Ideal Formats for Panoramas [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Diane Maher

4-Dec-2009, 12:22

r.e.

4-Dec-2009, 12:26

The Turkish film director/writer/actor Nuri Bilge Ceylan, who has made some highly regarded films, did a series of photographs called Turkey Cinemascope at roughly 1:2.6:

http://www.nuribilgeceylan.com/photography/turkeycinemascope1.php?sid=1

Robert Hughes

4-Dec-2009, 12:28

r.e.

4-Dec-2009, 12:38

In the 1963 Jean-Luc Godard film Contempt, filmmaker Fritz Lang makes a disparaging comment about CinemaScope (anamorphic wide-screen format): "Oh, it wasn't meant for human beings. Just for snakes - and funerals."

Ironically, Contempt was shot in CinemaScope.

Your post looks to be a direct lift from the Wikipedia entry on CinemaScope. Insight is not one of Wikipedia's strong suits.

h2oman

4-Dec-2009, 12:53

Go to Brian Kosoff's site where he has cropped to various ratios and get your ruler out. I think they all work for him, but I'm a devoted fan.

benrains

4-Dec-2009, 12:54

Unless you're looking to go with something big like 12x20 or 8x20 for contact prints, or just have lots of money to unload, my vote is for 8x10 and then crop to suit your needs. Because hey, not only will you have a camera to make panoramas, but you'll also have a great general purpose camera for other types of work.

Robert Hughes

4-Dec-2009, 13:05

Your post looks to be a direct lift from the Wikipedia entry on CinemaScope. Insight is not one of Wikipedia's strong suits.
Perhaps I should have quoted it. But I heard the story long before Wikipedia...

r.e.

4-Dec-2009, 13:10

Godard wrote the script, including that line. They've missed the point by the proverbial mile. If you haven't had a chance to see the film, there's an article on the net, published by Salon, about a new transfer of the film.

Best.

r.e.

4-Dec-2009, 13:33

If Neil doesn't object, seeing as how he's asked what formats work and why, I'm curious to know what people think of Ceylan's 2.6:1 photographs.

He apparently made them in the process - during scouting according to one account - of making one of his films. He plays a strong role in the cinematography for his films, and the panoramas do strike me as having a cinematic look. They have been well-received.

I'd like to know what kind of camera was used to make them. Looking at the prints, it isn't clear how much, if at all, they were staged, but some of them look distinctly unstaged. The prints run about 18"x46". Accoriding to one of the reviews on his site, they go through some kind of lacquer process.

Nathan Potter

4-Dec-2009, 13:33

Neil, I believe the the key is in the why. That is, the scene and your vision of it comes first and the format is chosen to fit the scene. So essentially any format will do for image capture as long as you end up with the relevant information on film. You can crop later.

Of course in a practical sense you have predetermined to do panoramic capture which forces a specific technique onto your subject matter. In principle any format could capture what you want but the framing in panoramic can help you see. Pre-choosing the format may be largely inconsequential.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Bruce Watson

4-Dec-2009, 13:54

With few past opportunities, I'm considering doing some black and white panoramic work.

What are different panoramic formats that work well and why?

Work well for whom? Work well for what subject matter?

I suspect what you are asking is what format will you like for your own subject matter. And this is a question that no one can answer but you. But I'm sure you knew that already.

For me, I tend toward 1:sqrt(5) or about 1:2.24. This ratio shows up a lot in Japan (traditional gardens), and supposedly a fair amount in nature and in architecture. I don't know why, but something about it works for me. When I see a panoramic subjects I tend to "see" them in this ratio.

The closest "normal" panoramic film format to this is 1:2.5 (think 10x4, and 20x8, both popular formats). This ratio also works fairly well for me, even if it's a bit long. What I actually use is half a 5x4 sheet, so about 5x2.

No reason what I do should work for you or anyone else though. Experiment some with different ratios and see what clicks for you and your style. It's really the only way you'll find out.

Joanna Carter

4-Dec-2009, 14:55

For me, I tend toward 1:sqrt(5) or about 1:2.24. This ratio shows up a lot in Japan (traditional gardens), and supposedly a fair amount in nature and in architecture. I don't know why, but something about it works for me. When I see a panoramic subjects I tend to "see" them in this ratio
Now that is interesting; I don't have a a panoramic camera or back, (although I did try out a Fuji 617 for a while), so I tended to make 4x5 images and then crop if I think they suit. Then, all of a sudden, I realised that my favourite crop ended up being in the proportions of 6 x 13.5 (1:2.25). I can't describe why; it just seems "right" - 6x12 is too "square" and 6x17 is just too long and skinny.

rdenney

4-Dec-2009, 14:56

If you already own a 4x5 camera, probably the easiest way to try it out is with a 6x12 roll-film holder. The market is filled with options in that format, and none of them require special darkroom techniques or equipment. There are some devices that will provide 6x17 on a 4x5 camera, by pushing the film back enough so that the lens can see past the 4x5 opening, but they are limited to shorter lenses. There are also 6x17 holders for 5x7 camera that don't have those limitations.

If you are considering this because rollfilm provides a usefully convenient packaging, then you'll quickly find yourself in Nate's second camp of people who have chosen a format for external reasons and then seek to adjust their visualization to match it. I would say that describes me pretty well, but I'm starting to get a sense of seeing in 6x12 and I like it. One can always make two images, one shifted up and the other shifted down (easier with the back shifts of a monorail camera--you want to keep the lens in the same position) and then stitch them together to make an image that is perhaps 100mm by 110mm. One can also crop top and bottom only slightly to increase the aspect ratio.

6x12 is a good starting point because of price and availability. Any Graflok-equipped 4x5 camera will work with a Shen-Hao 6x12 rollfilm holder, and that combination works quite well. Such an arrangement could be had easily for under $500 for the basic camera and back. I would be tempted to start there before considering a 6x17 conversion back, a larger format, or a fixed-body camera. There are 6x12 fixed-body cameras (such as the Horseman SW) and 6x17 cameras (such as Fuji and Linhof models) but they are quite expensive, and with them you give up an essential feature of large cameras: lens tilts and swings. But they present a more integrated package and are easier to use.

With 6x12, I find myself either focusing the composition on long, narrow subjects, or putting the subject in the center and letting the width give it a sweeping context. I hope to expand that palette as time goes on.

Rick "suspecting the OP is seeking an entry point" Denney

rdenney

4-Dec-2009, 15:02

6x12 is too "square" and 6x17 is just too long and skinny.

It's sure easier to crop just a little from the top and bottom of 6x12 to make a skinnier format than it is to cut off the ends of 6x17, especially considering the expense of achieving that 17cm width (5x12 is really 50x110mm--1:2.4). But then most would argue that cutting off the top and bottom of 4x5 and 5x7 sheet-film images is easier still. At the moment I'm using rollfilm a lot because of convenience--and without that convenience I wouldn't be able to do as much photography.

Rick "whose 6x12 ultra-wide, a 47/5.6 Super Angulon, makes a great, um, 5x12 lens" Denney

Jim Becia

4-Dec-2009, 15:55

With few past opportunities, I'm considering doing some black and white panoramic work.

What are different panoramic formats that work well and why?

Neil,

If you are talking formats, I like the 4x10 format. That gives you a 1:2.5 ratio. If you want to go to 1:3 just a little cropping needs to be done. I decided on the 4x10 for several reasons. Just about every lens I own covers 4x10 with the exception of a couple. Cutting 8x10 film down is a one cut deal and fairly straight forward. I like the amount of information in 4x10 over 6x17. I've printed a couple up to almost 30x75 and they hold their own and could easily go 32x80.

The drawbacks to 4x10 -Either a specialized camera or an 8x10 with a reducing back. I started with a 4x10 camera and now moved up to an 8x10. There were a couple of reasons for that move. I wanted to be ableto use a 600 Fuji C and the 8x10 had the bellows I needed, also the 8x10 will now allow a vertical shot without flipping the camera on its side. Of course, now I have to haul a bigger and heavier camera.

Now if you are just talking aspect ratio, I still like the 1:2.5, but I suppose this ratio can done using just about any camera with cropping.

Not sure if this is the type of answer for which you were looking. Jim Becia

Colin Graham

4-Dec-2009, 17:38

5x12 is a nice format. Not so big that you can't see the whole frame under the cloth, still very portable, and the aspect ratio reminds me of cinema letterbox. The downside is it's an odd cut from standard sizes. Paper, film, negative sleeves, mat board- all seem to have some offcut waste. Also, developing, scanning and/or enlarging all require ventures into exponentially bigger and more expensive infrastructure. Pack and accessory options get pretty limited as well. Or you have to DIY everything.

I had it to do over I'd probably go with 4x10. 2x5 was a little too small for me to compose comfortably, but it was nice not to have to cut film, and not so expensive I didn't mind masking from the center of a piece of 4x5 film. I never tried 6x12 or 6x17, but then I never much liked dealing with roll film.

Richard K.

4-Dec-2009, 22:05

5x12 is a nice format. Not so big that you can't see the whole frame under the cloth, still very portable, and the aspect ratio reminds me of cinema letterbox. The downside is it's an odd cut from standard sizes. ......

Yes it is a nice format. One other nice feature is that you can take a panoramic with say a 150mm lens that you couldn't as well on 8x20 with an equivalent 240mm lens because the 240 doesn't really cover the format. (by really I mean really :rolleyes: )
I would also disagree that it is an odd/wasteful cut from standard sizes (unless you don't consider 12x20 or 20 x24 a standard size) since it is a non-wasteful result of cutting a piece of 12x20 film. But you don't have to cut at all. 5x12 is one of the sizes available in Ilford's annual run...:)

Tillman Crane does beautiful work in this format.

neil poulsen

4-Dec-2009, 22:23

I'm not sure what you consider to be an ideal panoramic format that works well. There are plenty of ways to do panoramas. If you are looking for specific camera formats, then you have 4x10, 5x12, 7x17, 8x20, 12x20 (and no doubt others that are more exotic). Some people use rollfilm holders on 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10. Some use cameras specifically built to use roll film as a panorama, for instance 6x12 and 6x17 cameras. You could even go the digital route.

Why do they work well? Sorry, but your question isn't really that clear. I don't know how to answer that. I'm not even certain that I gave you a decent answer on the formats. :D

Yes, thanks for your comment. I probably wasn't clear.

I'm suggesting that people respond with panoramic formats that they themselves use and like, and why. Why does that format work for them; what do they like about it?

And, I'm thinking that "format" inherently encompasses both ratio and camera size. For example, I can see where someone might think that 5"x10" works better than 6cmX12cm, even though they're the same ratio. So, ratio isn't necessarily the sole determinant.

As an afterthought, it would also be good to hear about the lenses people prefer with a given format.

Vaughn

4-Dec-2009, 22:52

I use an 8x10 and a modified darkslide to get two 4x10's on one sheet of film.

I just measures the actual image area, because I knew it wasn't exactly 4x10. It is 3.625x9.625 inches (about 9.3cmx24.5cm) which is a 1:2.66 ratio. Depending on how one cuts the darkslide, one could easily get any ratio greater than that (still two shots per 8x10 sheet of film). For example a 3.0"x9.625" would be a 1:3.2 ratio.

One might be able to achieve a true 1:2.5 (3.85"x9.625"), but one would risk some overlapping of the two images on the 8x10 film.

Getting only one image per sheet of 8x10 seems to be a bit of a waste, but possible (the height of an image with a 1:2.4 ratio would be 4.01").

But I find that whatever ratio one works with, one can find images that will fit it. I learned with a 1:1 ratio and loved it (still do). I find whatever format proportions I work with to be "ideal". I find images to fill the format -- I print full-frame (alt processes).

4x10 is a nice format -- big enough to enjoy framed up, as long as the viewing distance is not great. If I had an 11x14 camera, you can rest assured that I would be modifying a darkslide to make 5.25x14 prints!

I use all my lenses when making 4x10's (159mm, 210mm, 300mm, 480mm and even a borrowed 600mm). Whatever the scene in front of me seems to dictate. Actually I do not use the 159mm too much, as it is a bit of a hassle to center the lens (using rise/fall) on the film. My Zone VI is not very short-lens friendly, but the 210mm is fine -- and I usually use it or my 300mm the most.

Vaughn

Hopefully my math is okay. Below is a 4x10 image (scanned platinum/palladium print) taken with a 300mm lens.
Last Light, Yosemite Valley

vinny

4-Dec-2009, 23:16

4x10. I use a splitter board on my 8x10 all the time. I like it better than the split dark slide idea for several reasons. The splitter blocks out the 1/2 of the ground glass that you aren't using, making composing much less distracting. Two, I can move it to the other position after the shot to be ready for the other half on the next set up and I know which half of film to expose. Three, no extra dark slide to collect dirt when you switch it for the whole dark slide.

Vaughn, fantastic shot.

rdenney

4-Dec-2009, 23:26

As an afterthought, it would also be good to hear about the lenses people prefer with a given format.

I like it wide. I've made images with my current 6x12 learning experiment using 47, 65, 121, 180, 210, and 240mm lenses. I've wanted longer on several occasions and recently acquired a 12" lens to push in that direction. The 210 Sinaron's arrival probably means the 180 will stay home a lot. But the wides are still more likely candidates and seem to fit the panoramic concept for many kinds of images. It's just bad luck that I haven't used the 90 yet. The 121 is just about normal on this format, though the normal definitions don't work well with panoramic formats--lenses with a focal length of the diameter of the format seem wide because of their field of view along the long dimension.

Rick "who doesn't want to have to crop 6x12 much" Denney

Vaughn

4-Dec-2009, 23:46

4x10. I use a splitter board on my 8x10 all the time...Vaughn, fantastic shot.

Thanks, Vinny.

Fred Picker did not design the Zone VI 8x10 with splitters in mind. I can see where they would be a good thing.

I center the lens on the 4x10 image area on the top portion of the 8x10 film. Then for the second shot (if I am making two of the same image) I just remove the back and rotate it 180 degrees. But having an extra darkslide to deal with can lead to mistakes if one is distracted or tired. I was pretty well zapped after teaching a carbon printing workshop in Yosemite this past Spring (6 days of little sleep!) Stopped on the way home (just outside of the park) and made two 4x10's -- I ended up accidently ended up exposing the wrong half of the scene twice! Oh, well. I know the spot and can get the image again some Spring.

I use a metal darkslide for the 4x10's. This was after accidently breaking a modified regular darkslide in my pack.

Vaughn

PS...I got to get off line and busy -- I am photographing a dried artichoke flower (two heads) with the 8x10. I am thinking of doing it full-frame and also as a vertical 4x10.

Below -- two 4x10's Humboldt Bay w/ 300mm lens (scans of transparencies) -- please pardon my poor PhotoShop skills! LOL!

Colin Graham

4-Dec-2009, 23:54

Yes it is a nice format. One other nice feature is that you can take a panoramic with say a 150mm lens that you couldn't as well on 8x20 with an equivalent 240mm lens because the 240 doesn't really cover the format. (by really I mean really :rolleyes: )
I would also disagree that it is an odd/wasteful cut from standard sizes (unless you don't consider 12x20 or 20 x24 a standard size) since it is a non-wasteful result of cutting a piece of 12x20 film. But you don't have to cut at all. 5x12 is one of the sizes available in Ilford's annual run...:)

Tillman Crane does beautiful work in this format.

My point was that once you start using an exotic format, you are at the mercy of the size in every peripheral thing you need- matboard, negative sleeves, paper for printing. Not just film. Film is easy, for now.

Anyway, I'm not trying to talk anyone out of anything, just giving my perspective on it having shot the format for the past several years. I just think 4x10 might be more practical.

John Kasaian

5-Dec-2009, 00:50

I think it depends on the subject and what kind of "look" you want. Certainly any common panoramic format will get you "there" but there is difference between a swing lens and a more conventional panoramic that can sometimes be exploited for good effect if one wishes to.

Bruce Watson

5-Dec-2009, 08:16

Now that is interesting; I don't have a a panoramic camera or back, (although I did try out a Fuji 617 for a while), so I tended to make 4x5 images and then crop if I think they suit. Then, all of a sudden, I realised that my favourite crop ended up being in the proportions of 6 x 13.5 (1:2.25). I can't describe why; it just seems "right" - 6x12 is too "square" and 6x17 is just too long and skinny.

It is interesting indeed. Perhaps it feels right for the same reason that the golden ratio feels right. And the two are related -- the golden ratio is:

(sqrt(5) - 1) / 2, which is about 1.618.

The golden ratio is even more prevalent in nature and therefore shows up in architecture all over the world. Just about every culture recognizes and uses the golden ratio for all kinds of things.

The golden ratio is the aspect ratio I use most these days. I tend to see that way for some reason. The fledgling 8x5 ratio (Chamonix makes one (http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/58.html)) is close to the golden ratio. I think there's a ULF format that's also close but I don't remember. For now however I'm sticking with 5x4 and cropping it down to about 4.75 x 3 to get what I want.

But when I see a pano, I tend to crop down to 4.75 x 2.12 for that 2.24 look that I like.

All this cropping may get me to move to a bigger format. Someday. Maybe. But I doubt it.

Richard K.

5-Dec-2009, 08:38

My point was that once you start using an exotic format, you are at the mercy of the size in every peripheral thing you need- matboard, negative sleeves, paper for printing. Not just film. Film is easy, for now.

Anyway, I'm not trying to talk anyone out of anything, just giving my perspective on it having shot the format for the past several years. I just think 4x10 might be more practical.

I apreciate what you're saying Colin but other than slight inconvenience, all of these formats can be easily accommodated. We have lately found a seller of sleeves who offers 4x10, 5x12, 7x11, 7x17, 8x20 and 12x20 panoramic formats; mat board and printing paper can be chosen to either eliminate waste or minimize it. In point of fact only the 7x17 size can not be cut waste-free from a larger piece of paper (20x24 will do all but 7x17 with no waste). As far as mat board goes there is just as much waste with standard sizes -8x10, 11x14, etc. since what looks good as a mat usually is not 16x20 or 20x24 etc. At any rate mat wastage can be minimised by cutting from larger boards.
So I agree with you but I feel that the slight increase in effort in acquiring the proper materials should not deter one from enjoying what may be a satisfying format for them. :) In other words, 5x12 or 7x11 is a great format :D

Colin Graham

5-Dec-2009, 09:44

Diane Maher

5-Dec-2009, 10:10

Yes, thanks for your comment. I probably wasn't clear.

I'm suggesting that people respond with panoramic formats that they themselves use and like, and why. Why does that format work for them; what do they like about it?

And, I'm thinking that "format" inherently encompasses both ratio and camera size. For example, I can see where someone might think that 5"x10" works better than 6cmX12cm, even though they're the same ratio. So, ratio isn't necessarily the sole determinant.

As an afterthought, it would also be good to hear about the lenses people prefer with a given format.

Neil,
I routinely shoot with 5x12. I found that I liked it after viewing Tillman Crane's work and Michael Mutmansky's brief work with the format. Why does it work? I live in a relatively flat area and it does suit much of what I shoot

I use a range of lenses from 150 mm to 600 mm.

r.e.

5-Dec-2009, 10:14

Colin, I just looked at your web site. All Night Empires is terrific.

Colin Graham

5-Dec-2009, 10:18

Thanks! That one is for me, as it were. Glad it comes across ok.

.

r.e.

5-Dec-2009, 10:23

It comes across - both the images and the writing - really well. I hope that you continue with this project. I'd love to read/see more.

Oren Grad

5-Dec-2009, 10:47

The golden ratio is the aspect ratio I use most these days.... The fledgling 8x5 ratio (Chamonix makes one (http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/58.html)) is close to the golden ratio. I think there's a ULF format that's also close but I don't remember.

6x10, 7x11 and 12x20 are all pretty close too - just depends how large a print one wants and how much cost and logistical hassle one is willing to put up with.

The ~2.5 ratio is also well-represented, with 4x10, 5x12, 7x17 and 8x20. If I recall, that eBay seller in India with all the antique field cameras may have sold a few 6x15's too.

Pretty amazing how many of these odd formats have become real cameras.

h2oman

5-Dec-2009, 11:59

It is interesting indeed. Perhaps it feels right for the same reason that the golden ratio feels right. And the two are related -- the golden ratio is:

(sqrt(5) - 1) / 2, which is about 1.618.

I'm too lazy to go get my calculator right now, but the sqrt(5) must be a bit larger than 2, since it is between sqrt(4) and sqrt(9). If I then subtract 1 and divide by 2 I won't get 1.618. So I'm thinking that the golden ratio is actually

(sqrt(5)+1)/2

Not that anyone here really cares!:D

Bruce is right in pushing the beauty of the Golden ratio. The Golden ratio/Fibonacci sequence story is one of the more interesting ones in math.

Gregg Waterman
math nerd

Bruce Watson

5-Dec-2009, 12:37

I'm too lazy to go get my calculator right now, but the sqrt(5) must be a bit larger than 2, since it is between sqrt(4) and sqrt(9). If I then subtract 1 and divide by 2 I won't get 1.618. So I'm thinking that the golden ratio is actually

(sqrt(5)+1)/2

Not that anyone here really cares!:D

I care, but I got it wrong; you caught me in a math error. Your equation is the correct one. Sadly, you aren't the first to catch one of my math errors, and it's unlikely that you'll be the last either. Oy.

Richard K.

5-Dec-2009, 15:22

Yes, despite my slight issues with it, its a wonderful format. I made two separate cameras and a bunch of holders just to be able to use it. It's always nice to meet another user. How long have you been shooting 5x12? Would like to see some of your work with the format.

Colin, I borrowed a friend's home-made camera about a month ago and was instantly smitten. :) There were 2 panoramics (so far!) that I was able to do with this camera that I couldn't do with an 8x20 (150 lens on 5x12, no room to back up, would need 240 lens on 8x20; don't have one that covers...). The easier handling (and lower weight) compared to 8x20 is something that I (and my back) appreciate too. I have a 5x12 on order from Chamonix and hope to post something after receiving and working that!

PS Fine work on your web site!

GPS

5-Dec-2009, 15:50

With few past opportunities, I'm considering doing some black and white panoramic work.

What are different panoramic formats that work well and why?

Neil, your question walks with a limp...
The use of a panoramic format depends very much on the focal length you use for the format. That's the other part of the equation.
I have specialized cameras in 6x12, 6x17, 6x24 format but each of them has different use because of the focal length I use. And that depends on the subject distance a lot. While a 6x17 format with the common 90 mm lens can be a little bit boring with a 150mm lens it gets a lot of use. A 6x24 format with a 300mm lens gets a lot of use as does the special 6x17cm format with 450mm and even 600mm lens. The idea of taking out and isolating distant subjects has to do with it. Just something to consider...

r.e.

5-Dec-2009, 16:02

Neil, your question walks with a limp...
The use of a panoramic format depends very much on the focal length you use for the format...The idea of taking out and isolating distant subjects has to do with it.

Just based on what I see at the movies, I don't understand that. Cinematographers shoot panoramic or close to it with all kinds of focal lengths. Are you saying that still photography is different, or that the cinematographers don't know what they are doing; or am I misunderstanding what you and some others here are saying? Re the last sentence quoted, how does that square with how someone like Ceylan uses panoramic on the bridge of a ferry, or on a street? Or for that matter, how Tillman Crane, referred to in this thread with a great deal of enthusiasm, uses it. I don't know, but it seems to me that there is a lot of heavy weather going on here.

Oren Grad

5-Dec-2009, 16:20

And that depends on the subject distance a lot. While a 6x17 format with the common 90 mm lens can be a little bit boring with a 150mm lens it gets a lot of use. A 6x24 format with a 300mm lens gets a lot of use as does the special 6x17cm format with 450mm and even 600mm lens. The idea of taking out and isolating distant subjects has to do with it. Just something to consider...

And whether that works depends on how compressed you like your subjects to be.

When I'm tinkering with panoramic formats, I tend to prefer something in the middle - a focal length that will yield a *vertical* field of view comparable to what you'd get with a lens in the 35-45mm range on a 35mm camera. So 90 or 100 is comfortable on 6x12cm, 270 or 300 on 7x17, and so on.

There's no right answer. It's up to you, your purposes and your tastes.

GPS

5-Dec-2009, 16:26

...
There's no right answer. It's up to you, your purposes and your tastes.

Agreed. That's what I want to hint at. The format must be considered with the focal length in mind otherwise it's just an abstraction that limps...
It's not so different in other formats either - the same question considering "normal" non panoramic format would need the same answer.

r.e.

5-Dec-2009, 16:36

Wait a minute.

Oren Grad said that it's a matter of purpose and taste.

You seem to be saying that there is some kind of objective truth to this. Do you use one focal length that you consider to be objectively normal or natural or inherent or whatever for 4x5 or 8x10?

Or maybe you are saying that for a given focal length, say 150mm, there is a right format. From which it would seem to follow that we all need a variety of cameras for each lens.

Sorry, but I don't quite understand. Overall, my sense is that Sven Nyqvist would consider this a little odd.

GPS

5-Dec-2009, 16:38

...
Just something to consider...

:)

Ken Lee

5-Dec-2009, 18:41

Do you use one focal length that you consider to be objectively normal or natural or inherent... ?

What is the basic shape of the human visual field: Is it 2 overlapping circles, like a Venn Diagram ?

http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/venn.gif

If so, what is the ratio of overlap at infinity ?

Perhaps the "human factors" engineers who design automobiles, know these numbers - or Gregg or Oren can find out. :)

r.e.

5-Dec-2009, 19:11

Ken, you are either choosing to read the discussion, and to quote, selectively, or you think that I am so stupid that I don't know what a so-called "normal" lens is for a given format. Your choice.

As far as I know, a good number of successful image makers have failed to abide by the biology of human binocular vision, including depth/perspective, apparently thought to be the principal advantage of binocular vision.

Here is a basic fact. Cinematographers shoot panoramic/wide screen images all the time. They use many different focal lengths. They make effective images, some of them very great images. If an example is needed, there's a link to some panoramic still photography by one of them (well, he's a director, but apparently very hands-on when it comes to the camera), and a reference to another, who was a truly brilliant cinematographer by just about any calculation, in this thread. Not complicated.

P.S. There was a great segment today on the CBC science radio programme Quirks and Quarks, which is also aired in the US, on new findings about the binocular vision of hammerhead sharks, one species of which apparently has a head half as wide as its body is long. Good stuff, probably available via podcast.

Ken Lee

5-Dec-2009, 20:16

r.e -

So sorry to give offense - It wasn't my intention ! I have merely misunderstood. Please overlook my clumsy posting.

I'm not asking about normal lenses for the different formats, but instead am curious if anyone knows the basic shape of the human visual field. I suppose it is a rounded rectangle of sorts, but would love to know the exact ratio. I was hoping that Gregg, a mathematician, or Oren, a physician, could shed some light on the Physiology of perception.

I 'm exploring a theory, you might say.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/Pentagram3.png

r.e.

5-Dec-2009, 20:23

I'm not asking about normal lenses for the different formats, but instead am curious if anyone knows the basic proportions of the human visual field. I suppose it is a rounded rectangle of sorts, but would love to know the exact ratio.

I 'm exploring a theory, you might say.

Ken, de rien.

Seriously, if that is your interest, listen to today's Quirks and Quarks segment on the vision of hammerhead sharks. If you don't know the show, and there's no reason why you should, it is really good. There are links to more in-depth, written material on the show's site. Scroll down just past the first segment on rising seas: http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/09-10/qq-2009-12-05.html Completely unrelated to vision/photography, the segment immediately after, on Blackcap birds flying between England, Germany and Spain, and what is shaping up to be unusual evidence on the speed of natural selection, is also worth a listen.

h2oman

5-Dec-2009, 21:25

I'm a college math professor - I don't know any practical mathematics!:D

There's this joke: Some people are floating along in a hot air balloon, and they realize they are lost. About then they spy a lone hiker watching them, and they holler down at him "Hey, where are we?" The hiker scratches his head and answers "You're in a balloon!"
One of the balloonists replies "You must be a mathematician!". The hiker says "How did you know?", and the person in the balloon shouts back "Well, your answer was absolutely correct and totally useless!"

Vaughn

5-Dec-2009, 21:39

What is the basic shape of the human visual field?

From my viewpoint, it has no "shape". It is more likely to be a continuously changing gestalt created by our brains, drawing from the input from the constant shifting of our eyes, both in direction and focus, and the input from our other senses (as well as the influences of our 60 or so feet of depth perception).

The "shape" you refer to probably is more derived from cultural influences such as art, invention, and religion. Like many, I have considered a "normal" lens for any particular format to be what is close to what we see with our eyes (the focal length of the lens of our eyes relative to the area of the retina?) But in reality, it is like a gigapan image...the focal length of the lens becomes relatively unimportant.

vaughn

Hugo Zhang

5-Dec-2009, 21:41

Neil,

Are you thinking about contact prints?

I started with an old 9 1/2" x 20" camera with 9 1/2" x 20" film holders and 8x20 holders as backup holders due to film issues. I find 8x20" prints more appealing to my eyes and nice on the walls too. That old camera was broken and I had to use a 7x17 camera while waiting a new one to be built. I don't like 7x17 format after using 8x20. The prints seem too small.

That's just my personal experience.

Andrew ren

5-Dec-2009, 21:59

I shoot with 57, and I rarely crop.
but when I do, 6x10 ratio seems to be my taste.

Andrew

Oren Grad

5-Dec-2009, 22:11

What is the basic shape of the human visual field: Is it 2 overlapping circles, like a Venn Diagram ?

If so, what is the ratio of overlap at infinity ?

Perhaps the "human factors" engineers who design automobiles, know these numbers - or Gregg or Oren can find out. :)

And I want to say I don't know any practical medicine, though it's a bit more complicated than that. :D

There is a variety of manual and automated approaches used in clinical and experimental settings to measure the shape and extent of the visual field and identify defects within it. I'm sure one could find quantitative measures for the extent of the typical normal visual field in the literature. It won't be a regular geometric shape, though, because of anatomical obstructions (dang nose keeps getting in the way ;)).

Easy enough to get a rough sense of the overlap, though - close your eyes alternately and pay attention.

Trying to reason from the characteristics of the visual field to possible preferences for a "normal" or "home" focal length is further complicated by the fact that visual acuity varies considerably across the field. (Shades of our never-ending discussions about how much a lens covers - it depends on how far down the MTF curve you're comfortable riding.) But there are also lots of more complex perceptual effects that affect how and what we see.

Anyway, I'm way out of my depth on this. Perhaps there's an ophthalmologist, or a neuroscientist or physiological psychologist who specializes in visual perception, lurking here who actually knows something about it.

cjbroadbent

6-Dec-2009, 05:19

6x12 might seem an awkward format. Scan it and adjust perspective (unless you have shift, you need to) by squeezing the foreground (compressing the pixels) and you end up with a nice 6x10.

Mike1234

6-Dec-2009, 06:16

Human vision is a complex mix of seeing a narrow circular stereo field in the center and lots of periferal vision that fades as the view widens. That stereo vision is only available in that little central field in which our eyes converge. We don't see in boxes, rectangles, ovals, elipses, etc. Our eyes move about gathering bits of data that our brains piece together as one image. Complicate this by the fact that we tend to scan the horizon left-to-right much more so than scanning up and down. This is why I believe most people prefer formats at least as wide as 2:3 ratio and 1:2 is even better but a really long, i.e. 1:4 linear image (flat on a wall) is unsettling to a degree because our eyes are accustomed to turning with our heads as they rotate for scanning. A very wide linear image just doesn't match our natural way of viewing the world unless it curves to match the way we scan... turn our heads. I would argue that a tall image image pasted inside a tall tube which provides a 360 degree panoramic image viewed from inside at the central spot most closely depicts human vision especially if it could be done in stereo.

cjbroadbent

6-Dec-2009, 06:52

Mike1234

6-Dec-2009, 08:43

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_OR3U2BmIDuk/Sxu1D06tT5I/AAAAAAAACqk/uNSitTpdXoo/s800/goldPan2.JPG
Forced to make a decision on the format for panoramic prints for calendars, I added a bit to the golden ratio, using the golden ratio geometry. It works out at 5.5 to 12. Easy to work with.

Fairly close to 5x12, 7x17, 8x10 (all 2:5 ratio), or 5x10, 7x14, 8x16 (all 1:2 ratio). Seems reasonable to me especially if the image is slightly curved to match our vison as we trun our heads.

Ken Lee

6-Dec-2009, 09:09

Christopher

I may be wrong, but the design you have made, is 1 + 0.618 + 0.618, namely the Square Root of 5.

As Bruce pointed out, it's a familiar ratio: two overlapping Golden Rectangles. Below, it is seen in a vertical arrangement.

http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/amphora.png
Attic Amphora, 6th Century BC
The Power of Limits, by Georgy Doczi

cjbroadbent

6-Dec-2009, 09:21

Ken, That's an eye-opener. Never saw it before.

Ken Lee

6-Dec-2009, 09:22

Yes - I think it's natural for us to re-discover what the ancients knew. Because we share the same physiology, we appreciate the same ratios. The fact that you did so, is a credit to you. Put it on your CV ! ;)

Some of us have been fiddling (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/triptychs/) with this format off and on.

The photo I posted of the Korean beauty, is rather telling. From what I have been able to glean so far, our own design - and thus our sense of beauty and proportion - is based on pentagonal symmetry. Apparently, it goes all the way down to the morphology of DNA itself, which likes most things in Nature, is "merely" the most efficient design, re-used ad infinitum. The Greeks who idealized the dodecahedron, may have done so for a rather good reason. Like you, they were no fools !

By the way, The Power of Limits, by Georgy Doczi, is a marvelous book. He was an architect with a deep interest in this subject, and shares his scrupulous ratio analysis of everything imaginable, from insects and fish to airplanes and triumphal arches.