Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wiggle stereoscopy

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2020 at 16:12:52 (UTC)

Reason: Good example of Wiggle stereoscopy from an early 20th century set, ~~when the technique was relatively novel and in use.~~ Lead image of the article, and I did more restoration recently.
Articles in which this image appears: Wiggle stereoscopy
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment
Creator: Keystone View Company, photographer: unknown, restoration: Miles and Bammesk

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Intresting, read the article for the first time as a result of nomination. --Gnosis (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment & leaning to oppose I don't think wiggle stereoscopy was used in the early 20th century... by what means, if true? ^{[citation needed]} Stereoscopy itself is a lot older, as old as photography, in fact. Otherwise high EV, but there are some distracting details: the uneven exposure, and the size difference top right. I think a better, modern image could easily be made. I might try doing one in the near future, possibly with more than two frames. --Janke | Talk 19:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Janke, about "what means": it didn't take much to toggle two images in 1910s and 20s (with motion picture and projector technology of the time). An easy way would be two side by side projectors projecting the two images on the same screen, and blocking the light path sequentially. Bammesk (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I struck/revised that part. Being novice, I drew the wrong conclusion from looking at the many slow moving and old examples in the article and in the Commons category here. There are other and newer examples in the Commons category but none are as well done (as impressive) as the nom image. I look forward to seeing your image. I think being derived from a 1920s-set makes the nom image an interesting example though. Bammesk (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's a very quick test with 4 frames - it was easy to make! Effect could be stronger than in this example (of my HO railroad...) Someone else may want to try it, with a better, and "deeper" subject. Can't do it outside today, too windy... --Janke | Talk 10:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Janke: I think that's somewhat missing the point. It's a way of showing old stereoscopic images in a way that preserves their stereoscopic 3D view without the need for specialised viewers; it's not something that's generally being created intentionally. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.4% of all FPs} 21:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Lacks general EV; annoying. – Sca (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment New to me, but surely the vanishing point (far distance) should be stationary, not wiggling, in which case this is a poor example. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesjsharp, here is an example of what you suggest, it doesn't work. Being new, you can spend a few minutes and go through the examples at the Commons category Here (also noted above). You'll get a sense of what works just by looking at the examples. Bammesk (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI looked at the examples and they all use different POVs and techniques. None impressed me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them don't impress me either, a stationary vanishing point doesn't work though. Bammesk (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose The article is really lacking in good sources to establish this is actually a notable technique. Normally I don't judge images by the quality of the article they come from, but for an image created by a Wikipedian to exemplify a technique, we need it to be pretty well-established that the technique is actually notable (just as even the most perfectly-shot portrait of a non-notable person wouldn't be an FP). TSP (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From memory, this technique (or one very similar to it) was extensively used by aerial reconnaissance photo interpreters during World War II to provide an illusion of depth. Again from memory, this played a particularly important role in the campaign against the German 'V' weapons. Such images would likely have stronger EV. Nick-D (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To your point, article says "many small animals bob their heads to create motion parallax (wiggling) so they can better estimate distance prior to jumping." Bammesk (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I am always interested in learning about animal behaviour, I have examined the claim in the article that birds bob their heads in some way that illustrates wiggle stereoscopy. My conclusion (and someone else has already inserted a ‘citation needed’ template) is that there is no evidence to support this statement. Animals (like man) will move their heads to get a better view and that improves distance perception through motion parallax. Steinman and Garcia make a claim that pigeons bob their heads to achieve motion parallax. Experiments have shown this to be not true. They bob their heads to keep them still as they move, so it is for focus, not parallax. Ellard et al. undertook work on the Mongolian gerbil and found that monocular gerbils moved their heads more than binocular gerbils. No bobbing. The three references cited are only Harvard citations – there are no full citations, but I’ve accessed what I can.Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article says small animals, not just birds. It is unsourced though. Bammesk (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]