Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bensberg Germany Schloss-Bensberg-Panorama-01.jpg

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

File:Bensberg Germany Schloss-Bensberg-Panorama-01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2017 at 19:36:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cylindrical Panorama of Bensberg Palace, Germany.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •  Info Bensberg Palace, a historical building in Bensberg near Cologne, Germany. It is a former Hunting Lodge, commissioned by Johann Wilhelm, Elector Palatine for his wife Anna Maria Luisa de' Medici. It was converted to a 5-Star Hotel in 1997. Cylindrical panorama from 11 single images, taken from a normal tripod.
All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How? The tripod was extended to 1,80 m. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I guess the ground slopes up to the building. Charles (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is the normal effect when taking such huge building with a wide angle lense and forming it to a cylindrical panorama. It covers a view of 180° degrees and the distance of the left and right wing is perhaps 50 m while the main entrance in the far is 100 m from the tripod. I am not an expert on 180° or 360 ° panorama photos but some colleagues here are and probably can give a suitable explanation, why this has to be as it is. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's always tradeoff. Either u curve the verticals or the horizontals (there's more than that, but I make it short). From my experience, the best compromise would be to use a panini general (maybe that's what u meant), which allows to fine tune the amount of distorsion. - Benh (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a reminder for me and also where this photo in my archive is located. On request, I can provide interested individuals with the higher resolution (as stated in the section "Permission"). However 13.000 px width with 21 MB appeared to be more than sufficient for the majority of users. The max res is about 47 MB. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So it's downscaled. You've been the first indicating me to the relevant guideline. I´ve no problem with that, but maybe it´s a bit problematic to offer a higher resolution by advertising with a downscaled image. --Milseburg (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I installed Hughin and tried it yesterday evening. But surprisingly - though I took the photos in 20° interval steps with huge overlap - the program complaints, that it does not find enough stitching points. Probably, I am lacking experience to use this program after that short time of testing it. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On reading again the technical informations of Benh (thanks for that!); I gathered, that a 180° panorama can never have rectilinear verticals and straight horizontals. This seems logical to me, as the image is not just a wide angle representation, but a flat projection of a cylindrical representation. So, for my personal taste, the curved buildings are more suitable than curved/inclined verticals, especially as I was standing in a distance of the building where it is desirable to have rectilinear verticals. If someone does not share that view, it is ok, but it seems not justified to perform a post processing, that can technically not give the requested result. —CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  weak oppose Over the past couple days, I've really tried to like this. I'm sorry, though, I can't: it makes me feel like I've had one too many drinks. I think it may not be possible to photograph the whole building from this close up and obtain a panorama that I would like. Storkk (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral although it's a very good photo, something totally bothers me about it. I can't even say what it is. --Rettinghaus (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The picture is technically impressive, but the projection somehow gives the impression that all the verticals are wonky even though they're perfectly vertical. This optical illusion rather distracts from the building. --bjh21 (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I'm afraid it isn't working for me. I appreciate that the very wide view cannot be rectilinear, though the "Panini General" (aka vedutismo on PtGui) has the advantage of ensuring any diagonals radiating from a central vanishing point will be straight, as well as straight verticals. The verticals here aren't all quite perfect, with a few wonky ones. The "looking up" complaint may be solved by adjusting where the vertical centre of the projection is, and this may also minimise the degree of horizontal curvature a small amount. Alternatively go for a crop of the central portion and use a rectilinear projection. -- Colin (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Too much distortion for me, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 05:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I now understand why I didn't like it. The distortion. Charles (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Bensberg_Germany_Schloss-Bensberg-Panorama-01.jpg&oldid=296808793"