Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foreign and Commonwealth Office - Durbar Court.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2014 at 22:17:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info The Durbar Court in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London. The photo was taken on Open House London September 2014, which is the only weekend the building is open to the public. This beautiful court was apparently neglected and threatened with demolition in the 1960s. Created by Colin - uploaded by Colin - nominated by Colin -- Colin (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Support This is a 66MP stitched image with around 110° field of view both horizontally and vertically, which is the limit of what a rectilinear projection can sensibly achieve. The photographs were taken hand-held leaning over the balcony, rather than on a tripod with panoramic head. So don't expect Diliff levels of perfection, especially in the corners :-). -- Colin (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Respectful oppose Your last comment was a fair warning. The lower region is horribly distorted ... that guy walking across the borrom looks like he's got the orthopedic shoe from hell on his left foot. To say nothing of the people in the corner. Great work on so much of this but that distortion can't be allowed in an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- To be honest, people look odd when viewed from above (foreshortening), never mind the effect of the projection. See the FPs File:British Museum Dome.jpg and File:British Museum Great Court, London, UK - Diliff.jpg and you will see over-fat-short people, slanted people and blurred feet, and both are considerably smaller sized images and larger spaces so the effect is less visible in the small people. We have FPs were people are severely motion-blurred or have become ghosts, provided the overall picture and subject is well represented. And this is about the court, rather than the visitors, so I'm reluctant to crop the bottom off. -- Colin (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think the image(s) of the British Museum have quite the same angle of view though - the effect is there but not nearly to the same extent. But I think you're right that the biggest effect here is foreshortening. You don't appear to have been as high up as I was in the British Museum shot, so the distortion difference between the people's head and feet is significant, which makes them look a little weirder than they would otherwise have appeared. In other words, you're looking at the guy with the large shoe's body at, lets say, a 45 degree angle, but his feet are at a 60 degree angle (I'm making the angles up but it could be something similar). So you're looking down on his shoe almost from above but the visual cues of the angle are of his body which is a lesser angle. Just my thoughts. I'm inclined to agree that the distortion is too much though. It might be possible to play with projection settings to minimise the effect of the distortion while preserving the angle of view. It will probably require a sacrifice of straight vertical lines though. Diliff (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- To be honest, people look odd when viewed from above (foreshortening), never mind the effect of the projection. See the FPs File:British Museum Dome.jpg and File:British Museum Great Court, London, UK - Diliff.jpg and you will see over-fat-short people, slanted people and blurred feet, and both are considerably smaller sized images and larger spaces so the effect is less visible in the small people. We have FPs were people are severely motion-blurred or have become ghosts, provided the overall picture and subject is well represented. And this is about the court, rather than the visitors, so I'm reluctant to crop the bottom off. -- Colin (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Distortion.--Jebulon (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Very nice image quality and resolution, but I have to agree with the distortions. They are too extreme with the people below. It is not like very tiny people, so it is really noticeable and distracting, although the architecture is the main subject as you point out. How about uploading another version cropped approximately as I propose in the annotations? You still have plenty of pixels and resolution! Otherwise, try another projection as Diliff suggests and sacrifice the straight lines (I am sceptical this will work though). -- Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination I'll investigate my options. I'll see what crop/fixes I can do with the current image (which required a fair bit of post-stitch surgery). The original version of this file had a Panini projection, with curved horizontals away from the centre (but straight verticals and diagonals). That didn't handle the vertical angle-of-view issues any better. Diliff has suggested trying a Panini but on a rotated image which will result in curves to the verticals off-centre, which hopefully won't be too noticeable (Jebulon, you can look away now :-). Won't really know if that's an improvement till I try it. I'm out of time tonight and it's a busy time of year, so it isn't going to be fixed quickly. -- Colin (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
