Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fraser Valley Panorama
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 May 2012 at 06:17:22 (UTC)
- Reason
- The image adds significant value to the accompanying article and is one of the best images on Wikipedia of the place. It is a complement to the other panorama in the article since it is from the opposite direction. The technical aspects of the image (resolution, etc) are good.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Fraser Valley
- FP category for this image
- Panoramas of places
- Creator
- Purpy Pupple
.jpg)
.jpg)
- Support as nominator --Purpy Pupple (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Squished version. It's misrepresenting the scene as well as creating artefacts in the image. Weak Oppose Original. It's a nice enough scene but there are obvious stitching lines in the image where, I'm guessing, the soft edge of one frame meets the sharp central part of the next frame. And I like panoramas as much as anyone, but I find it a bit too wide and not tall enough. I like to see more foreground/context in panoramas. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I re-stitched it with greater attention to detail. Please take a look at Version 2, which is a taller, narrower crop with more foreground. I have also posted the raw panorama output for reference. Compared to Original the colours of Version 2 are more drab but more faithful. It is true there is a faint dark stitching line visible about 60% from the left - I'm not too sure what causes it since I used manual exposure at the same settings for all frames. Perhaps it is due to vignetting. But as far as I can see, the sharpness is uniform (though not too sharp, the fact that it's 14,872 × 3,249 pixels should make the resolution acceptable). And of course I agree that the Squished version shouldn't be an FP (and since Version 2 is not as wide, there's no need for the Squished version). In any case I have taken the liberty of replacing the image in Fraser Valley with Version 2 and I hope that you will reconsider your vote. Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I prefer the composition of Version 2, but I'm afraid it's still got a lot of issues. There are still quite a few areas where the image goes from being relatively sharp to quite blurry along the seam line. You say you used manual exposure on all the photos but what about autofocus? Did you set it to manual or let it autofocus? Cameras often misfocus from frame to frame. You might not notice it so much with a single photo but when you try to stitch one sharp image with one blurry one, the transitions look very obvious. Either that or you didn't use a fast enough exposure and some of the frames are blurry from camera shake. Also there are actual stitching artefacts. In Version 2, look for the large darker tree in the centre of the frame. Follow it downwards towards the houses, and slightly to the right. There is a really obvious white 'tear' in the panorama, misalignment of the images, along with one of the problems with focus in the stitching seams along the roofing of the houses. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 06:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- The lens is a manual focus lens so focus is not an issue. But the shutter speed was only 1/200 s for handheld shots equivalent to 216 mm focal length so it is probable that there is some blurriness due to camera shake. I see the white tear that you mention now... it is because of parallax issues; the vantage point of the shot was such that I had to reposition slightly between shots so that leaves would not obscure the frames at the sides. For the distant objects the long focal length means that a slight shift would not matter but clearly it is disastrous in the foreground. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I prefer the composition of Version 2, but I'm afraid it's still got a lot of issues. There are still quite a few areas where the image goes from being relatively sharp to quite blurry along the seam line. You say you used manual exposure on all the photos but what about autofocus? Did you set it to manual or let it autofocus? Cameras often misfocus from frame to frame. You might not notice it so much with a single photo but when you try to stitch one sharp image with one blurry one, the transitions look very obvious. Either that or you didn't use a fast enough exposure and some of the frames are blurry from camera shake. Also there are actual stitching artefacts. In Version 2, look for the large darker tree in the centre of the frame. Follow it downwards towards the houses, and slightly to the right. There is a really obvious white 'tear' in the panorama, misalignment of the images, along with one of the problems with focus in the stitching seams along the roofing of the houses. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 06:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I re-stitched it with greater attention to detail. Please take a look at Version 2, which is a taller, narrower crop with more foreground. I have also posted the raw panorama output for reference. Compared to Original the colours of Version 2 are more drab but more faithful. It is true there is a faint dark stitching line visible about 60% from the left - I'm not too sure what causes it since I used manual exposure at the same settings for all frames. Perhaps it is due to vignetting. But as far as I can see, the sharpness is uniform (though not too sharp, the fact that it's 14,872 × 3,249 pixels should make the resolution acceptable). And of course I agree that the Squished version shouldn't be an FP (and since Version 2 is not as wide, there's no need for the Squished version). In any case I have taken the liberty of replacing the image in Fraser Valley with Version 2 and I hope that you will reconsider your vote. Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Withdraw since the vantage point is close to where I live, I shall try to take a better panorama. Purpy Pupple (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not promoted --Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Withdrawn. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)