Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stirnberg - Ausblick vom Nordwesthang.jpg

File:Stirnberg - Ausblick vom Nordwesthang.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2017 at 09:50:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Stirnberg - Ausblick vom Nordwesthang.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stirnberg - Ausblick vom Nordwesthang.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
•  Info View out of the wintely Rhön Mountains in Hesse, Germany. See annotations for geographical informations. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Milseburg (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Neptuul (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose As before. As an overall scene, it is far too narrow to form a pleasing panorama for the eye: everything is tiny and there's a lot of snow and not enough sky. I fee like I'm looking down at the snow and can't lift my head up straight when I look at this. The only thing my eye focuses on is the tree on the far right, as everything else is too indistinct to make out. As an image to zoom into, it is neither a full 360 nor is it detailed compared to other FPs that reward zooming. Look at the other images in Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas and you will generally see they make great images even in small size. -- Colin (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - Very sharp and good, and I feel cold just looking at it! Very well-captured powdery snow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose as per Colin. Daphne Lantier 19:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Colin and Daphne, again I disagree. The full 360° around aren´t rational here. Behind me is dark forest. View offers only the direction shown. I don´t know what medium you use for regarding my panoramas. On my screen it fills clearly more than 100% in the standard-viewer and full resolution. It is not narrow. There is no interest to blow it up with simply white snow on the bottom or empty blue sky at the top or the forrest behind. The panorama shows the natural outlook as it can be seen with free eyes into a landscape I often work with in the German Wikipedia and I think it´s usefull there. Details are limited. I dont´t want to show the house numbers in the villages. Do you want to suggest another FP-category for my images since you think that only 360° or 360°x180° are panoramas? Yes, some FPs are better, some not. Is it a valid guidline that a FP rewards zooming in any special viewer? --Milseburg (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Per Daphne --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 04:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support a lot to see.--Ermell (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I think this works well as a panorama. The wow factor for me is provided by the swooping curves of the hill. --Peulle (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Peulle: "swooping curves of the hill" also known as cylindrical perspective distortion. -- Colin (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Question - So the curve isn't actually there, only in the photograph? Could you please address this question, Milseburg? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment It´s in fact a curved landscape. I really not sure which curve is meant exactly. Perhaps it's helpful to compare the image with a calculated, virtuell panorama. --Milseburg (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks. I guess the real question is, is the curve up to the right and left really there? About how many degrees is this panorama? 180°? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek, A cylindrical projection keeps vertical lines straight-up-and-down but only the centre horizontal is straight (remember this image may not be cropped symmetrically around the centre of the projection). There is one cylindrical projection (here) that preserves diagonals-from-the-centre-vanishing-point straight also). Other than that, horizontals get increasingly bent as you deviate from the centre. See File:St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Exterior - South Panorama.jpg for an example, and you can check on Google Maps that the road I'm standing on to take that photo is relatively straight. Some scenes hide this better than others, but it is still there and cannot be elminated. -- Colin (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Colin. This seems like a gentler curve than that, but I'd love to see what this photo would look like in a straighter horizontal projection. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

 Info The viewing angle is approximately 200 °. Consider, that I am not standing on a plain. It is a slope. If you take a look in this way, it´s normal that the view goes down the hill first and than rises up again. A straight snowy plain in the foreground isn´t correct here. --Milseburg (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to take your word for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

See also File:Winter auf dem Heidelstein.jpg from a more plane shooting location and same method of projection. --Milseburg (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose Boring unbalanced composition and extreme ratio. The downsampling algorithm (?) yields those very sharp, aliased and unpleasing edges. - Benh (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Benh. --Karelj (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas