Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Natural History Museum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Natural History Museum
Alfred Waterhouse's Neo Gothic masterpiece shown of to good effect in an unusual, encyclopedic image. Photo credit:User:Diliff
- Nominate and support. - Mcginnly | Natter 18:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. Significant, unattractive distortion. Otherwise pretty good. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Great picture but the verticals are not straight. Curved horizontals are fine because of the extreme wide angle but the vertical lines should remain vertical in cylindrical projection. Try using Hugin to stitch the originals and correct that. Will change my vote once it's fixed. --antilived T | C 19:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- I took that photo almost a year ago but from memory there was a reason why I left it curving inwards slightly. I think it was the fact that due to the extreme angle of view, completely straightening the vertical lines distorted the top of the towers too much (as you can see they are already significantly distorted and the detail is not as good up there). I actually use stitching software that is superior to Hugin (at least in my opinion) but unfortunately the laws of physics and geometry limit my ability to take perfect panoramas! In this case, there is a tall metal fence that stops you moving further back from the building so ultra-wide it has to be. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- That is not entirely true. I've put the image through Hugin and I managed to straighten (at least straighter) the verticals, without distorting the towers too much. Your crop is too tight so I can't do a good one but I think you should try it yourself and see the results. Also, ever considered doing a linear panorama for things like this? --antilived T | C 04:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think linear projection would work for an image such as this. The angle of view would be virtually 180 degrees and it would be incredibly distorted. I'll try to dig up the original images and you can have a go if you like, rather than working with the panorama directly. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- That is not entirely true. I've put the image through Hugin and I managed to straighten (at least straighter) the verticals, without distorting the towers too much. Your crop is too tight so I can't do a good one but I think you should try it yourself and see the results. Also, ever considered doing a linear panorama for things like this? --antilived T | C 04:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I took that photo almost a year ago but from memory there was a reason why I left it curving inwards slightly. I think it was the fact that due to the extreme angle of view, completely straightening the vertical lines distorted the top of the towers too much (as you can see they are already significantly distorted and the detail is not as good up there). I actually use stitching software that is superior to Hugin (at least in my opinion) but unfortunately the laws of physics and geometry limit my ability to take perfect panoramas! In this case, there is a tall metal fence that stops you moving further back from the building so ultra-wide it has to be. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Very sharp and high detail but the curve is really too much. Can't support. Even though Diliff made it, we can't have all of his pictures FP. --Arad 00:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- ;-) The ultra wide angle is really the only way to get the whole building into the frame (you can take a photo from a very side-on angle but you lose a lot of the facade and architecture). Not that I'm saying that is a good reason to support it either though. Just letting you know the limitations of the scene. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose the detail at 100% is amazing, however there are stitching errors. Look at the left entrance and the stairs. Parts don't line up. Plus the curves are a bit extreme. For encyclopedic purposes, images of archetecture should probably be a bit more representative.--Andrew c 03:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. As per above. - jlao 04 08:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - If we had "wide-angle panoramic eyes" maybe we could better appreciate the picture. I also think this is too much distortion. - Alvesgaspar 09:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. Distortion and stitching errors. --Tewy 03:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tariqabjotu (talk • contribs) .
