Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grabkapelle auf dem Württemberg Stuttgart Rotenberg 2015 03.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2017 at 18:46:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info c/u/n by me. — Julian H.✈ 18:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Support. — Julian H.✈ 18:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)- Support Very nice. Excellent quality. I like the little bird on the right side of the cross. --Code (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support - The bilateral angling strikes me a bit funny, but that's probably the only way to effectively capture the chapel, and the photo gives me a feeling of peace. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I think this is too wide for a rectilinear perspective. There's strong distortion (warping and stretching), which is noticable in the bowls (not sure what they are). -- Colin (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)- Oppose Per Colin. lNeverCry 22:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment An angle of view of 84 degreesis not too wide for rectilinear projection (there are rectilinear lenses such as the Nikkor 13mm f/5.6 that can produce 108 degree horizontal field of view and I have made similarly wide panoramas). However, a rectilinear projection of such width should be used sparingly and carefully. Also, moving trees/misalignment of frames have caused some ghosting on the foliage on the left and right edges in addition to the extreme loss of resolution caused by the rectilinear projection. dllu (t,c) 00:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Apparently each of the 3 frames was 84 degrees wide, not the full panorama. I'm not sure how much overlap there was between those frames, but a rule of thumb in my opinion is to avoid rectilinear images with more than 120 degree horizontal field of view. dllu (t,c) 00:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- 120 degrees is equivalent to a 12mm lens on full frame, which is about as wide as you get for rectilinear lenses and pretty extreme. The EXIF data says 130 degrees for the FOV but if that comes from Hugin, then it doesn't take into account any cropping. It is architectural features such as circular or cylindrical objects, and people, where the eye gets most upset by the distortion. The solution is only to get further back from the subject, if that is possible. -- Colin (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Weak support I like super-wide rectilinear stuff. But I would personally crop more closely to the building - cut out the tree on the right and the sign on the left. Sharpness at the sides is not the best, and this would reduce that problem. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Thank you for the reviews. I do see the problem with too much distortion at the edges here. Getting further away is not easy as it's located on a hill, but I'll definitely try since the location is not too far away from where I live. — Julian H.✈ 12:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
