Panorama Definition Refinement

Aldo
I agree about the use of the term "VR" or "Virtual Realty". Both make me think of something where you can move through a building like a video game or the headmounted display interactive computer graphics you mentioned. "3D" makes me think of the same thing

I just keeping stuggling with "panorama". I know the dictionary definition is "an unobstructed or complete view of an area in every direction" but I think of them as the old black & white panoramic photos that are much wider than they are tall or the posters that were for sale on the old IQTVRA.org website or on www.panoramas.com. I just always think of a "panorama" as a wider "landscape."

And "panoramic cameras" produce very wide photos. I just think of panoramas as printed versions of the images we create. In the AOL's Merriam Webster dictionary the fist definition of panorama is "CYCLORAMA 1 b : a picture exhibited a part at a time by being unrolled before the spectator". It sounds like an image that is much wider than it is tall.

Although "immersive" is technically more accurate, the problem I see is its too technical, requiring an explanation. If I meet some one at a chamber of commerce get-together and say I'm a Virtual Photographer, they ask questions. If I say I'm a photographer who produces "immersive panoramas", they look puzzled or worse, there eyes glaze over because I'm obviously a geek to them. (We have 2 national laboratories in the area, so there are a lot of really serious geeks here)

I describe myself a "virtual photographer", what I do as "virtual photography" and, therefore, what I produce are "virtual photos" or (my preference) "virtual images".

It just seems to fit to me and the general public responds well to the word "virtual"

Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM

panoramic photos that are much wider than they are tall or the posters that were for sale on the old IQTVRA.org website or on www.panoramas.com. I just always think of a "panorama" as a wider "landscape."

These I refer to as View Panoramas (without having seen the exact ones you speak of).

Although "immersive" is technically more accurate, the problem I see is its too technical, requiring an explanation.

I guess my explanation to this is that folks have to start somewhere. It's not like "immerse" is a word that was just made up. (I see it goes back to the early 17th century.) If you ask someone to immerse something, they ought to know what you mean, um, assuming the person is an English speaker and graduated high school. (Hope that doesn't sound too harsh. I'm not trying to insult people who haven't heard that word, but as a former teacher I consider immerse to be, frankly, at least 6th grade level.)

In any case, explaining things shouldn't be too hard, "It's a photograph where you are immersed in the scene; just like you are there, you can look in any direction" seems a simple enough explanation, even for folks who haven't seen a pano online (a diminishing number, hooray!).

I agree with Aldo in that I shy away from "virtual"; because photographic panos are not computer generated/synthesized. Some might say that since our photos are 2 dimensional they are not the place, but a representation of it. My answer to that is we really did capture the light that reflected off those objects that were really there. The pano shows what really was there (PS trickery aside).

Virtual reality approximates reality; computer generated polygons with artificially applied textures, and synthetic light. I agree this can get technical, but it doesn't have to, and based on my training as a teacher, it's always best to start with what folks know, then help them learn more accurate words.

When I talk with my friend who's a doctor, or other friends with deeper knowledge than I, I often will sense I'm not sure of how to use a specific word and will either interrupt myself and ask for help, or just mush on waiting for feedback on if I used it correctly or not. I'm glad for correction since I might want to use that word again with someone else who may not be as kind in helping me. :-) It's my belief most folks are like this.

There's nothing virtual about the photos you make, and I suppose you're not a figment of my imagination either, so I don't think you yourself are virtual. So, virtual photographer?

I had to laugh. I once told someone that "virtual" was so 90's. :-)

I've also donned the salesman hat (hurts my head) and explained that my panoramic photographs were not virtual reality, but real reality. :-) Anyway...

I like "interactive" as well, but to be picky, not all panoramas need or require interaction. CubicNavigator, or sprites, for example can do the driving, thus requiring no input from the viewer(s). Yet, the panorama displayed still (should) give the sense of being "immersed" in the scene.

So I don't think the words are mutually exclusive, but add their own nuances. But to distill the essence down as much as possible, I'm still inclined to believe that a panorama (the kind we feature the most of) is immersive before it's interactive, and that in certain circumstances (untouchable kiosk, TV screen in a window), the interactive part is gone.

(Please accept my comments as the nerd-like analysis they're meant to be, I'm not carrying a club trying to flog people to my way of thinking. :-) )

To throw a tangent though...a long time ago I did make an interactive panorama that was not really immersive. I used QTVRAS to make a 1 frame object movie, and zoomed in some. So one had to push around to see the whole photo, but it was just a plain photo, not a panorama. :-)

Okay, Aldo got me on "virtual photography" :(

I just caught myself taking to a Realtor and said I'm a "Virtual Tour Photographer".

I stand humbled by sharp wit and corrected. ;)

Immersive and Interactive are definitely more accurate descriptions of the type of images members produce for the Internet, no doubt about it.

I just don't see a potential customer going to the Yellow Pages and looking for "Immersive Panoramas". And even if they do, they won't find it.

I did a post a little while ago repeating a news story where AT&T will be adding the category "Virtual Tours" to their Yellow Pages.

And the Pew Internet report Mike Quan talked about in a past Forum called "Virtual Space is the Place" and the only mention of what the subject of virtual photos were was a real estate virtual tour. Real estate tours are where most Americans have experienced our particular type of photography. That's just what they're called in real estate

Here's the link to the Pew Internet report Mike posted. http://www.pewinternet.org/topics.asp?c=1. The listing for of the report was "Virtual Tours" and the sentence about the report reads "More than half of internet users have taken virtual tours"

I ran a search on Google News most mornings and find several new stories about Virtual Tours every day, I just tried "immersive panorama(s)" and didn't find any.

Searching the whole Web on Google for "immersive panorama" generated 653 instances.

Search for "virtual tour" produced 27,300,000 results

The world has already named the images we produce, we can swim against the current or go with the flow.

Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM

Yes, the taking back of our vernacular is difficult at best. ;-)

My mantra is "education, education, education". What we call ourselves and what we produce is less important than being able to speak to clients, potential clients, the uninitiated, in their terms. Personally, I enjoy "Panographer" because it's fun, can raise eyebrows, but once explained is generally understood.

As for the whole "virtual" business, well I DO get my underwear in a bunch sometimes because of the misuse of the term (I am an English Lit major after all) -- but the part of me that drove me to take graduate studies in Linguistics says that language is a living thing, and so evolutionary. If the word "virtual" is beginning to take on a new popular meaning, then I think I will flow with the tide. Ha, distasteful as it may be to my underwear wearing side. ;-)

That said, I do think we should (Douglas?) continue with our efforts at creating an IVRPA-based dictionary of sorts. :P

Patrick Cheatham
--
CheathamLane | spinControl:VR
Berkeley, California
VR Photography
Web, Flash & QuickTime Development

Patrick
Some battles can be won, some can't. Phones haven't had "dials" in years, or is it decades, but we still "dial a number." I just don't think "inputing a phone number" will catch on. :)

But just becasue we give in to the "phrase" doesn't mean we can't change the definition.

I borrowed some icons from the iPIX sofware to show that there are spherical, cubic and cylindrical image types, including them and a short explanation of each type in a page of my proposal/presentation. I've only used the page once, but it surprised the potential customer that all virtual tours weren't the same.

He's a home builder who specializes in pueblo style homes that have vigas (rough hewn beams) and latillas (small tree branches between the vigas). He realized cylindrical images just wouldn't show off his ceilings very well. Then we looked at the other photographer's website and only saw cylindrical images. I haven't got the order yet, but I don't think the other photographer has either.

Instead of trying to "educate" a new name, I think it would be more productive to "educate" about the differences in products.

"Panographer" could be fun at a party. Good enunciation would be essential though. };)>

Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM

I meant to include someplace that I hope I wasn't duplicating effort someplace else. I didn't check the member's forums though...it seems like Doug started something there...

I like the concept of a wiki...I think there's a Drupal wiki module...but I'm stretched too thinly at the moment.

Andrew
I proposed the phrase "virtual tour" made up of "virtual images" as a broad, general term for the type of images we produce because there are several legitimate types if our images that more precise term would exclude;

An argument can be made that cylindrical images aren't immersive panoramas because there's no top & bottom to the image. (For "immerse" the dictionary uses "plunge into a fluid" as an example, implying the fluid is above and below - for "panorama" the "view of an area in every direction" is used). Some cylindrical images almost fill the whole interior of the sphere/cube with a lot of tilt up and down, others are just one row of a rectilinear pics stitched together with little or no tilt up or down. I think they're "virtual images, but are both of these variations "immersive panoramas?"

Patrick Cheatam mentioned he sometimes delivers images where the field of view is restricted intentially. I've sold images that only had half of a sphere. Both fall under "virtual images" to me but obviously exclude the use of 360° in the definition.

Basicly, the more precise we get with the term and definition, the more exclusionary we get.

My thinking is of "virtual image" as a broad term. The definition I suggested was "An interactive image that imitates the human visual experience on a computer"

I also proposed a more precise image terms like "Cubic Image, A Virtual Image that is projected on the interior of a Cube for viewing." The word immersive could probably be worked into that.

I really take exception to a bunch of still photos being called a "virtual tour", but admit that a combination of virtual images with still pics makes a "virtual tour" of a home more complete, because I never create a virtual image of very room in the house.

Also, I produce "virtual tours" of Golf Courses & Ski Areas that do have a few virtual images, but are primarily made up of streaming video. So I add to the confusion and imprecision of the term.

In the in the dictionary definition of "virtual" was mention of "as opposed to real", in the thesaurus was "almost or nearly" so to me a "virtual tour" is "almost a real tour." Which is what I want it to be, even if its made up of stills, video and virtual images.

And I think that's what the general public is expecting when they see "virtual tour" on a real estate, hotel or other website; a tour that's almost a real tour.

And a virtual image is an image that's almost or nearly reality.

Whadaya think?

Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM

I'm not really trying to convinve you, you can call it whatever you like, but your logic is flawed.

If a virtual tour is "almost, but not quite a real tour", then a virtual image is "almost, but not quite a real image". However, like I said before, your images are real.

By your logic, virtual view would be a better term.

Just for the sake of discussion...

You're exactly right....

Here's the definition of "image"; "a reproduction or imitation of the form of a person or thing"

So a "virtual image" is an "almost, but not quite real, reproduction or imitation of the form of of a person or thing" or, in our case, "place"

Sounds like a Quictime Cubic VR Image, iPIX Image, etc, to me.

There's a couple more definitions of "image" that work that way too

Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM

Andrew
The big reason I suggest using the term "virtual tour" to broadly describe what we do is; before we can have a conversation with some one (hopefully a paying customer) they have to find us.

If a hotel manager decides thay want a "virtual tour" of their hotel for their website, they have to find someone who can do it.

What is it you think they're going to look for?

Is just have my doubts that they're going grab the Yellow Pages and start looking for the "Panography" or "Immersive Panorama" heading. And if they do, they won't find a heading and thus any panographers. In the new AT&T Yellow Pages they will find Virtual Tour

Its like the builder I mentioned, he can advertise himself as a "Contracter" or a "Home Builder" or both. (The Contractor section in the Albuquerque Yellow Pages is much larger than the Home Builder section) Technically he's a Contractor, Home Building is what he does. He should probably get listed in both sections because if the potential customer doesn't find him, he never gets to explain the difference between a "beam" and a "viga"

Similarly, if the hotel manager that wants an interactive tour of his property can't find you, you'll never get to explain what you do.

The two big, early players in immersive imaging, QuickTime and iPIX, established the word "virtual" in our lexicon effectively by including it in their product names; "QuickTime VR" and "iPIX Virtual Tours". That pretty much did it

I just seriously doubt we're going to shake the word "virtual" loose from the general public when they think about what we do.

Not using the phrase "virtual tour" very simply would make any advertising and marketing I do less effective. And using "virtual tour" will make it more effective.

Take care

Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM

Your devotion to the word "virtual" is anything but. :-)

Hi Drew:

Hope this doesn't fall in to the category of "obvious" or of "bickering" -- Since VR Photography of the immersive sort is the newcomer to the stage, I think trying to define "view panoramas" hits a moot point. That is, printed photographic images of the panoramic sort have been around for over a hundred + years. [edit: ha, just noticed this at your 'corporate site']

I think a simple "panoramic image" or "panoramic photo" is well entrenched in the vernacular. What does need to be defined (or what needs to be made understood to the layperson) is how VR photography differs. Possibly just the additon of "360°" before the word panorama suffices?

It's great to be specific, but I can think of few instances where a client will ask not just for a "photo", but for a "photo shot with a medium format (2 1/4) camera onto Velvia versus color negative". :-P The end-use will dictate how it's shot and delivered. Maybe I stray...

Cheers,

Patrick Cheatham
--
CheathamLane | spinControl:VR
Berkeley, California
VR Photography
Web, Flash & QuickTime Development

No offense taken. I agree this is somewhat academic, but...people are taking the time to write up lots of definitions; and define some sub-categories for panos.

I also have to admit that doing this via my blog is probably not the best venue. So I apologize for that.

Like you imply I have been using those historical panoramas as the starting point for "panorama" and panoramic photograph. The panotools wikis do what I think is reasonable and subcategorized our "vr" panos as immersive. So I am totally on the same (web) page.
http://wiki.panotools.org/Panorama
http://www.panotools.info/mediawiki/index.php?title=Panorama

But I still feel like something is lacking or needs augmenting. I think it's the term "partial". I mean the historical panoramas, and the ones I am tentatively calling "view panoramas" are hardly "partial wide views". It seems to me they *are* wide views, they are panoramic. At least that's my feeling.

I'm not sure if I'm trying to say "partial" should really be "view", or if "view pano" should be its own term. However, I think from a marketing perspective calling it a "View Pano" sounds better than "Partial Pano". :-)

I guess I'll toss it in the back of my mind and let it sit there waiting for light to dawn on marble head.

But like you and Aldo point out, everyone's free to call stuff what they like, and our language has tons of synonyms.

Hey Drew:

Well, blog or not I'm all for interaction... ;-) Wherever it may take place.

Hmmm... I won't look at the PT Wiki, so as not to prejudice myself (yet). What if... Still photography had to rename itself as "still" to differentiate itself from moving pictures (what we call movies, video, or film almost without meaning any difference between them -- though "movies" is the only one I think can really call itself a moniker; the others are similar to "aspirin" or "kleenex" in that they are misappropriations of terms meant to apply to other things).

That is, photographers had to make the "still image" distinction when the public consciousness began to need the distinction. So, it seems natural to me to make the distinction here -- Panographers (!) create interactive pictures. Traditional photographers create still pictures. Cinematographers create moving pictures. Any one of these types of photographers can create a panoramic still image, though panographers are really the only ones who can create interactive panoramas and interactive moving panoramas and still panoramas, each of the 360° (or not) variety.

I agree that "partial" (and "static") are terms best replaced by words like "View", which has a better ring to it.

I adore the elasticity of language -- and have no qualms with people's use or misuse; it's a living thing. Well, OK, I have almost no issue with how people use language. ;-) But, I do think people should be guided. If we start penning the linguistic roadmap, perhaps others will follow -- and we won't feel so put upon.

Cheers,

Patrick Cheatham
--
CheathamLane | spinControl:VR
Berkeley, California
VR Photography
Web, Flash & QuickTime Development

Andrew
I didn't get "view panoramas" at first, but it finally sank in. (Some times I'm a little slow)

The "view" means just part of a panorama (with panorama generally meaning 360°). That actually makes a lot of sense once I thought about it.

But that's the problem I see, people have to think about it.

Patrick mentioned that the phrase "panoramic photos" has been around for a long time. I tried to find an old black & white one on eBay of the Albuquerque High School & some of downtown Albuquerque from the early 1900s to link to. It seams to have been taken from the top of building accross the street and is is about 180° wide. The phrase "panoramic photo" is something the public has a pretty good idea of what it is.

View Panorama works if you have time to explain it, but you may not get the opportunity. You're offering licenses, prints & postcards of your work on your website, so its important to get visitors to the site to click through to the various pages and see your work. (I really like the view overlooking Santa Fe with the pink/purple clouds)

"View Panoramas" may invoke curiosity (of what it means) and a click through, but I think "Panoramic Photos" would generate recognition of the phrase along with curiosity (in this case a desire to see the images), then a click through.

I try to anticipate what will generate the quickest recognition by potential customers. (An old boss taught me about the imortance of the number of seconds of read time different highway billboards had. A short read-time billboard was less expensive, but the message had to be simple and understandable quickly)

If you had a store just off the Plaza with a sign "Santa Fe View Panoramas" and a competitor was accross the street with a sign "Santa Fe Panoramic Photos", which do you think a vacation couple wandering around Santa Fe looking for a souvenir to take home would know what to expect find in the store at first glance? And you don't get to explain anything to them before they decide which store to walk into.

I get the impression you're trying to use names/phrases for what you do that make sense and fit together. I just don't think you need to because the average person that would buy one of your "view panorams" and enjoy looking at your "immersive panoramas" probably doesn't have any idea they were produced with the same methods/technology. I say that because I repeatedly get customers and home sellers that think my iPIX Images are video rather than spherical photos. Just had one last night.

I'm not trying to argue, like Patrick, I enjoy the discussuon.

Hope you do to

Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM