Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paris, mairie du 10e arrdt, hall 04.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Paris, mairie du 10e arrdt, hall 04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2016 at 19:23:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Paris 10th arrondissement city hall spherical panorama

* Oppose size --Mile (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mile, this isn't a problem for the panorama viewer so I don't see why it should be a problem for Commons FP. There are gigapixel panoramas on the internet that offer an amazing chance to explore in all three dimensions, so there are possibilities for even larger files than this that would be highly educational. -- Colin (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info 2 : Benh did you saw mistakes while uploading. Person did pass away as i see on his homepage. Rest in peace. But do we get any "bonus" with our pictures by that ?! Will our photography be more feautered ? Would you vote same if i was the author ? Re-think... --Mile (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know. Mile, you support a 6MP image and yet complain about minor stitching issues only visible at 100% on a 450 MP image. Commons is a media repository and any sized image can be generated automatically in software when the image is rendered by the server or on your screen. The issue of the author's death is not that we should be more generous, but that there is no prospect to fix the image. Many of the nit-picking complaints at FP are made with the assumption that an active Commons user should be able to fix them and submit a new version. That isn't possible, so we just have to judge it for its pro and con as is. And the pro more than outweigh the con. -- Colin (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was looking on 1/3 of resolution - 5 MPx wide. I found some mistakes in a minute and some are to large for FP. Looking at 100% i would probably find more of them. --Mile (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say 'for some reason it doesn't work with you, then maybe it's better you remove your vote'. It's up to you to make it easy for us to vote on your image, so may be you should sort it rather than tell me how to vote. Charles (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charles, how can Benh fix the issues with your PC or browser? Is he your local tech support? Are you having issues with other 360 panoramas or just this one? I have tried Chrome, Edge and Firefox and they all work fine. In terms of judging the JPG (should one wish to) have you tried downloading it and opening it in an image program (Photoshop, etc) rather than in a browser. I don't think it fair for you to oppose someone's image just because you are having technical issues of your own. -- Colin (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hope you are kidding (but you look serious). You are a regular, yet you don't know how to reach the pano viewer... I did everything and gave proper warning (and Colin added similar instructions on top). Don't blame the picture because you don't read them or don't get the concept of 360°. - Benh (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to be so rude. I have opened the panoramic viewer in Explorer and Chrome. Both show a fixed 360 deg panorama different from the image in the submission. @Benh: Perhaps it would be more polite to suggest a solution rather than insulting me. I am not an idiot. Charles (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Featurable. Thanks Benh. in memoriam Coyau, who passed away one week ago...--Jebulon (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ikan Kekek: Hmm this is an issue. I haven't found how to do that. Panoviewer is based on [Pannelum] and looks to have been added to Wikipedia by user:Dschwen. On the Pannellum tutorial we can specify a source from its full URL, but I wasn't able to replicate with panoviewer. I've tried with the viewer on pannellum's website [1] but it says the panorama is too big. What I personally do is downloading the image and view it at home with a viewer. this one works good with me. Yes it's a bit troublesome. - Benh (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did, in the whole image. But it's a very small adjustment. You'll have to trust me when I claim to have fixed many stitching errors :) But it's quite noticeable even at panoviewer size (Miles was right, we could see them clearly). - Benh (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I was right, then. I was a bit disturbed by feeling a loss of light. I definitely trust you on the stitching errors, which I didn't notice in the first place. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry my mistake... I *increased* brightness. But very slightly (I found it was a bit dark, but I didn't want to make too obvious changes without making it a derivative work). - Benh (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Paris,_mairie_du_10e_arrdt,_hall_04.jpg&oldid=225937800"