Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/pantheon wide
Panoramic inside view of the Panthéon, Paris. By the way, I tried to include here the link to the Pantheon article without success. If you can help...
- Nominate and support. - Jplavoie 23:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Are you "Jean-Pierre Lavoie" and, if so, what license are you releasing this picture under? Currently the picture has no copyright information. We can only feature pictures that are under an open license (see WP:WIAFP). In fact, the picture will eventually be deleted if a license is not provided. Here is the link to the pantheon article: Panthéon, Paris. BrokenSegue 00:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- You're right, I solved the copyright matter. Thank you. - Jplavoie 01:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose for now, so close to symmetry, but not. Maybe if it were symmetrical, maybe. DVD+ R/W 01:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak support- much improvement in centered/ cropped edition. DVD+ R/W 04:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support centered. The windows glare, which is somewhat distracting -- but I don't think that's reason enough to oppose, and otherwise it's a good shot. Definite encyclopedic value. bcasterline t 01:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- nothing in the image, save the columns, is really crisp. also the glare from the windows is distracting... drumguy8800 - speak 02:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Oppose - Support If blown out highlights were ok in POV-ray they are definitly ok here. -Ravedave 04:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Support Per Bcasterline. 
Black and WhiteUSERTALKCONTRIBS 04:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)- Comment: I'd like to see some improvements before voting: The outer columns are tilting inwards, and they appear to be slightly curved. Also, how would a rectilinear stitch look? I'm bothered by the curved walkways on both sides. The windows are OK, you can't do anything about that (unless you happened to bracket all your exposures, and combine shots before stitching...) --Janke | Talk 05:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- I can tell you that if the panorama has a greater angle of view than about 120 degrees, it is impossible to make a realistic looking rectilinear panorama due to the preservation of straight lines. The edges would be extremely warped. In fact, looking at the image again, it looks to be approximately 180 degrees or more, in which case a rectilinear projection would be logically impossible. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- True, it's more than 180 degrees. It is shot from just in front of the "fence", seen at the pillar bases both left & right. (Just curious, trying to learn: How wide was the Grand Central panorama? With some unorthodox fixing, we got that into a reasonable rectilinear image. Here, that technique might work by leaving out the outermost pillars, i.e. cropping this to 120 degrees or so?) BTW, there are tarpaulins or screens hanging under the ceiling left & right - is that something temporarily there? It is a bit distracting... --Janke | Talk 09:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, it could be done with this image if it were re-stitched in rectilinear. I can't remember exactly what the angle of view was on the Grand Central pano, but I would guess that it would be around 100-120 degrees. Maybe I'll have a go at this panorama next time I'm in Paris. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- True, it's more than 180 degrees. It is shot from just in front of the "fence", seen at the pillar bases both left & right. (Just curious, trying to learn: How wide was the Grand Central panorama? With some unorthodox fixing, we got that into a reasonable rectilinear image. Here, that technique might work by leaving out the outermost pillars, i.e. cropping this to 120 degrees or so?) BTW, there are tarpaulins or screens hanging under the ceiling left & right - is that something temporarily there? It is a bit distracting... --Janke | Talk 09:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- I can tell you that if the panorama has a greater angle of view than about 120 degrees, it is impossible to make a realistic looking rectilinear panorama due to the preservation of straight lines. The edges would be extremely warped. In fact, looking at the image again, it looks to be approximately 180 degrees or more, in which case a rectilinear projection would be logically impossible. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Its a nice try, but the image appears reasonably soft. Seems like result of motion blur as it wasn't taken with a tripod, presumably. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support centered version. I don't know if we're looking at different images or what... I think this looks fantastic, with only the windowlight in the upper windows being a tiny bit distracting. If that were to be tastefully fixed, great, otherwise I think the centered version is FP quality. Staxringold 14:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support centered version I like it. Mikeo 14:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support I like how the areas with only stone (such as the columns) almost see as if it's in black and white, while the paintings have a nice warm glow. It really makes them stand out. I don't really mind the picture being as soft as it is. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 20:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, BWF89 04:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support Looks pretty good to me --Fir0002 www 10:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support I like it too. --Nrainer 14:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support I like Edit1 it is very well detailed and has good resolution.
Eric B ( T • C • W ) 10:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC) - Support. I like it and I fixed the link to Panthéon, Paris if that is ok.--John Lakonias 18:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support edit - fantastic colours, interesting view. Warofdreams talk 04:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support - The picture itself is good, but the edited version brings it over the top. Amazing how just centering a picture can make it better.--Jonthecheet 16:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Great perspectives! Bertilvidet 19:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Pantheon_wider_centered.jpg Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)