Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Torre Agbar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Torre Agbar

Reason

This is a very high res vertical panoramic image of a landmark skyscraper building in Barcelona. Being a somewhat simple cropped side-on view, the wow factor may be somewhat low, but the wow for me is in the amazing detail and architecture, somewhat reminiscent of the 30 St Mary Axe building in London but also very distinct.

Articles this image appears in

Torre Agbar and Barcelona

Creator

Diliff

Nominator

Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs)

• Support — Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Wow, amazing detail! I thought it was blurry in the thumbnail, but I see that's just aliasing from the lattice structure. TotoBaggins 16:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support Tecnically great - phallic but sterile... Don't like the foreground, though, but what can you do? ;-) --Janke | Talk 16:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with you on both points. It was completely surrounded on all sides by very industrial looking buildings/fields. That was the best view that I could find that included the base all the way to the top. I only regret I didn't get a chance to take a photo of it at night. It looks very impressive/bizarre [1]. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Very nice. Composition is probably about as good as possible considering the surroundings. But is it just me or is it tilted slightly to the right? —Dgies^t c 18:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Great quality and nice lighting.--enano ^(Talk) 19:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful, I ran some plumb lines and it looks pretty straight. -Fcb981 20:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support- great picture. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{01:53, Tuesday, January 30 2007}
• Giant Dildo Support. ~ trialsanderrors 09:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support another great panorama. I'm always amazed at the color quality and balance, contrast, and of course detail. Though the little dot (hot pixel or star) towards the top/center of the sky almost ruined it for me (j/k).-Andrew c 21:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Some people seem to have a problem with a hot pixel so I slaved for hours to create this (I believe) faithful reconstruction of what the sky should look like. See edit 1. Pretty darn nice catch though Andrew c. --froth^T 02:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Guys... I've looked at the original raw file and that 'hot pixel' exists there too. Given that I have never seen a hot pixel on my camera before, I'm going to have to assume that whatever it is, it is something that was in the sky at the time. Froth, you have way too much time on your hands to bother uploading an edit based on that. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. I did some trajectory calculations: it is the international space station!!1!!eleven!! Wow, this adds tremendously to teh enc!!11!! --Dschwen(A) 14:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment - Orly? --Iriseyes 22:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Thats 800km to the north...--Dschwen(A) 23:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Heh. --froth^T 00:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Hmm, if astronauts can't see anything smaller than runways looking down from the ISS, how would we see it looking up? Noclip 01:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
                • Because it stands out against the solid sky --froth^T 04:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
                • And also we don't see the world with the equivalent of a 150mm camera lens, nor do we have the same ability to resolve 13mp of detail (well we do, but in a very different sort of way). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Just ordered World of Warcraft today over this very thing. I was holding off on buying it because I was afraid I wouldn't have enough time to play, but while uploading this pic I just laughed at myself and ordered :D --froth^T 23:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
        • You'd have even more time if you got up before 3pm ;-) --Dschwen(A) 23:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support It looks rusty in the thumb, but thankfully, it looks good in the high-res verison (just how it should be :-). | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 14:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Diliff - assuming the stitched composite is downsampled, could we see a full-size view of that "hot pixel"? As is, it does look like a hot one, with jpg artifacts. But if it's more than one pixel in your original, it's either a high-flying bird or plane - or the ISS? --Janke | Talk 17:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Now if we only had the Metadata, we might even back-up my crackpot claim... --Dschwen(A) 19:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No need; I've overlaid the pixels from the image and a nice shot of the ISS for everyone's convenience --froth^T 23:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Imagine if that was true. It meant Diliff's camera worth 1 million $. Superb try by the way --Arad 00:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

**Heres the 100% crop (actually magnified to 3200% or so) taken straight out of the RAW file and saved as PNG. Still possibly a hot pixel (due to the Bayer algorithm) but as I said, I've never noticed it in the past or in any other images. In fact, I actually took two sets of panoramas at lightly different focal lengths and I just compared the same location in both images and there is no hot pixel at the same coordinate in the other, nor is there a 'UFO' in the other panorama set. Whatever it was, it was there during the panorama featured here, but gone 1:33 seconds later. My conclusion: Not a hot pixel - likely a satellite or possibly a high flying distant bird. At a focal length of 150mm, I can't imagine anything but a satellite being a mere couple of pixels on a 13 megapixel camera. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • • ... If you geocoded it and included an accurate timestamp we could tell if it was a satellite. :) (hint hint) .. although about the only satellite you'd see during the day is an iridium. ... You didn't happen to really taken this on the 7th at about 9am local time? [2] did you? Guess not.. 19deg is too low for that UFO anyways. --Gmaxwell 02:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Very Weak Support - I agree with Janke and looks like David agrees too. But this building is amazing at night. I would strongly support a night shot. --Arad 22:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The building is surrounded by buildings; you can't do much about that. But that mysterious object ruins it for me. We can't have imperfections of that magnitude in any image. It's elementary; if you're going to photograph something, take it at an angle that excludes the distractions! I can't believe such a simple rule could be so blatently ignored. And for what? Attention?! I really should just strongly oppose, it's so distracting, but I suppose I'll follow consensus and stick with my vote. --Tewy 03:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The artistic genius that is EDIT 1 fixed that monstrosity. Vote for it, I want to get a picture featured for once! --froth^T 04:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah...on second thought, the speck adds significantly to the image. There's no way in a million years that it could be captured just so. I mean really, it's just floating in the sky! That's incredible! And the enc, oh, the enc! Can it get any better? I don't think so. Removing the object is like removing the subject itself, so I simply cannot support your edit. --Tewy 04:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
      • What did I do :( --froth^T 23:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - and for the record - you guys have far too much time on your hands! --Joopercoopers 00:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Torre Agbar - Barcelona, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)