mask/cap to aspect ratio

[LaurenceTanner]

I do not have DSLR a camera yet but am looking to shoot in a panoramic ratio, like 2:39:1, like in the films. Unless I get a Seitz 617 I've been told that maybe a lens cap to blinker my view might best. Please not that its important I maintain the illusion of a pano shot right from the moment I look at the sene, take the picture and to see it on my computer (I need a completely digital solution), so there's no chance of cropping after, what I see is all that I should be allowed.

Whether this is called a mask or a cap I don't know but where might I get one for that aspect ratio please?

[AndrewKulin]

Sorry but I do not thing that will work because if I correctly understand what you are getting at, this "cap" or mask with a 2.39:1 slot will be placed directly in front of your lens.  Unfortunately you will get diffraction like effects around this edge and at best you will get a fuzzy edge around your intended panoramic capture.

I think you will better off either:

1. capturing in native 3:2 aspect ratio and cropping afterward - you will lose those extra pixels outside your crop, but that is the same thing you were hoping to do with this "cap"; or
2. take multiple shots and stitch these together later (4 - 5 in vertical orientation moving L-R, with 25-30% overlap would get you your 2.39 ratio (horizontal pano))

Option 1 advantages are it is easier to do (simple crop) and it is one capture.  Disadvantage is you will have lower resolution (throwing away pixels), and so this will limit how large you can print if that is your intention

Option 2 advantages are higher resolution image can be printed larger.  Disadvantages - may require specialized stitching software, may require special pano head on your tripod to eliminate parallax issues (particularly needed for photographs with near distance objects - if you are using this for grand landscapes with distant objects, your regular tripod head should suffice), and no matter how quickly you can rotate tripod and take the 4-5 shots (minimum) there will be some movement in the scene that will provide challenge (note: stitching software is very good most times at dealing with this - but some things like waves are difficult for these to deal with).

I know this does not meet your stated requirement to see only the pano in camera, but that is how it is going to be with a DSLR.  If you want to visualize your 2.39:1 pano on site, you can cut out a 2.39:1 slot in a small piece of matt-board or stiff paper, and bring that out with you to your shoots to pre-visualize your scene, and use that information to set up the photograph in your camera so you get what you want in either the single photo (option 1) or stitched photos (option 2).

[LaurenceTanner]

Sorry but I do not thing that will work because if I correctly understand what you are getting at, this "cap" or mask with a 2.39:1 slot will be placed directly in front of your lens.  Unfortunately you will get diffraction like effects around this edge and at best you will get a fuzzy edge around your intended panoramic capture.

I think you will better off either:

1. capturing in native 3:2 aspect ratio and cropping afterward - you will lose those extra pixels outside your crop, but that is the same thing you were hoping to do with this "cap"; or
2. take multiple shots and stitch these together later (4 - 5 in vertical orientation moving L-R, with 25-30% overlap would get you your 2.39 ratio (horizontal pano))

Option 1 advantages are it is easier to do (simple crop) and it is one capture.  Disadvantage is you will have lower resolution (throwing away pixels), and so this will limit how large you can print if that is your intention

Option 2 advantages are higher resolution image can be printed larger.  Disadvantages - may require specialized stitching software, may require special pano head on your tripod to eliminate parallax issues (particularly needed for photographs with near distance objects - if you are using this for grand landscapes with distant objects, your regular tripod head should suffice), and no matter how quickly you can rotate tripod and take the 4-5 shots (minimum) there will be some movement in the scene that will provide challenge (note: stitching software is very good most times at dealing with this - but some things like waves are difficult for these to deal with).

I know this does not meet your stated requirement to see only the pano in camera, but that is how it is going to be with a DSLR.  If you want to visualize your 2.39:1 pano on site, you can cut out a 2.39:1 slot in a small piece of matt-board or stiff paper, and bring that out with you to your shoots to pre-visualize your scene, and use that information to set up the photograph in your camera so you get what you want in either the single photo (option 1) or stitched photos (option 2).

I'm quite dead set on this, with lengthy discussion somewhere else, I was just hoping for an answer here on a cap. I don't think that a cap exists then, but looking at this mod I might attempt something like it:

http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-mak...kon-D-90-Digit/

I think it could work, I need an aspect ratio of 2:39:1, but a you may say this could be done on a computer afterwards I must point out that what I see would be what I got in that I am only prepared to use the camera if my FOV was restricted to this.

[LaurenceTanner]

Ah, so its all digital? The settings on the camera would crop the screen, but what about the window you look through that you get on DSLRs or is that what you men? I am not familiar with dealing with RAW imagery and thought that it imports directly like JPEGs, I use Aperture and was thinking that I would import as normal. Not so?

A RAW converter?

[Gary Brown]

Take a look at this page about KatzEye focusing screens with optional grid lines and crop guides and you'll get an idea of what he's referring to.

Scroll down and you'll see one with 2.35 crop lines. That's not exactly what you want, since it doesn't black out the rest of the view, but perhaps you can order a custom one that is blacked out. (That would black out the area in the viewfinder, but not in the photo, which is why you'd still have to crop it later.)

[Ken Bennett]

I have used black gaffer's tape to mask the LCD screen on the back of the camera. Then when I am shooting I use Live View to frame the shot. This is more useful for architectural and landscape photography on a tripod, of course. But it does work.

[LaurenceTanner]

Thanks K Bennet but Gary Brown's suggestions of KatzEye's solution captures my attention more, its  bold step but I think a good one. I've yet to decide on a camera though and there is the issue of me living in the UK, this being a US service... I think maybe there might be a way to get it fitted here?

[elf]

I do not have DSLR a camera yet but am looking to shoot in a panoramic ratio, like 2:39:1, like in the films. Unless I get a Seitz 617 I've been told that maybe a lens cap to blinker my view might best. Please not that its important I maintain the illusion of a pano shot right from the moment I look at the sene, take the picture and to see it on my computer (I need a completely digital solution), so there's no chance of cropping after, what I see is all that I should be allowed.

Whether this is called a mask or a cap I don't know but where might I get one for that aspect ratio please?

The question is Why?  What makes it essential that you see the entire FOV and only the FOV?  What is magic about the 2:39:1 ratio? Why is there no chance of cropping in post processing?  It's trivial in any post processing application.

Are you shooting handheld or using a tripod? How far away is the subject?  If it's far enough away, just use the hyperfocal distance and a wire frame viewfinder like underwater shooters use to use.

If I were you, I'd get a spherical panorama head and shoot real panoramas with far more detail than you'll see from a single framed cropped to a panorama ratio.

[LaurenceTanner]

I found out that 2:39:1 is entirely doable and places in the UK cater for fitting, so that's fine. Healthy GBP/USD exchange rate too

[elf]

I found out that 2:39:1 is entirely doable and places in the UK cater for fitting, so that's fine. Healthy GBP/USD exchange rate too

But why don't you want to do it in post-processing?  I can think of several valid reasons, but I would like to understand yours.

[LaurenceTanner]

I'm an absolutist which mean I want what I want, the way I want and I get what I want, no matter what. In this case it means that I will be restricted to 2:39:1 aspect ratio so I will shoot and get what I came for, then in the processing I apply a crop to then give me exactly what I saw, so its like the camera really is giving me what I saw, because that's what I want.

Anything else is fake in my opinion. Your going to say, "fake"... well yes, you see if you take a 100m Olympic runner, they ran a race that they did not qualify for any place in the top three, reviewing their race on a TV screen immediately after they then say to the judges "oh look, at this point I would have done this", resulting in a win. The judges then say, okay, good call, your the winner.

So no, I say you do what you do when you take a shot and you live with it.

[elf]

I'm an absolutist which mean I want what I want, the way I want and I get what I want, no matter what. In this case it means that I will be restricted to 2:39:1 aspect ratio so I will shoot and get what I came for, then in the processing I apply a crop to then give me exactly what I saw, so its like the camera really is giving me what I saw, because that's what I want.

Anything else is fake in my opinion. Your going to say, "fake"... well yes, you see if you take a 100m Olympic runner, they ran a race that they did not qualify for any place in the top three, reviewing their race on a TV screen immediately after they then say to the judges "oh look, at this point I would have done this", resulting in a win. The judges then say, okay, good call, your the winner.

So no, I say you do what you do when you take a shot and you live with it.

Well, that's certainly an interesting view of the world.  I won't point out that what you're capturing is really the vision of the engineers at the camera company that programmed the computer in the camera.  I personnaly prefer to have more control of the artistic vision than to limit the process to achieve it.