I probably have dozens of completed pano images and hundreds that are,
literally, still in raw form. Only one of these has ever seen the light
of day as a print. The print is a 12x24" that can be had for about $17
and can be mounted on matboard for an additional $13 for a total price
of $30 without frame. The matboard is valuable in that it provides
physical support for the photo and allows mounting in a simple frame
without glass or additional backing. Who needs the glare, cost and
weight of a large piece of glass? Since the image was shot at 40mm with
the camera held vertically the vertical angle of view is approx. 50
degrees and the horizontal coverage is about 100 degrees (far, far from
180 or 360 degrees). The horizontal width of each frame is about 33
degrees and, since there are 9 frames to cover the 100 degree width you
can see that there is very considerable overlap between frames.
So, why 12x24"? Three reasons: Where I get my prints
<http://www.mpix.com/products/prints/#papers>, 12x24" is the widest
aspect ratio available across all sizes. And, secondly, the 2:1 aspect
ratio is very close to the (1920x1080) 1.77:1 aspect ratio of an HDTV
set and moderate price monitors which now come in HD aspect ratio.
Resizing a 1:2 print image to 1920x990 fits the HD screen while only
leaving 45 pixel-wide black bands at top and bottom. Thirdly, 12x24"
and 16x20" are about the largest wall spaces my wife is willing to
devote to wall photos. Ultra HDTV sets are coming on the market with 4X
or 8X the pixel count but I think the aspect ratio is still the same.
If it were solely up to me I'd give up the prints altogether and display
all of my images on a wall mounted HDTV running a continuous slide show.
Unfortunatly, she thinks that would be tacky.
Except for occasional small prints like 4x6", 5x7" and (rarely) an
8x10", I gave up making my own prints long ago. Too fussy and expensive
to make something large. Since I do so little printing I only use the
manufacturer's (expensive) inks and papers so that I don't have to worry
about color calibration. For anything else (and even most 8x10s) I buy
from someone whose business is making prints.
Chuck Norcutt
On 7/1/2013 12:10 AM, Moose wrote:
> On 6/30/2013 10:24 AM, Piers Hemy wrote:
>> I understand entirely, Mike. What interested me in the pano in question was
>> the stunning level of detail in the near to mid distance (from a 14-54 with
>> teleconverter, even), which required a fairly large file, which in turn
>> dictated use of Zoomify. But I accept that it also means that viewing the
>> whole pano is a no-no. So the whole pano is available (although reduced
>> resolution) on my Zone-10 gallery, in an Album "Panoramic shots". There are
>> four versions from the same array of shots.
>
> I'm ambivalent about such panos. Many, like this one, are beautiful work, in
> both a technical and artistic sense. And
> yet, there is no way to view them as a whole other than so tiny as to have no
> affect.
>
> Were I able to see them printed a few feet across, I think they would be
> powerful. As it is, I just find them frustrating.
>
> Of course, I continue, when faced with a broad, beautiful landscape, to take
> a series of shots for a pano, but only
> seldom actually stitch them. Once they are processed into a pano, I don't
> have anything useful to do with them.
>
> Blinders Moose
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|