Talk:Panoramic photography

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Visual arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: PILJOONG KANG.

Above undated message substituted from

Looks like it's getting crowded in that section with the new vertical image in there. Suggestions? -Roguegeek 2006-03-25

While this is a nice photograph, it shows many stitching artifacts (may be difficult to avoid in this case). I think this article should display some of the best contemporary examples of panoramic photography, unless we're specifically talking about problems, so I'm moving it here. If someone thinks this article needs another panoramic picture to replace it, I believe

What about fish eye and other similar lenses used to create panoramic photographhy? I know these are used but don't know enough about them to create and entry. Anyone??

I wouldn't call that panoramic photography. A panorama (IMHO) is long and narrow. Of course, you can shoot a wide-angle view and crop that into a panorama, as is actually done with the fixed-lens cameras - you record only a strip of the total image circle the lens produces. --Janke | Talk 16:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This [last Edit] by Mordani who seems to busy at the moment adding links to his own Google site is a complete dublette to his [other edit session on Panorama], see my comment on that article's talk page. I see that a link to the image stitching page is missing in the "Segmented" section, I could add that. Should I first revert Mordani's changes here? And please excuse me for using "external linking" here, I didn't find out yet how to markup internal links to diffs correctly.--Einemnet 14:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page here on the Wikipedia called Panorama Software that has nothing to do with panorama photography. John Spikowski 21:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion about merging this article with Panorama was started on the other talk page. I suggest to discuss there. Einemnet 07:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this page should be keep and improved on as the top level introduction to panorama photography which links all the sub topics using the Category:Panorama_Photography category. John Spikowski 08:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two really should be merged. And while we're at it, "Route Panorama" ought to be put into this article as a variety of panorama. Although, I have a hunch that "Route Panorama" is simply the term used by the Chinese academic quoted for everything in that article and that "multi-viewpoint panorama" is the more widely accepted term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.49.17 (talk) 05:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at talk:Panorama ended some time ago with no consensus, so I'm removing the tag. -- Elphion (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone reading this is well informed about the history of panoramic photography, please look at Melvin Vaniman and his talk page, where a question about his technique arises. -- Hoary (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the "International Space Station Spinoffs" page claims that a "360º Camera" was developed to support the ISS. Is this the "Catadioptric Camera" mentioned in the "panoramic photography" article? Or is it yet another kind of panoramic camera? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just copy-edited this article; now it needs referencing. I found the catadioptric section particularly confusing - have tried to simplify without discarding meaning. I've placed inline refs tags in appropriate places. I'll try and finds refs when I have the time and patience. If you can help reference this text, please do. Thanks.

-- Brian White —Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, i removed that - an external link doesn't belong in an image caption. The 'External links' section already has a link to a 'Gigapan' site. Sorry if I offended you; this type of article attracts links and images because some people think it's a link farm or gallery. If left, they just accumulate, become a tangled mess and the article becomes useless. Thanks,

Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

To Mr. Dicklyon. Why do you think that ActionShot is spam. It is available technicues that was recently introduced by Samsung to create panoramic images. I would like to add the info back. But i would like to get your agreement first. If you want i can send you more info about this techniques --Okseduard (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not Dicklyon, I think I can answer your question. This article is a general article about panoramic photography, while ActionShot is a very specific branded photography technique. ActionShot is therefore outside of the scope of this article; we cannot list every panoramic technique here because it would make this article too long for many readers to access. A general

talk) 16:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't know anything about ActionShot, and I'm not saying it's spam. But the editor who does nothing but add articles and links about ActionShot, a commercial product/feature, is a de facto spammer. If a more neutral editor wants to add something about it in apppropriate places, that will probably be OK. Dicklyon (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that nobody has mentioned the most commonplace tool, a camera with an internal stitching facility, called "sweep panorama" for Sony digicams and included in other merchandise under other names. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made it, but please edit with better English grammar. Thank you.Gsarwa (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any article dealing with "parallel motion panorama" or "linear panorama" where the camera is moved between shots (eg on a vehicle), used for instance to take a panorama of all the houses on one side of a street, or creating a stitched image from satellite photos. See Commons:Category:Linear panoramics. Should something be added here? --Tony Wills (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it is sort of covered by Route panorama --Tony Wills (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I surprised not to find a section including some information on 3D panoramic cameras! I think it would be relevant to include it in the article! Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all the apps now available to make spherical panoramas it might be a good idea to add a section on this topic. Does anyone want to do this? Does anyone object if I start it? Andrew Hennigan (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article may need sections on notable panoramic photographers; web sites that exhibit panoramic photographs; and software that allows the viewer to navigate around large panoramic photos. This is a notable example of all three: http://zieba.wroclaw.pl/english.htm. See for instance one of his works: http://zieba.wroclaw.pl/kpg/kps.html. I was tempted to include these sections as stubs but await your comments... josei (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC) moved to bottom of page --Tony Wills (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that panoramic photography article is C class (Star level) because there are some reasons. First of all, it doesn’t have enough value as reliable source. In case of definition context, the source could not be an appropriate source because the source was from blog. According to the Wikipedia rules, blog sources can’t be great sources to be posted on Wikipedia article. Second of all, this article is not perfect. This article needs more information and contents to explain panoramic photography. Except history content, there is no more information which is related with panoramic photography. It just shows panoramic cameras and methods. It needs more information such as introducing other photographic techniques, introducing typical panoramic photographers’ lists, additional information such as why panoramic photography should be developed to fill out existing photographic techniques? Most of all, there are so many difficult terms in this article which is related with photography. Many people don’t know specific terms of photography. This article doesn’t have enough hyperlinks to explain difficult terms. Most difficult terms already exists in Wiki world. The difficult terms can be connected with other Wikipedia article through hyperlinks. The Article must be utilized hyperlinks to explain contents. However, there are some advantages in this article that is visual data. This article has enough visual data to understand what it is. And then, there are external hyperlinks to shows additional information which is related with panoramic photography. This one would be useful links for users who wants to meet additional information which is related with panoramic photography. And then, it was written from a neutral point of view. It follows Wikipedia’s intention among Wikipedia five pillars. Overall, this article must be changed and edited to improve quality of article and sources because article was revealed unreliable sources. ––PILJOONG KANG (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is mention of a group of artists using old panorama cameras, but other than that there is no discussion of the artistic uses of the panorama format. Besides the famous examples of

I am aware that sections such as this will attract a swathe of less important art examples, as has happened on pages like Silhouette, so to accommodate that inevitability, perhaps a 'gallery' section should be added, apart from the new section I propose? sinarau (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are the same subject.

Agree with

Panography is essentially a stub with a single reference to David Hockney's use from 1988, and seems to be a variant of the more widely accepted term panoramic photography. Panography is also used to describe dental use of the term, which is a panoramic radiograph (tomography), where a single xray images both the mandible and maxilla in the vertical and horizontal planes simultaneously.(Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 9th ed., 2009). The separate stub article makes no mention of the pre-existing medical use of the same term.NotaBene 鹰百利 ^Talk 21:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

No, retain, but amend both. The Hockney joiner is a means of achieving a panoramic photograph. However the term panograph isn't a neologism as Google's Ngram shows https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Panograph&year_start=1920&year_end=2016&corpus=15&smoothing=10&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CPanograph%3B%2Cc0 but the term is incorrectly applied here; a panograph is a form of oral X-ray in which the whole jaw can be imaged. The 'Panograph' article should be amended to reflect this. So shall we retain

Panography, or amend it to 'Panograph', and shift the Hockney 'joiner' content to Panoramic photography

? Happy to make a start on this if there are no objections. JamesMcArdle 23:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did see a source that mentioned panography in the context of oral surgery[1]. I would support moving panography to panograph, and merging the existing content into this article. If panograph is not sufficiently notable, it could simply be redirected to Oral and maxillofacial surgery.- MrX 23:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to concede that David Hockney's seemingly singular use of the word lends itself to seeing Panography as a subset or parallel of the larger panoramic art concept. Add to it the sparse nature of the Panography entry itself and yes it seems natural to merge

Panography into the larger Panoramic photography. However, the specifically disjointed Collage-like and Photomontage-esque nature of Panographic in comparison to the "seamless" nature of Panoramic images suggests that Panographs their own distinct and singular artform. In merging Panography/Joining, into the Panoramic article something unique may be lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.214.113 (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I went ahead with the merge. Taking on board the last, very helpful, comment, shall I make Panography a separate subsection within the artistic uses section and make the distinctions suggested? I did find that panoramic radiograph deals very thoroughly with panography as a medical (dental) imaging technique, though it does not use the term panography. I suggested to the editors of that article that since the term is used in the literature to describe panoramic radiography, that 'Panography' be acknowledged/included as an a alternate descriptor. JamesMcArdle 03:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge looks good and you did a good job expanding it. I like the placement in the Artistic section. At this point

deleting the panography stub, and redirect or maybe disambiguating to Panoramic_photography#Joiners and Panoramic radiograph. NotaBene 鹰百利 ^Talk 17:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree; it needs to be a redirect first, and then any old links to it fixed (if any), and then it can become a disambig page. I'll do the redirecting... Dicklyon (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I made it a redirect. There are just a couple of multiple redirects that will fix automatically, and a very few other links that one would need to fix if we want to convert it to a disambig page. Dicklyon (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]