Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Stereographic panorama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Stereographic projection of a panorama

Original - A 360 degree panorama from 9 images which uses stereographic projection to create a globe.
Original - A 360 degree panorama from 9 images which uses stereographic projection to create a globe.
Another example
Another example
Reason
This is a really cool picture - very unusual and eye catching IMO. Also check out the normal projection of this image.
Articles this image appears in
Creator
gladl
  • Support both Abdominator (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support original, highly illustrative. The alternative contains some ugly stitching errors. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 23:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Both encyclopedic and interesting. I see no problems with the technical aspects of the photo. --Sharkface217 06:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support original. Interesting, definitely has the "wow" factor. Oppose alternative, errors, fuzzy in treetops. --Janke | Talk 09:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support original. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-28 14:43Z
  • Support original. The whole world in a little ball. Cooool. --Bridgecross (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, not fully sure how to judge this kind of picture but the second one has tons of stitching errors which go along with blurriness on one side. Obviously, they might be unavoidable for this type of image but I didn't see them in the first... but, the first isn't quite is astounding. gren グレン 20:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral Hmm, sorry, but I think it looks very strange... —αἰτίας •discussion• (Happy new year!) 00:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's the point.--Svetovid (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support the first one. Mind boggling. Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support 1st, Oppose 2nd Very enc for stereographic projection, must have taken you a lot of time. However, can you please fix the varied exposure for the Notre Dame one, and I will strong support that one is well. --antilivedT | C | G 10:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support no. 1 Well done and original.--Svetovid (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support It is interesting!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support both (more on 1st one) I think I got a slight headache when I first saw the first one heh. Great job, though the sky on top left looks awkward somehow. The latter is good too, but it looks rather common, IMO. — Yurei-eggtart 20:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support both These are amazing Teque5 (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support first one, oppose edit. I think I need to go and have a lie down... —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Original Only Second one isn't good; bad stitching S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 02:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Though it might be useful to have the original for comparison.--HereToHelp 12:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Globe panorama03.jpg MER-C 03:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)