Category talk:Panoramics

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Labels for panoramic projection used?[edit]

Even for 360 degrees panoramic images one has two main choices: cylindrical or equirectangular projection, and these projections really differ. Should one not use labels or templates, both for documentation and for the sake of panoramic viewing programmes showing the image content correctly? -- KlausFoehl (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion:
Template:Cylindrical projection
{{Cylindrical projection|hangle=h|horizon=x}}
Template:Equirectangular projection
{{Equirectangular projection|hangle=h|horizon=x}}
with hangle value in degrees, and horizon position measured from the top edge of the image in percent (alternatively x<1 as image height fraction and x>1 as pixel number). -- KlausFoehl (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Some photo's in this cat aren't really panoramics[edit]

I think that a number of photo's in this cat aren't really panoramics. Although there isn't a uniform definition, en:Panoramic photography says: "This generally means it has an aspect ratio of 2:1 or larger, the image being at least twice as wide as its height." Would it be OK to screen this category on this criterium? Best regards, MartinD (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And, of course, in other cats of panoramics, see, for instance, Category:Panoramic views of Arnhem. MartinD (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
That's going to be a difficult one. A large dispersion caused to a big extent by the lack of documentation. I am under the impression that "views of xxx" is more used than "panoramic views of xxx" as this avoids indeed the confusion: approximate number of categories for each style:
  • panoramics in xxx: 440
  • panoramics of xxx: 160
  • panoramic vieuws of xxx: 100
  • Views from xxx: 420
  • Views of xxx: 230
--Foroa (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I just was suggesting to remove obvious non-panoramic pictures from the respective "Panoramics" or "Panoramics of XX" categories. See, for instance, File:London Under Snow Jan2010.jpg: an excellent picture, but not, in my view, a panoramic picture. Pictures claiming te be panoramics should have a width-height ratio of generally at least 2:1. Best regards, MartinD (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The aspect ratio of 2:1 may serve as a rough guide-line limit, but more points need to be considered. For instance, a fish-eye with 1:1 covers more area than most panoramic images, and a full omnidirectional photo in equirectangular projection just makes the bar. In addition, simply clipping top and bottom parts from a photo can make it pass, irrespective what lense has been used, wide angle or tele. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
P.S. For myself, I use a 3:1 limit, but this is for display purposes only. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that one generally would think of 3:1 (or perhaps more) when asked to give a definition of "panoramic view". It's not that I would like to remove anything short of 2:1 indiscriminately, but now there are several pictures (in, admittedly, a lot of subcats of Panoramics) that have a normal aspect ratio of 1.5:1 (or so). It's not urgent, just a nice little "maintenance job" when you have some spare time. Best regards, MartinD (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The best start seems to document the rules first in the categories and point to the alternatives. There might be some people having time to do the clean job when properly documented. --Foroa (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Just exercise due caution. An image of a mountain could be <2:1 but still panoramic due to containing a lot of vertical coverage. And for those images justifyably removed, consider to place them into Views of XY or similar. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
@Foroa: My impression is that there is a general consensus, should I now try to make a text to add to the top of a Categpry:Panoramics of XX-page? @KlausFoehl: Don't worry.;) I would limit myself to clearly non-panoramic pics, and would see to it that they remain properly categorized. Your panoramics are excellents! Best regards, MartinD (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(indent reset) There never has been a real conflict (refreshing). Problem comes mainly by lack of documentation. What needs to be decided now is what should be the preference category names; I would suggest (to mimise moving)

  • for real panoramics: "panoramics in xxx" (440) (and not "panoramics of xxx" (160))
  • for panaromac views "Views from xxx" (and not "panoramic views of xxx" or "Views of xxx"

Once we agree, a proper documentation should be made. --Foroa (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer proper language over the technical aspect of minimising movements. 1) "panoramics in" versus "panoramics of": both prevail, to my observation usually "in" country and "of" town/object. Personally I am happy with "in" but then English is not my native language. 2) Views "from" means your viewpoint and not the actual view. I would prefer "Views of XY". -- KlausFoehl (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a native English speaker either, so please bear with me.;) The purpose of my first questionw as merely to find out whether it would be OK to remove patently non-panoramic views from categories meant for panoramics. As to the panoramics in/panoramics of/panoramics from- issue now being raised: I would think that "panoramics in" merely refers to a geographical location (e.g. panoramics in the Netherlands), "panoramics of" denotes the scene that is shown (e.g. panoramics of Amsterdam), and panoramics from refers to the position of the photographer (e.g. panoramics taken from the Eiffel Tower). is this correct? BUt I would suggest that we do not devote too much attention to this matter. It's not that important, and I'm already to begin to regret having brought it up.;) Best regards, MartinD (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I think we agree on the in-of-from meaning. And I also agree to remove patently non-panoramic views from categories meant for panoramics so if you want to do so please go ahead. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks! Best regards, MartinD (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Panoramic or not?

An example of an image that has a relatively low aspect ratio but that I would consider "panoramic". Comments? - Jmabel ! talk 00:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, aspect ratio is not the only factor. Field of view is also important. Here the aspect ratio is not high, but the field of view is large enough to require substantial distortion. --Avenue (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, definitely, on field-of-view grounds. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)