Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:20101213 Suleymaniye Mosque Istanbul inside vertical Panorama.jpg

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

File:20101213 Suleymaniye Mosque Istanbul inside vertical Panorama.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2011 at 09:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Suleymaniye Mosque Istanbul inside
  •  Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support there are some little distortion in the right and left columns.. this image is consisting stitched images from vertical 28mm lens images. The image is high quality and demonstrates enough the interior of Suleymaniye mosque (which was recently completely renovated). -- Ggia (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Stitching error at chandelere wires and light distortion between the windows above.--Snaevar (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose OK please don't blame me for opposing everything... This one is nice, but common and usually, with similar view, you should feel like "tiny little thing looking up". Quite unusual choice of projection (although I should not criticize people on that given some of my past contributions over here ;) ), with horizontal lines straight and vertical lines curved. Did you rotate the source pictures, stitched them using cylindrical projection or alike, and them rotated back the result ? - Benh (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- Too heavy distortions in barrel of the vertical lines and numerous stitching errors due to paralax problems because no panoramic head was used. Also some lack of sharpness on the top as well as noise. In general a nice picture but needs a better technique. Sting (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, per Sting--shizhao (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination Ggia (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]