Panoramic Photography

Taylor Moore

Taylor Moore

Veteran
I am looking at buying a Panoramic Still camera. Have looked at a couple, the Horizon 202. I believe it uses 120 film.

Would love to find a digital equivelent...any ideas.
 
I havn't seen any Panoramic digital still cameras probably becasue of the way panoramics take photos. There are two types of panoramics, the first uses a lens designed to spread the image out on a very large surface, and the second uses the flexibility of film to rotate the lens around the film.
The reason i can't see this happening for a while on the digital medium is that it would take very specifically designed CCD's to be made to accomidate this. you don't want to just crop the image, panoramics need to be high resolution, or they just don't work.
Now if you got a panoramic camera that uses medium format (120) then you could get a good film scanner that would give you excellent results.
I do quite a bit of panoramic work myself, although I just use a standard Pentax 645 medium format camera. you can see a little of my work on my website.
 
i agree. Or Photoshop Elements. I did a shoot for a client last year with a Fuji S2 Pro of a huge old building. I stitched it in Elements, high res, shot in RAW. We blew it up to 24" by 54" and it looked great. Film is so limiting.
 
I think it would be cool to try creating a tripod which allows you to have two DVX camera side by side and then stitch them up in AE. You can get like a motion panoramic image.
 
pptphoto said:
Film is so limiting.
Click to expand...

HAAAA!
Not if you know how to use it. I agree with digital composting, I did the same thing with all of the panoramics on my site, however, I still prefere film. I have used lots of different D-SLRs but at the end of the day I still prefer my trusty 35mm and my 645 cameras. I have to admit that digital is much easier, but I still love the look of film, and have yet to see it perfectly emulated. This is not to say that I don't love the look of digital, I think digital has a wonderful look, but they are not the same. I am a DVX owner after all. We have a $4000 Imacon film scanner at school and I have to say that nothing compares to the scans that come out of that thing. NOt even the Hasselblad Digital 20MP medium format backs compare to this scanner. It is quite stunning. However, when I graduate I will probably have to look for other digital solutions, but I don't think I'll ever give up film. In many ways, film forces you to be a better photographer and take better photos. You have to spend more time thinking about the lighting, the cost, it just makes you slow down and think. Digital is a completely different experience, the results are immediate, and you can just snap and snap away. Both have their advantages, but to say that "film is limiting" I can say the exact same thing about digital.
 
BLUESPIDER said:
I think it would be cool to try creating a tripod which allows you to have two DVX camera side by side and then stitch them up in AE. You can get like a motion panoramic image.
Click to expand...

I believe Jarred (or his DP buddy) did something like that for the opening sequence of "Art History".
 
You might consider getting some sort of anamorphic attachment to use with your lenses. It would probably be the cheapest way to go about it though optical quality may become a concern.
 
there doesnt seem to be any prosumer options for digital panorama. everthing is about taking multiple images and then stitching them later.

the Horizon 202 seems to be the best bet for getting this sort of thing in one snap...without spending loads of money.
 
Scharky. Don't get me wrong, I spent many years shooting 4x5 film, and I agree that film is still better in many ways. I still have a full Sinar 4x5 system with Schneider lenses, and a full 6x6 Bronica system. I just find that many clients, unfortunately prefer the economics of digital. No film costs, no E6 processing fees, (at $3.00 per sheet, shooting brackets, it ads up) and approx $125 a box for 50 sheets of 4x5 Trans film. Then you ad Polaroid. $45 for 20 sheets... A few sheets of neg films for prints, maybe a couple sheets of B&W... Then, $45-$75 PER scan to digitize. Ouch.
I certainly have mixed feelings about the whole conversion. It was almost easier shooting, processing and turning it over to the client. I spend WAY too much time on the computer now, downloading, converting RAWS to tifs and jpgs, editing and touching up, then burning it all to media. And of course, since its now digital, the client expects to have in their hands tomorrow AM. So believe me, I know how to use film!! But digital does at this time, in this economy, allow me to make a much better living, feed my family, put two kids through college, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top