UWF: Is a 6x30 or 6x36 format a reasonable concept

**Paul Ewins** · 13-Apr-2005, 19:11

Marco,
I have built a 6x14 out of an old Kodak 3A horizontal folding box camera. I like the aspect ratio a lot and the image circle required is small enough that I can happily use a 90 Angulon (not SA).

The biggest issue is that there are no frame numbers for 6x7 on the backing paper, so I need to use a modified version of the 645 sequence; 3, 6+o, 9+oo, 12+ooo, 16. This really only works well with Fuji film which has circles of increasing size between frame numbers.

To get around this (and a few other issues relating to using a 90+ year old camera) I am in the process of building a new camera from scratch, using the winding mechanism from an RB67 back. The frame counting on this works by friction and there is no mechanical connection to the winding mechanism so you can basically just cut the back in half and splice an extra 70mm into the centre. This eliminates the need for a ruby window and associated light leak issues. I'm using a frame size of 56x140mm and there is a reasonable space between frames.

The graflex units are pretty much the same as the RB67 so I would expect them to be usable too. It should also be possible to build a unit using the 220 mechanism that was avilable in the later XL units.

**Jerry Fusselman** · 13-Apr-2005, 20:07

I think 6x36 is a terrific idea, and I am surprised by most of these answers. 6:1 not useful? I feel certain that there are many cases in real life when people's eye movements, if tracked, would pretty well cover and stay inside a wide-angle 6:1 frame.

I will list some: The Chicago skyline from Adler Planetarium; a nighttime cityscape where the foreground is weak; a riverfront; a single tree trunk; a long waterfall; everyone in a swimming pool; a mountain range; a long horizon with interesting detail; a traditional 3:1 panorama subject composed with a "foreground" on the side instead of an inferior foreground below.

The human eye is interested in edges and long lines, so I think 6:1 is a natural and appealing aspect ratio; we are used to seeing 6:1 but not used to composing 6:1. A well-composed 6:1 print can be thrilling.

**Clayton Tume** · 13-Apr-2005, 21:33

Yeah Jerry......you got it!

My standard print is 6.25:1 ratio and I don't usually go below 5:1.

I discovered what you gave examples for a long time ago. I think people get naturally tied to available formats and paper sizes and have trouble thinking outside that. And as you state we're not used to composing 6:1 even though we see it.

None of this is new either, panoramic photographers have been doing it for well over 100 years.

Clayton

**Edward (Halifax,NS)** · 14-Apr-2005, 05:51

Hi Clayton, you are right in that I don't shoot panorama formats myself but I have seen books/exhibits from 617 cameras and find them to be wonderful. Once the aspect ratio goes beyond 4:1 I find the images a chore to view. It is kind of like a tennis match for me. I am sure you are not the only person who likes shooting this wide or viewing/purchasing the results but I think the market would be too small to warrant designing/building a camera.

BTW, I am in the middle of building a camera for myself (4X5) and if it goes well I am considering a 4X10 for my next project.

**CXC** · 14-Apr-2005, 09:18

Clayton and others,

It would be great to see some of your mega-pans; anything online? I'm perfectly willing to be convinced that 1:6 can be a good thing. I'm just having a hard time imagining it.

I think the closest thing to the 6x14 ratio might be my Widelux, 2.4x5.9. Though the look is different and coverage is greater, due to the lens rotation. I find it so hard to compose with and so limiting that it has put me off pans. The Fotoman 6x12 seems like a much more usable tool for me, when I am ready to get back into them.

Paul, were these the sort of responses you expected? ;-)

**Clayton Tume** · 14-Apr-2005, 18:42

Edward

I agree the market for high aspect ratio panoramic equipment is small, very small. Viewing them is an issue as well and they generally don't work well in publications. Where they do work well is on walls when the prints are a reasonable size.

At 1 metre in length my prints are only 3 1/2 times enlargement and you can put your nose on them and see incredible sharp detail. Believe me people do view them like that! They get drawn in from a distance and the closer they get the more they see.

CXC and others, you can see some samples on my website www.bigshotz.co.nz

Clayton

**Will Strain** · 16-Apr-2005, 11:26

www.rogue-designer.com/LA/palm_pano_web_lg.jpg

Roughly a 1x10 ratio - this is from stitched images (10 images) - but the effect in print is stunning. This is from a digital, but I have done the same with 6x7 and 4x5's in the past... average print size is 7"x70" Printed digitally on a roll - then mounted on foamcore.