylan. His work is currently displayed at the National Theatre.
                                    >
                                    > http://www.nuribilgeceylan.com/

                                    I was in London today and had a look in. The pictures are beautiful
                                    and no disappointment.

                                    Some of them are heavily 'worked', but actually the ones I liked
                                    most _are_ the real paste-up jobs. A few are stitched, but there
                                    was no panotools involved, they are just carefully lined-up and
                                    retouched.

                                    > We, as panophotographers, can certainly learn from him.

                                    The other thing to learn is that hanging a picture four feet above the
                                    floor is just wrong.

                                    --
                                    Bruno
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.