Re: A question

[Alan Zinn <azinn@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 05:48 PM 1/3/2000 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi there,
>         I don't want to reopen a can of worms here about what is or isn't
>"panoramic," however I did kind of wonder about those situations where
>smaller film sizes are used in larger format cameras. I was thinking of 120
>in 4x5 but I suppose it could apply equally to 35mm in 120.
>
>Ok, if you use a smaller film in a larger camera, then as far as I can see
>you gain no image benefit over taking the same picture in the original
>format and then cutting that negative down? Other than the smaller film
>being cheaper, easier to get or to handle (none of which are image issues)
>I can't see any benefit to taking this route. Isn't the point of panoramic
>images that they show a wider view or a different perspective on the object
>being photographed? If the same image can be made by cropping an existing
>2:3 ratio image then why wouldn't my Nikon be a panoramic camera (assuming
>I cropped the pics to 1:3 when I printed them?)
>
>I have to confess that I am confused by this. I myself don't have a
>panoramic camera and instead stitch a number of pictures together to get
>the required shot. I thought the idea was to get more information into the
>picture than would be possible otherwise not to reduce the image to a
>letterbox format for the sake of it?
>
>Puzzled.
>
>Lyndon
>
>
Lyndon,
There is no definition that suites everyone. My personal feeling is that an
image has to be wider than the normal cone of vision. Does this make a fish
eye panoramic? Not by some people's estimation. A fish is a fish eye - what?
 My suggestion is to just make note of the camera type used to make the
image just for keeping score.

AZ
Y2Kahotek - I want my money back!
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/8874/

Lookaround Panoramic Cameras and Gallery:
http://www.keva.com/lookaround