Do panoramas tell the truth?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

This question was prompted by a friend who was looking at an Alpine Panorama on a website recently. His comment was along the lines of "When you are at that location you are in an amphitheatre of towering peaks but this picture doesn't convey that feeling". I had viewed the picture never having been there and marvelled at this wall of rock, ice & snow that I looked at as a flat 2 Dimensional image. As my friend then pointed out to see what was on the left side then what was on the right side required you to turn your head by nearly 180 degrees.

Using computer software it is now really easy to create apparently seamless panoramic images - I make use of them frequently but I wonder if we should create a different way of viewing them that simulates that movement of the head that is so essential to creating the atmosphere of the place. Should we make curved print installations or are there digital techniques available?

What do you think.

Removed User 11 Dec 2018
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

VR headset.

 elsewhere 11 Dec 2018
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Never tried them but only for £20 virtual reality headset that uses a smartphone.

Peanuts compared to a circular room with multiple projectors or a curved print.

 Marek 11 Dec 2018
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

I can't help feeling that the 'head turning' is just an excuse. If you're trying to evoke the sense of 'being there' you'll need a lot more then that. You'll have to fill in the peripheral vision, add sound, adjust the atmospheric conditions, somehow simulate the process of 'getting there' (the journey) ... All these things - and many others - contribute to what you experience when you admire the view. A good photo may elicit memories of the event at a later date, but to anyone else it's just going to be a nice picture. Gigapixels, HDR, VR might add some wow factor, but I can't help feeling that it'll be more about the technology rather than the source experience. The best the picture can do is to motivate the viewer to get out there and collect their own experiences and memories.

As for 'truth', when someone comes up with a unambiguous and broadly acceptable definition then we can discuss further. But the answer will probably be 'no'.

 

Removed User 11 Dec 2018
In reply to Marek:

I know what you mean but think that 2D wide panoramas don't work very well and some other way of viewing the image is needed.

I don't see it as a big deal. Photography should be about conveying moods, atmospheres and feelings and the skill of the photographer is in capturing a part of what they see which expresses something more.

 wintertree 11 Dec 2018
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Disney Epcot has a ride (or at least had, back in ‘98) where you “fly” over the world in seats suspended from behind, giving you a clear view of a panoramic cinema screen.  They also release scents blown through the air timed to the flight like pine and woodsmoke.  

It’s not stereoscopic let alone VR but the engagement of other senses made it far more convincing than any VR I’ve used to date.

 The Lemming 11 Dec 2018
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Are these panaramas shot with wide angle lenses which flatten the view?

Would it be better to have a lens closer to the eye's perspective and then stich images together in the hope of keeping the perspective accurate?

 john arran 11 Dec 2018
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

The trailer for Honnald's El Cap solo film was shown in a very impressive 3D format, which apparently was confusing on a static screen but worked really well on a phone, such that by tilting the phone in any direction you could 'look' up, down or from side to side, very much like you really would if you were there.

I'm sure the same technology would work on static images.

 Dan Arkle 12 Dec 2018

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...