Hello and Welcome to this Graphics village pump of Commons. This Graphics village pump aims to provide help and information about the several Graphic Labs spread in the Wikipedias, and to be the technical support forum for all the local Labs, graphists (graphic artists), and users interested in graphic works, and is a page where graphists and users from all the Labs can talk about graphics, tutorials, graphic software, help to build new Graphic Labs, etc. Also for exchanging opinions, ideas, protocols, and ways of improvement.
"Correcting" perspective of 3D object photographs
Here are two examples where editors have attempted to "correct" the perspective of photos of 3D objects taken at angles, or with weird perspective. But as far as I understand perspective, this is impossible, since you can't compensate for parts of the objects that are unseen on the original photos, and you can't "rotate" the objects on them, therefore the result becomes even more skewed (especially the objects on the edges of the first example). Anyone else have thoughts on this? Should it be discouraged? It is of course different with photos of 2D objects. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: First of all, I'm very uncomfortable with the expression "perspective correction" because perspective is a physical parameter (or a combination of several, if you think about focal lengths etc.) of the picture taking process that – as you point out correctly – can't be changed afterwards. All you can do once the picture has been taken is try to make it appear as if is was taken from a different perspective. This can work rather well with flat objects such as paintings, but as soon as things are starting to become three-dimensional, you run into problems (think about a relief or maybe even a painting with thick paint and visible brush strokes shot from the side).
When it comes to buildings, there are some people around preaching that verticals must be vertical. There has been a recent discussion on this at the QIC talk page (mostly in german, with no real conclusion). There are cases where a certain amount of "correction" makes sense. For example, if a building is shot from below with a very wide angle lens, the verticals may converge much more in the image then they would appear to the human eye. Tuning down that "exaggeration" produced by the lens to a level where it looks natural often makes sense. On the other hand, you have presented some examples that show how such a "correction" can lead to really absurd results.
So no, I don't think manipulations like this should be discouraged in general. Instead I think that some guidance material on what amount of manipulation may be appropriate under what circumstances should be developed. Huge pile of work, though, if you want to do it right … --El Grafo (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm hoping that this is the right place to ask the question - I've been directed here from some other places, please let me know if I should be asking elsewhere.
I load a .svg file into mediawiki. That works fine. When, though, I click on an element, instead of going to the link specified in the .svg file, the whole image links only to the uploaded file.
How do I persuade mediawiki to show the links in the .svg properly? Fustbariclation (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Mediawiki is set up to allow you to do what you want to do. SVG files with SMIL animation are allowed to be uploaded (but the animation won't appear when the SVG files are rendered to PNG). Otherwise, mediawiki ignores all SVG-file scripting or interactivity (and often doesn't allow SVG files with those features to even be uploaded), as far as I'm aware... AnonMoos (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
It is unfortunate, but you'll have to use ImageMap. This is because the thumbnails of SVG images are PNG images. And this is most likely not going to change for security reasons despite the fact that most browsers now support SVG natively. When creating an image map, don't forget to post it to the file description page (as <pre>formatted text</pre>) as well so other projects can benefit from that. -- Rillke(q?) 17:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
So it is only me? I can see the thumbnail but not the photo. How can I solve it? -- Geagea (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you see thumbnails in the gallery below? (I do.) -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes I can see them but when I'm entering into I can't see the photo. -- Geagea (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I can see them to, one thing I think is about the names. They are with unusual characters (for us with alphabet a b c) and it's written from right to left. I have uploaded an original file and a renamed file and you can check if you can view any of them. This to find out if the the name is a problem; original file and maybe you will have to download it as the browser rewrites the filename and then renamed file. I'm not sure if this is the right way to check it but it's a try anyway. --Goran tek-en (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I can see the original of both but when I have the pahe of the file I can see the thumbnail and can't see the photo (that is what I see). -- Geagea (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
If I can butt into this thread, I'm having a problem with an image too.
For some reason, this only shows up in thumbnails, and category pages.
I replaced the image, but it didn't work. Can somebody here fix it? ----DanTD (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Has something changed in the interface? I used to be able to see a preview of the SVG image that I was going to upload but now either see a rectangle or in the final screen a rectangle showing a break between the top and the bottom. The SVG images, though, all upload fine, and display fine after uploaded, but could cause someone to wonder if their SVG was going to upload. This does not happen when updating an old image, even though the same file is used (the preview though, is larger in the case of an update). Delphi234 (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Think any preview was always in your local browser (and dependent on your local browser). To see a real preview of how RSVG software will render an SVG file to PNG, go to Commons:SVG Check... -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)